Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 2, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Open Letter on Censorship




The Underground Girls of Kabul


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Obama’s Plan to Save the World

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 24, 2009
AP photo / Elizabeth Dalziel

Burning coal, whether within America’s borders or in China, above, contributes to global warming. As sea levels rise, so does the threat of mass migrations of people, intensifying competition for the resources essential for survival.

By Scott Ritter

While pundits and politicians wrestle with immediate issues such as the economic meltdown, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, global climate change has emerged as one of the most critical and contentious security issues of the 21st century. The new director of national intelligence, Adm. Dennis Blair, has cited rising temperatures, combined with an increase in weather-related natural disasters, as a major facilitator of governmental instability worldwide, especially in underdeveloped regions. Issues of poverty, infrastructure degradation, social and political collapse and environmental decay will all be exacerbated by global warming. While the crises stemming from climate change will initially manifest themselves most critically in regions of the world already impacted by political, social and economic turmoil, there is a pronounced threat of spillover as entire populations migrate from the stricken regions into areas where humans have a better chance of survival. The severity and longevity of the consequences of severe weather-related events will make current mechanisms of containing and mitigating these crises inadequate. The scope and scale of these massive migrations would be unprecedented in modern history, as would the ensuing conflicts over basic resources such as food and water, not to mention energy.

The potential catastrophe that global climate change could unleash on America makes every other foreign policy crisis pale in comparison. Recognizing the importance of proactive, as opposed to reactive, policy to head off these looming problems, President Obama has crafted a national policy designed to address the principal underlying cause of global climate change: greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gas reduction is one of three pillars on which Obama has constructed his ambitious energy plan, the other two being economic stimulus and increased energy security. In the recent economic stimulus bill signed by the president, some $50 billion of a $789 billion total stimulus package will be set aside for programs related to efficient and renewable energy. This will be followed by an outlay of $150 billion over 10 years for investments in projects related to clean energy, efficient power generation and usage, and improved domestic oil and gas production.

Increased domestic energy production is linked with a broader concept of increased energy security, the stated objectives of which are to reduce American dependency on imported oil from the Middle East and Venezuela, which together account for 33 percent of the United States’ daily consumption, 10 million barrels. Reducing or eliminating this dependency is seen as a mechanism for freeing up American diplomatic and economic options in these critical regions, providing U.S. leaders with more flexibility in crafting solutions deemed to be in the national interest, and not so heavily tied to the need to guarantee continued access to these important sources of energy. But increased domestic energy production will not, in and of itself, deal with the pressing issue of greenhouse gas emissions. Indeed, void of a plan to manage greenhouse gas emissions, any massive effort to increase domestic energy production could result in even higher emissions.

The Obama administration does have a plan, in the form of an innovative, ambitious and as such contentious national “cap and trade” system for managing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Under the plan, the government would establish a national standard for greenhouse gas emissions by various industries, representing a “cap” intended to achieve a reduction of 80 percent by 2050. Industries operating below this “cap” would have “credits” that could then be traded—through for-profit “auctions”—to industries unable to meet the standard.

The Obama administration believes this cap-and-trade proposal will not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States but will also generate federal income from the taxation of the revenue obtained from the trading of credits. This revenue would then be invested by the government in new clean energy projects and initiatives. There is even an international aspect of the domestic cap-and-trade system: Heavy U.S. emitters of greenhouse gases would have the option of offsetting their domestic quotas by investing in low-carbon energy projects in the developing world. There are several major obstacles in the way of turning the cap-and-trade concept into reality. First, there is the issue of establishing a domestic framework for defining and enforcing the greenhouse emission caps. The industrial infrastructure that would be most impacted by the caps is arguing for a single national standard, as opposed to caps being set at the state level. Another key issue is the cap itself, how it would be defined, and what benchmarks would be set for implementation of the 80 percent reduction. Until these questions are answered, new energy production initiatives in the United States are frozen.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
Second, there is a need to integrate the ambitious American domestic policy into an overarching international policy of controlling greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama has committed to the creation of a Global Energy Forum, which would comprise the core G-8 countries plus major developing nations such as Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. The forum would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues. Obama has also committed to re-engage the United States in the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is working to build a new global regime of commitments to replace the existing Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DAveKnTux, June 1, 2009 at 2:07 am Link to this comment

Obama’s latest strategy on fighting global warming seems like a good idea. Its nice to see the whitehouse appointing scientists to the EPA rather than politicians

Report this

By samosamo, March 31, 2009 at 2:16 pm Link to this comment

Welcome back my friends, to the show that never ends.
I finally decided to check out the climate change cycle and the dynamics of it at NOAA’s website. As much as our government and the electorate lies out of the side of their faces to the people, I still believe this is as close as we currently know of how climate varies and it fits real well with what I have read. If nothing else, this should be interesting:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100ka.html
and here is one on the el nino:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/elnino/el-nino-story.html

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 29, 2009 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

“The FIRST thing is the guy MUST formulate a hypothesis.”

Quite correct, Inherit The Wind. Thank you for providing some exactitude. Yes, I did choose “theory” instead of “hypothesis” for ease of comprehension, and I admit there is no such thing as an SOB too.

With your help, it is more clear than ever now how global warming deniers are not using the scientific method.

Report this

By samosamo, March 28, 2009 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

By Paracelsus, March 27 at 12:53 am #

Thank you, Matt. You have argued your points very well.
*********************************************
By Paracelsus, March 28 at 5:08 pm #

I found an interesting website on “climate change”. It seems that sunspot activity is the main driver for climate.
*********************************************
I am not an expert on climate but I have researched and read from pretty reputable sources about what is known about the tweaks, perks and drivers behind the climate. There is even some speculation that sunspot active does play a part in the mix as the evidence of the Maunder Minimum(little to no sunspot activity for about 100 years around 1700) when the sun’s energy output was reduced by about 2/10 of 1% when it varies only 1/10 of 1% during the regular 11 year solar cycle, and sunspots are noted for the INCREASE of energy output.
I don’t know what your motivations are but the link you provided did not seem to me to be that informative compared to the US Geological Survey sight, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute or NOAA’s web site or that ‘truly dedicated to the observations of the sun’ website, The Sunspot Observatory, New Mexico, which are all interesting sites at the least.
So, are you really a conservative political operative trying to disinform people for a bigger agenda and dubious purposes? You and matt working in cahoots with each other? I sure wish I could make money contradicting all of your and matt’s blitterings. And as I have asked matt, I ask you to give me a description of the ice age cycles that come and go since time immemorial. Take your time. I would give you some books titles to read up on what is known and suspected of climate change but it will require reading and comprehending without prejudice to learn from them. And, those books are NOT filled with a bunch of highly technical junk that generally confounds the lay person trying to understand things, not like the site you linked in your comment.

Report this

By Cheney is God, March 28, 2009 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

matt—global warming is not mainly generated by moisture in the air, as you claim. It is generated by albedo of the planet. Loss of ice caps (which previously had been reflecting sunlight away from earth, is being replaced by dark sea water, which absorbs ~85% of the sun’s radiation. As for your inability to look at pictures and maps which graphically show massive and accelerating loss of icecaps, you need to reonsider.

One request, please. It appears Mr. Ritter devotes lot of time and research in preparing his articles. It is disrespectful to him and to the other posters to flood the board with comments. If you have any solid data from reliable sources supporting your many thoughts, please list those references.

Thanks,  Cheney is God

Report this

By Paracelsus, March 28, 2009 at 2:08 pm Link to this comment

I found an interesting website on “climate change”. It seems that sunspot activity is the main driver for climate. Most of the articles cite newspapers in England. Many of these papers tend toward the liberal side of politics. There is one article that speculates that we may be in for a long cycle of global cooling.


http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

Report this

By samosamo, March 28, 2009 at 11:57 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, March 27 at 11:53 pm #

Hmmm…“Conservative” concept claims these are things that aren’t proved…
*********************************************
I wouldn’t want to take the time to read a list of all those you missed or did not list, but an extremely important one that will do a lot of harm if not ‘properly’ investigated would be:
—The wtc buildings 1,2&7 all fell at near free fall speed due to the plane impacts and fires.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 28, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

FiftyGigs, March 28 at 10:51 am #

Understanding The Science

It’s starts with a scientist who develops a thing called “a theory”. He writes down on a 3x5 card “Theory: The Globe Is Warming” and mails it to the Science Oversight Board (the SOB).
***************************************
Wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!!!

Right from your first premise you show you don’t know the first(obviously) thing about science.  Nor the second.

The FIRST thing is the guy MUST formulate a hypothesis, a testable, falsifible hypothesis, where there’s a demonstrated and non-demonstrated (“Null Hypothesis”) side.  He has to show how both can be shown to occur, GIVEN the condition he’s trying to establish.

More and more of these hypotheses must be developed and tested.  More importantly, the RESULTS need to be confirmed by colleagues independently.

Once a series of hypotheses are tested, a theory to explain AND PREDICT how other tests will react can be formulated.  It MUST account for every single tested hypothesis, whether it or the null was demonstrated.  As Einstein said, just one hypothesis’s result contradicting the theory disproves the theory.

If any show up, the theory must be either modified to account for ALL tests or scrapped.

So, until a scientist gets to this point, there is no publication (except in online blog site by people who believe in magic crystals and casting horoscopes) and NO serious review.

So the basic premise you start with is pure, unadulterated neo-conservative CRAP! As in….CRAP, GARBAGE, HORSE$#IT, etc.

Report this

By tp, March 28, 2009 at 9:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matt:
While you sit in your climate controlled little paradise dominating this comment page people in other areas of the world are having to leave their ancestors homeland because of the rising tides. The cause - global warming has caused huge slices of ice to break off age old icescapes which then, with the aid of melting ice caps on mountains, become melting mobile mass’s of ice which elevates the sea levels. Of course you say global warming is natural and there is nothing to be done about it. The North Pole is disappearing. Land is visible in Antarctica for the first time since the last Ice age. Weather patterns are so radical as to cause mega Hurricanes like Katrina and Droughts like the one in Australia lasting 30 years or so where fires swallow whole towns and communities. And you’re not even the least bit supportive of doing something to curb these devastating changes in our habitat. At least some suggest population control which would reduce the need to destroy more rain forest to raise more food and build more air-conditioned nuclear powered homes spewing out more pollution from radiation to more carbon. I don’t think plants are growing in our Ozone so we don’t need to try to supply more carbon dioxide there so what is so wrong with trying to limit the amount there. And who is profiting so much on what you call a scam?
You must live in or near Houston, TX the air-conditioned capitol of the world. Only sixty years ago people didn’t have central air or window unites even there. People didn’t need them. Has it gotten hotter or did you lazy high paid propagandist (probably working for T-Bone Pickens) get spoiled?
Good article.
tp

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 28, 2009 at 7:51 am Link to this comment

Understanding The Science

It’s starts with a scientist who develops a thing called “a theory”. He writes down on a 3x5 card “Theory: The Globe Is Warming” and mails it to the Science Oversight Board (the SOB).

Now, the SOB looks at the theory and says to the scientist, “What measures will prove your theory?” They add, “The measures you take must report their accuracy, and they must be repeatable when we have time to check them after lunch.”

So, the scientist says, “Well, if there’s warming then long-term temperature trend will be going up. And if that happens, ice will melt. And if that happens, oceans will rise. And if that happens…”

At this point the SOB cuts him off, because the SOB really are a bunch of SOBs. But they agree his testing makes sense, and they give permission for the data to be collected. In the meantime, they travel to Las Vegas and lay heavy bets on the notion that the data will show nothing has changed.

After securing millions of dollars to buy the instruments he needs, the scientist takes his measurements and reports back to the SOBs. They nod gravely and admit the data shows something, and not nothing.

Now, at this point, our friend Matt hops in. He looks at the data and says, “Oh, the last 12 years were hot because of the solar cycle.” In this way, Matt has violated science.

Matt has two legitimate, scientific recourses. (1) He can show the SOBs that they have the graph upside-down. That instead of going up, the data is actually going down. Unfortunately, that will still NOT prove that NOT NOTHING has happened. (2) Matt can present his solar data, but he’s made a grievous mistake. He forgot to submit the 3x5 card with his theory for his data.

This makes the SOBs very upset.

The moral of the story is this: science is not a toy. It is a game. Everyone can play, but you must play by the rules.

Report this

By Dag Andersson, March 28, 2009 at 2:26 am Link to this comment

My dear Inherit The Wind
These “conservatives” have opposed every progress in science (inconvertible into $$ or arms) and human emancipation since Galilei and Spinoza. Their purpose
in life is to acquire as much money as possible, and to hell with the poor, the planet or the future.
  Instead of science they have created a system of believes; In God, in social darwinism (Might is Right) and the superiority of western civilization.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, March 27, 2009 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm…“Conservative” concept claims these are things that aren’t proved…

Global Warming
Hole in the Ozone layer
Evolution
Rising oceans
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11
Condoms prevent STD transmission
Abstinence doesn’t work to prevent pregnancy
A woman has a right to her own body
Homosexuality is innate, and not a choice.
Valerie Plame Wilson was outed.
Barney Frank wasn’t responsible for this recession.

These right-wingers consider all these things lies, but can’t prove any of them.  I’m sure I missed a bunch too.

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 27, 2009 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

“I don’t contend that there is no warming and I don’t contend there is warming.”

Then you are pointless. But the truth is you DO have a position. You favor continued, rapid industrialization.

This is not the forum to chew over all the climate data, as you well know, Max. I mean, Matt.

Your clever spin of the solar cycle—ostensibly explaining the last 12 RECORD years of warmth—get blown away by the PRIOR dozen years. I have no interest in such games.

You were trying to make two general points, as I read it: (1) By whining that no one here knows any SCIENTIFIC FACT (which has been shown to be false because I showed it) you insinuate people here are sheep, blindly being led. Obviously, you’re wrong about that. (2) By presenting a rich mixture of meaningless anecdotes and a generous helping of name-dropping, you try to infer that our SCIENTIFIC FACTS are bogus. They are not.

Here’s your bottom line:

“1) THERE’S NO DEFINITIVE PROOF EITHER WAY (There definitely seems to be more hard and better researched data showing everything’s a-ok but hey…) “2) Man’s actions are NOT responsible for any of what y’all contend it is therefore the tax, regulations, cap and trade, no more animals etc. is based on nothing.
“3) IF there is warming, it is completely natural, part of the Solar and Planetary Cycle and it will BENEFIT mankind.”

Okay. Here’s mine:

1) There is no DEFINITIVE proof, but the evidence is strongly showing everything is NOT aok. When the historical record (such as it is) is compared to empirical data (to the degree it exists), it’s obvious to a blind man that not all the variation is accounted for by solar cycles and other intellectual contortions of the status quo industrialists.

2) Changes in trends—read that twice, changes in trends—correlate with the rise of industrialization. Industrialization can be quantified. Climate change can be quantified. How much change in one explains how much change in the other? A lot.

3) We have the luxury of debating this until we’re buried in the hard, dry earth, neither one of us ever knowing who’s right. Enjoy. The real problem is that, if the trends *DO* bear out—and the data is increasingly suggesting the trends *WILL* bear out—the direction, the degree, and the rate of change would impact the globe in a way that could make human annihilation or at least massive death a REAL possibility.

Would the development of pollution-free cars (for example) make hurricanes slam good ole South Carolina again, instead of good ole South America? Who knows? But if the amount of pollutants continues to increase its rate as it has been, both places will have much bigger things to worry about.

I say, let’s not pretend nothing is happening like Matt wants us to. Let’s be pro-life about this.

Report this

By samosamo, March 27, 2009 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

By Matt M., March 27 at 9:31 am

You don’t impress me with your ‘selective’ knowledge of climate change and I guess I wasn’t more specific in my request to ‘describe climate change’ as your response was the easiest simpliest description which didn’t do the definition justice, so I deserved your answer. So let me ask this: describe the ice age cycles. Do that and I will be impressed.
I went through your posts(all 35+) to google the places and people you list, most of whom appear to be from the corporate side of the illusion being cast here. Your boy, george taylor was even released from his position as the state(oregon)climitologist(which the provided link states never existed) of sorts to the governor:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/01/socalled_climat.html
There are too many descrepencies, and what appears to be much bias about something you are trying to make people think is not happening, in your information that don’t include the works of such places such places as the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute or that venerable institute, NOAA(well there was some reference to NOAA). If you read books I could give you a couple of titles to pick up and read but I don’t know how that would suit you and then there is the real possibility that you wouldn’t read them or flat out reject what was in them.
So, I deem you as the one that should maybe read up on this quirk of nature called climate change and hopefully you will reply with your description of the ice age cycles.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm Link to this comment

Matt M—you have some sort of problem.

Report this

By Matt M., March 27, 2009 at 2:59 pm Link to this comment

You’re right, I don’t want that.  Why would I want to agree with a flimsy junk science proposition or a completely Unconstitutional enslavement system? 

“Neo-cons like to argue—go there.” - after all that I’ve said, it’s back to “Neo-Cons”.  Amazing.  Discussions don’t have to end in agreements and that doesn’t make them arguments.  I love to talk, to share, to think and to compare.  You seem to simply want people to agree with you and tell you how smart and wonderful you are.  When you don’t get it, you say that you “Just won’t have it!”  Okay, no problem.  Slink away if that’s what you feel you gotta do.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment

I disagree. But, youre one of those that just wont have it!

Neo-cons like to argue—go there. I like to discuss when I think there is even a slight chance we can come to any agreeement. You dont even want that. You just like to argue. I dont.

Report this

By Matt M., March 27, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi,
Very well.  Unfortunately, the Constitution of the United States, the Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the entire history of Common Law and pure unavoidable common sense are in agreement. 

So, we can agree to disagree but, as far as the Supreme Law of the Land in the U.S. goes, a Socialist Democracy is Treason.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

Matt M—Sorry. I just disagree with almost every word you say.

We’ll just agree to disagree.

Report this

By Matt M., March 27, 2009 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

First off, you read my post wrong.  The Nation wasn’t the freest on Earth for all people’s - A Constitutional Republic is the Freest Form of Government on Earth.  We haven’t been close to that since 1913 and, as a Nation in its infancy, we were working quite diligently at reaching the promises and ideals set forth in the Founding Documents until the Private Banks bought us out.

A Constitutional Republic allows for Rule of Law, Strict Government Limitations, NO Knee-Jerk “Democracy” (Which is arguably the WORST form of Government) while enjoying the Rights of the People and their Control resting in those same hands.

Now, the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance so says Thomas Jefferson.  People got fat, lazy and comfortable and forgot that it takes blood and bullets to KEEP people free - not just to create freedom.

My question was not in regards to any specific document - Human Rights do not come from a document.  They are certainly enumerated and, supposed to be, protected in a document.  The Magna Carta is a great example of that - I’d say one of the two most prolific documents in History alongside our Declaration of Independence. 

RIGHTS, as they are, come from Private Property.  If I purchase Land on an allodial title (which I think only 1 state still “Allows”) then I OWN the land (Currently, buying “Real Estate” means that you only own what’s on top of the land - this is where Eminent Domain get’s it justification).  I can do as I please, so long as it does not violate another persons Private Property Rights.  If I build a house, I can do so WITHOUT licenses, permits or inspections.  If I get tired of the House, I can burn it down.  If I try to claim insurance on it, then I’m trying to take another man’s Private Property and therefore committing a crime.  However, burning MY OWN HOUSE DOWN should not be a crime. 

So, people will typically now say “Well, what about the poor who can’t buy Property?  You hate the Poor?”.  No, this is the area that “God Given” or “Unalienable” rights come in.  You, and YOU alone, own your body.  It is your property.  You can do as you please with it, so long as you don’t use it to violate another’s private property rights.  If I want to shoot heroin, it’s my right.  Remember, Freedom means being able to do STUPID things too.  Freedom is neither easy or safe.  Nothing is guaranteed.  So, since NOTHING is guaranteed, you have the right to keep your property safe.  That is exactly why ANY Government who would disarm it’s people is Tyrannical.  OUR PROPERTY - OUR RESPONSIBILITY.  Don’t forget, those two things are tied hand to hand. 

So, is Healthcare a right?  No, not in any way shape or form.  By demanding free healthcare, you are saying that you have a Right to another man’s private property; because, our LABOR is OUR PROPERTY, it is a product of our bodies.  We can engage in consensual contracting (another Unalienable Right) to trade our labor for anything we deem fit (This is why Income Tax is a CRIME).  I am demanding a Doctor use his Labor to treat me for FREE.  Oh, the Doctor get’s paid you say?  Yes, BY OTHER PEOPLE’S TAX MONEY. 

So no, Healthcare is NOT a right in any way.  Firearm Possession is a RIGHT, Pooping in the middle of YOUR yard is a Right, Saying ANYTHING that’s on your mind is a RIGHT - Once you agree to “Licenses”, or “Permits”, or “Applications”, you turn a RIGHT into a PRIVILEGE; and Privileges can be DENIED OR REVOKED by the issuing authority e.g. The Government. 

So no, I’ll take FREEDOM - the ability to Live as the Free Man that I am over some Socialist Democracy where Mob Rule lives, I am DEPENDENT on the Government for everything I need and it can be DENIED to me if I dare speak or act outside of the Accepted “Norms”.  Or even if they’re just bored one day an want to watch someone squirm.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 27, 2009 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Matt M—I can “give you the definiiton of ‘rights”“, but I suspect you could look that up on wikipedia. If you mean where did what the US considers “rights” originate, I suppose you mean the magna carta…but that is neither here nor there to my argument.  (BTw, as you must know, Bush et al, destroyed even the rights promised in the Magna Carta—the UK said that if they had accepted our definition of a “terrortist state” they would have to arrest everyone in the uS for the Revolutionary War!)They would never give their head of state the power we give our president…

We may disagree as to what basic human rights are, and, I am sure we would. No one asked to be born, you know.

I agree with you that we are not free anymore, we have no social safety net, and, as far as economics go, we have the worst of both worlds—privitized profit, and socilized loss. It sucks.

If we had a level playing field, these Wall st basterds would fall off the edge…that is why I would actually prefer an outright “free mkt” to what we have now. Of course, I would most prefer a Social Democracy. What we have now is a plutocracy.

I am not at all certain that the uS was ever the “freest country on earth”—you would have to ask all people of color, women, etc, when the white, Anglo-land-owning males wrote the Constitution.

Report this

By Matt M., March 27, 2009 at 1:12 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi - Unfortunately, you’re confused on what a “RIGHT” is.  Can you define a right for me?  Where do they originate? 

What has happened in the U.S. is NOT Freedom - we are no more a Free Country right now than North Korea - the dressing is just better.  A Constitutional Republic - the freest form of Government ever created - hasn’t existed in this Nation for almost a Century.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 27, 2009 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Here is the “qualified success” that is Scandanavia—-(Amy Goodman of Democracy Now and Senator Bernie Sanders)“AMY GOODMAN: Senator Sanders, you’re the independent senator from Vermont. For years, you called yourself a socialist. You hear the Republicans saying we’re not going to socialize this, for example, healthcare, etc. What is socialism? And where do you think it applies today?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think if people take a good look at what has gone on in Scandinavia, in Finland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, some other European countries, what they will find is that the people in those countries have good quality healthcare which is virtually free. Workers have, in some cases, thirty, forty days paid vacation. A college education in many of these countries is either free or virtually free. At a time when our country has an 18 percent rate of childhood poverty, which leads to so many people ending up in jail, in many of these countries the poverty rate for kids, and poverty in general, is three, four, five percent. Workers are more likely to be members of unions and have more power on their jobs to protect their own interests. People’s interest in politics and the political process is greater. So I think what you have seen is governments which are more responsive to the needs of working people and the middle class than certainly is in this country, where, among other things, we have by far the highest rate of inequality, in terms of distribution of wealth and income, of any major country on earth.

So what democratic socialism means to me is having a government which represents the middle class and working people, which guarantees the basic necessities of life for all of our people. Healthcare, obviously, has got to be a right, not a privilege. We need to make sure that our kids get off to a good start in life, not seeing so many kids living in poverty, childcare being the disastrous disaster that it is right now with so many working families unable to find quality affordable childcare. In other words, a government which works to protect all of the people, rather than, as we have right now, governments for so many years which have protected the needs of the very wealthy and the powerful large corporations.”

Enjoy your “freedom” USAns! Wall St has you right where they want you! The neo-cons “love ” your “freedom” (pssst…its saves them all kinds of money!! They dont have to take responsibility , like they do in other civilized countries))

samosamo—I saw that on CD—I wouldnt worry much. Both parties are so conservative, that, in the EU or UK, they would be Thatcherites!

Did you hear Sen Baucus today on single payer health care? “We’re ‘Merkins!” (me:what, genetically?? so we need different health care??)“Go West, young man!” (me: wtf??)

Is this Pres. Obama’s CHOICE for the heatlh care reform?? He doesnt seem to know sh*t fron apple butter!!

Call for Rep Conyers or Sen Sanders to replace him!! The neo-cons are just dreaming of this failing…I am sure teh Dems will not let them down

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 27, 2009 at 9:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

MATT

First off, get it straight, I have will not get caught up in the global dispute. My main concern is, what are people, the manority, going to do about any nmajor problems affecting our society.

You mention problems with, taxes, Fedeeral Reserve, loss of liberty among others. We don’t have to wait for global warming or global cooling, whichever strikes a persons fancy, we got plenty fo problems right now. And the capitalist class and their boot licking politicians are useless to do anything about the problems at hand. If the plublic gets off their back by disippating energies haggeling about global warming, that would suit them just fine.

For the people to do that would amount to aiding and abetting the anti social actions of the capitalist class through their political boot lickers.

Profits before people.

Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By ron hansing, March 27, 2009 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I realize that this will not be popular with some.

1. No one has asked the question “is global warming necessarily bad? Look at it this way, first the death rate in winter is 10 times the death rate in summers.

2. Man is more able to tolerate and adapt to 120 degrees than cold.

3. Benefits of global warming will open the perma frost to agriculture. (northern Canada and Siberia) but this will be the best from land in the world which could feed millions.

4.Can we really change Nature? is it not best to adapt, which is what the living creatures have been doing since the beginning of life?
5. Yes the costal areas will flood, and Florida will be a series of islands, etc, adapt, move inland.

6. Computer models are horribly inaccurate. For example, in 1987, computer models showed that within ten years, every hospital bed in the country would be occupied by an AIDS patient.

7. Maybe the western states will become an oasis, whose to say?

8. It’s false to say that the short term drought that occurred in the last ten years in the west, is due to increased co2. Correlation does not imply causality. (medicine makes that mistake all the time.)

9.  Computer models show that that we are due for an ice age. Hence, global warming will prevent half of Europe and Canada from being buried in ice.

10. We can’t stop hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes… we can only adapt.
Yes, we are getting better in predicting, but to predict a tornado is much simpler than the unlimited variation influences computer models attempt to solve.

11. Governments invariably make poor decisions. Look at the ethanol mandate,… and if you are old enough, you will remember the Soviet five year programs, and China’s great leapt forward.

The basic problem is that there are so many variables that computer models can be skewed by agenda driven beliefs. In Physics and Chemistry, controlling an experiment, is relatively simple compared to medicine with the very broad range of human variation. Most of the scientific articles in medicine, have serious flaws.

And even worse and more difficult to control is “social science:”, which is like global warming almost impossible to control with our current knowledge, ( One can only control social experiments if one can controls the social and individual psychic of the individuals involved,  thus, the results are meaningless and agenda driven, and darn right dangerous.)

Be careful what you wish for.

Lastly, This does not mean that I am against energy conservation… if the cost vs benefit calculations are feasible. Carbon caps would be prohibitive expensive, and counter productive at this point in time.

Ron Hansing

Report this

By Matt M., March 27, 2009 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Daga,
YES!  Thank God - finally.  That’s the exact point, well, sort of.  The information isn’t all over the “Right Wing Blogosphere” - it’s all over the damn internet.  Everywhere.  It’s also all over various Scientific Commission Websites, their journals, their writings, their letters and opinions.  It’s really easy to find information that is easily verifiable and easily researched.  All it takes is somebody willing to take that step.  Now, whether you’re willing to do it just as a counter measure or if you’re willing to do it as actual additional research, that’s up to you.

Samosamo,
Climate Change = changing climate.  Easily definable.  And, again, you are claiming to know what I have written and what I believe while at the same time admitting that I have simply written too much to read.  Okay, you don’t have to read everything I’ve posted - welcome to a Free Country (Sort of, and for now).  However, I have said again and again that the Climate is SUPPOSED to change.  What I have discounted, is “Global Warming” which is not a phrase taken at a literally semantic level.  It is a phrase that is understood on a general level by most people.  “Global Warming” - man is causing increasing CO2, methane etc. which will continue to heat up the Earth and kill us all unless I stop driving my truck.  That’s what we’re really debating here since the article describes Obama’s Carbon Cap and Trade to “Save the World”.  Now, I cannot find a single piece of evidence that cannot be countered or refuted which tells me the Earth is actually warming up.  The studies that show increased temperatures, as I have posted earlier, are mostly ground level studies that are proven to be effected by Urban Sprawl and temperature data pollution.  There’s even pictures, I’ll find ‘em if I can for you, of Federal Temperature Stations installed right next to Air Conditioning Units.  The information promoting ANY taxes, restrictions or further bureaucracy is flawed and, in many cases, outright lies.

Now, again as I have said, there are REAL threats to our environment growing out of Greed, Power Lust, Hubris and downright stupidity.  My main concern is the Genetic Modification of our Food and Agriculture.  That’s something with the possibility of making ALL food on this planet poison.  That’s a REAL threat.  Clearcutting?  Yeah, it’s damn sure a problem.  Most of the wood we produce for domestic paper comes from Tree Farms which are revolved on a semi-annual basis, just like crop farms, but there’s a lot of places in the world besides the U.S. 

Oh, hell, how about this one.  Did you hear that Baxter, the pharmaceutical research company, just released a Flu Vaccine that wasn’t a vaccine at all but had several strains of the Bird Flu in it?  Two of those strains was the H5N1 (deadly to nearly anyone who catches it) and the strain (forget the number designation) that is an airborne strain?  That would have mutated in the first injected body to a nearly 90% fatality rate, airborne, flu virus?  How’s that for a damn threat? 

Samosmao, mainly where I’m at is that the Al Gore crowd is full of crap.  Plain and simple.  99% of what they say is utter bullshit filtered in with some threats and fear mongering to make people money.  There’s no evidence that can PROVE my truck is killing the planet.  So I will fight to the death the further acceleration of our Economies Decline (can you imagine what any of these plans would do to us right now?) restricts a Human’s Natural Liberty or the Sovereignty of this Nation. 

I stand side by side with you in the fight to kill the Federal Reserve but the loss of liberty we’ve suffered from their hands will be equal to the loss of liberty we’ll suffer if Carbon is declared a threat, a poison and a taxable substance.

Report this

By Dag Andersson, March 27, 2009 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

@Matt M
You wrote:

Obviously my writing isn’t actually being read, as I’ve stated before.

Why should anybody read your garbage?  And even worse, it isn’t yours.:
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/01/

Ignorance I can accept, but dishonesty and stupidity—that’s too much.  The very same arguments are all over the rightwing blogosphere.
Can’t you find anything original ?  And please,if you have “to cut and paste”—tell us the author or at least where you found it.

Report this

By Paracelsus, March 26, 2009 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment

Thank you, Matt. You have argued your points very well.

Report this

By samosamo, March 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

By Matt M., March 26 at 9:46 pm #
samosamo - Oh for Christ Sake
*********************************
You do put up some interesting comments but when you put 35 comments just to this post and chastise me for NOT reading your comments especially when your comments denounce any and everything that has to do with climate change, your agenda does NOT involve much in the way of objectivity but propounds the idea that your research and references are totally right and everybody else is wrong. I have read enough of your commentary to know that what you propound goes very much against what I have researched and reference in my endeavor to comprehend and understand just what climate change really is. Believe it or not, there IS a such thing as climate change and for no other point of example than the reoccurring ice ages through the past several million years shows your willful distortion not of just climate change but the ineviatable part of climate change, the warming associated with it. Whether it is natural or, well, no matter the cause, human or just plain nature, warming is real and it is happening. Even as I type this, I am looking at an ‘expert’ named Jason!!, the first commentor on this post, declaring “”“Global Warming” is a scam!””
And man’s part in this cycle is not just the release of some co2 or methane or other not so inconsequential green house gases but the distruction of the water sinks in the rain forests that are fast disappearing. Here I believe indoneasia has decimated most or at least a major portion of the rain forests on those islands, and the african and amazon rainforests are fast disappearing, thus removing a sink that store the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor.
A couple or three months ago, a report came out that the sea of japan was not absorbing as much of the co2 that is usually does. Here’s a link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment
So instead of trying to refute any and all sources of information on a subject that isn’t that hard to grasp but really impossible to explain or predict, I try to be open minded about something as climate change on a reasonable level. You and someothers commenting here are out right stating that there is NO global warming and thus NO climate change which rather tells me of the bias for whatever reasons about this phenomenon. Impress me, describe climate change for me.
I can agree with your assessment of the politicians being what you called them but it goes further than that to me because I believe that with the known breaking of the law by presidents and congressionals and the obscure reason for not holding them accountable is just about as dangerous stance to have and it is just another way of say that the ‘old’ laws don’t pertain anymore. And this may interest you a lot, some or none but justice scalia calls the United States Constitution dead. An appointed justice says this. I am alarmed and really believe scalia should be impeached for saying it, but he his a corporate darling and nothing will happen to him. Here’s a link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011526
I also hold firmly to the idea of getting rid of the federal reserve is of paramount importance and will hopefully speed up an economic recovery because then we are NOT allowing a private corporation that has no accountability to the people of america to keep dumping dollars into the U.S. at interest and dictate policy and law here in the U.S.
Obama? He still hasn’t got past his first 100 days and I am becoming very worried about a lot of his decisions especially about the financial crisis and the imperial wars we continue to wage. I did not vote for him or mccain(your ‘Left/Right Paradigm).

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:46 pm Link to this comment

samosamo - Oh for Christ Sake - You have GOT to read what I write if you’re going to mention me.  I explicitly stated in one of my responses that the LEFT/RIGHT paradigm is CRAP.  Since Woodrow Wilson signed the Nation into the hands of Private Banks, the Government has not even been ALLOWED to work for the interest of the people, whether they even wanted to or not.  Bush x 2 are both World Government assholes just like Obama, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Nixon etc.  I am actually trying to keep politics OUT of this discussion despite the fact that this joke science is being used as Political Tender to gain control over even more of the American Infrastructure.  Get their fingers into every last crevice. 

So the NeoCon attack is almost funny if it wasn’t ridiculous.  PNAC will definitely give you a good idea of where this Nation is headed though - see how much of it Obama is implementing?  Yeah, “Save the World”....right.

Get over the Bush hatred and assuming that anyone who disagrees is a NeoCon - Bush deserves to be in Prison, no doubt, but he is gone and now we have a new puppet in the pilot seat.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

This is from Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner too:
“Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. We have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives a 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you should not use.”  Interesting that the ONE you should NOT use is the ONE that WAS used.  Convenient science?

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

FiftyGigs,
You gotta read the words below the introduction line at each number.  That’s where the explanations are.

A sample:

“Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.”

Obviously my writing isn’t actually being read, as I’ve stated before.  It’s being skimmed and then evaluated on gut reactions.  I don’t contend that there is no warming and I don’t contend there is warming.  My point is in several different points 1) THERE’S NO DEFINITIVE PROOF EITHER WAY (There definitely seems to be more hard and better researched data showing everything’s a-ok but hey…) 2) Man’s actions are NOT responsible for any of what y’all contend it is therefore the tax, regulations, cap and trade, no more animals etc. is based on nothing.  3) IF there is warming, it is completely natural, part of the Solar and Planetary Cycle and it will BENEFIT mankind.

“#1 “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.” - “Even if true, not scientific fact. Merely individual’s opinions.”——Right….just like the Scientists who say that a rise in Global Temperature of 2 degrees Celsius will be catastrophic.  Hypothesis means “Educated Guess”.  So you gotta take ALL the other information, including what I’ve provided earlier, and figure out which makes the most sense. 

You know what - I started to go through each of the responses you made but, after looking through what I originally posted, everything you mention is addressed by me underneath each number’s introduction.  I’d have to say read it again cause I don’t know what else you’re thinking.

As far as Sea Levels, I would refer you to “The Greatest Lie Ever Told” by Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner - arguably the foremost sea level expert in the world who worked at Stockholm University for quite some time.  In response to the IPCC Report, he said ““It has been popular to threaten “small islands and low-lying coasts” with scenarios of disastrous future flooding. The Maldives has been the most utilised target. We have undertaken a careful analysis of actual sea level changes in the Maldives. No rise has been recorded either in the present or the past centuries. Instead we have documented a significant sea level fall in the last 20-30 years. Take this as Reality contra Models.”

So….

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 26, 2009 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

“Fifty Gigs - Easy.”

Matt, I know. It’s REAL easy when you don’t have present science.

#1 “Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.”

Even if true, not scientific fact. Merely individual’s opinions.

#2 “Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.”

Cute slight-of-hand, but not scientific fact. The data shows temperatures are up. Please provide proof they are not.

#3 “Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.”

Irrelevant. You didn’t ask for proof of trend. You asked for proof of warming.

#4 “The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.”

Irrelevant. You didn’t ask for cause. You asked for proof of warming.

Please provide your proof that ocean levels are not rising. Or are we no longer discussing science and going back to “my experts can beat up your experts”?

There is PLENTY of scientific EVIDENCE of global warming based on measurable FACTS. The Null Hypothesis is always a valid consideration, but, as shown by your impressive but irrelevant tirade, the validity of the Null Hypothesis is getting weaker and weaker as shown by a greater reliance on hysteria and conspiracy theories, and less on fact.

Basically, you agree the data shows warming. You just think warming is a good thing, that Nature is behaving within norms, and industrialization can continue unbridled. Fine.

I disagree.

Report this

By samosamo, March 26, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

By KDelphi, March 26 at 5:44 pm

Hope this kind of answers your question other than matt what’s his face is at the least a neocon that deserves the attention of a pile of dog crap on the side walk you don’t want to step in.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/26-7
about a so called ‘new’ neocon group becoming relevant in a manner of speaking. And if anyone thinks that those neocon think tanks have gone away, you’re hopelessly lost and will be deserving of the wicked plans that are still coming out of them plus this new one that promises to intensify the imperial efforts of their united states of america.
These are actually terrorists organizations that should have the scrutiny of federal law enforcement IF that law enforcement were NOT under the control of the neocons.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 26, 2009 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

Matt M—I am just saying that your V_E_R_Y long posts her, and your “
that’s bullshit” attitude towards everyone who disagrees, is , well, bullshit.

Do yu ever stop to think you could ever be wronh about anything? I suspect that you do not. To state it once, fine. I have a right to complain, also. I would never “turn anyone in”, so keep blabbing to yourself.
Go ahead.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

“representative forms of social democracy”

“Scheer—why did you let the nay-sayer take over this blog?”


Man, the combination of those two statements is too funny to be able to describe.  You’re not talking about Representative forms of Government, you want Socialist Dictatorships where CONTRADICTING OPINIONS AND EVIDENCE are shut out.  You have thus far been unable to effect a viable supporting position for your ludicrous ideas and are now wondering why the powers that be don’t just shut me up…..Awesome.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 26, 2009 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment

Donald—catch me saying it—I think thta Canada and the EU have FAR more representative forms of social democracy. I have lived in both.

Scheer—why did you let the nay-sayer take over this blog?

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 11:32 am Link to this comment

and Donald - One last thing - PLEASE don’t trust my word.  You said you don’t - GREAT.  RESEARCH everything I’ve presented with an HONEST, INQUISITIVE and SCIENTIFICALLY PRACTICAL mind.  Look it up, read and think.  Don’t just believe OR discount anything I’ve said.  Upon research, you’ll find that in then end, it was all actually true anyway.

I have done my homework on this, I’m not sure whether you actually have or have just accepted the line of bullshit that’s been thrown at you.  The only “evidence” I’ve gotten from you is the bird thing and I went over that already.  So, put the time in and research THE OTHER SIDE to find out whether their data holds with YOUR hypothesis.  If it doesn’t, then don’t discard the new data - incorporate and change the hypothesis.

THE TRUTH DOES NOT FEAR INVESTIGATION

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 11:29 am Link to this comment

Donald,
I’ll be honest - I don’t know what you’re talking about.  I don’t think I made any comment back about the Reagan Vegetable thing.  I hated Reagan, he can say whatever crazy shit we wants to so I’m not sure where you got feather ruffling from.

“there was several years of hageling about whether there was global warming or not.
Now that a birds brain has shown us there is” - It seems you’re confused again, we have NOT shown that there is.  In fact, I have shown that there’s credible evidence that the Earth may be on a warming trend OR that warming trend may be coming to an end and it might well be cooling.  So, again, take your foot off the gas and stop making assumptions.  We have solved no such question just yet.  Your bird example is far and beyond absurd.  We just had the coldest winter in MANY cities around this Nation, so why the hell would birds go farther North.  Just as people said “Your local climate has nothing to do with Global Climate”.  As ridiculous as that is, I’ll apply it to your example - “Your birds have nothing to do with Global Birds”. 

I’ll explain my comment, the ONLY one that was actually directed at you, as it seems you misunderstood.  I wasn’t implying that you love/hate/worship or anything else with Gore.  You simply referenced Scientists giving poor information for their own profit - computer models depending on UNBIASED data for good results - and I was AGREEING with you that FOLLOWING THE MONEY is typically a good solution to many problems.  Occam’s Razor suggests not inventing outside entities when not necessary.  So….do we have S.U.V.‘s, Cow Farts and Human Exhalations causing a Global Shift in Climate through EVERY bio-sphere or…..are Power Hungry Wealthy People LYING to try and get more money like THEY ALWAYS DO?  Hmmmmmm…...

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 26, 2009 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matt M

Did I ruffle your feathers with my reference to Reagan the vegetable at the time I cited?

Going on from that time, there was several years of hageling about whether there was global warming or not.
Now that a birds brain has shown us there is, we come to the next stage of hagelin, is it man made or not man made.

I am sure that when it becomes apparent what the answer to that is, something else will be served up for the continuation of hageling.

A perpetual topic for hageling to capture the gaze of the average working stiff on prime time news everyday after a days work while the capitalist class pile up profits.

The standard maxim for the Roman Empire was to give the masses bread and circuses and when that no longer did the trick, blame the problems on another country and incite a war.

Now to your response to my comments. You seem to be inserting things in my comments that I did not say. First of all, I am not a fan of Al Gore or anyone like him. For all I know, he might have a stake in a company that make the blades for wind power generators.

Secondly, I did not make a claim that either global warming was caused by man, that it was naturally caused or some of both.

Just as I don’t trust your word, I also don’t just the word of the government and I don’t trust any of the politians in the government any further than I could throw them.

The primary purpose of our present society is for a tiny minority to make no matter what adverse circumstances arise as far as the people are concerned.

Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

From “cheney is god” - I missed this earlier.

“Simply looking at photos of the polar ice caps falling apart prove the warming is profoundly real.”

Man, I gotta tell you, that’s like seeing a picture of a Polar Bear swimming and thinking it’s drowning.  Ice caps, glaciers, land ice sheets ALWAYS break apart.  GROWTH causes them to break apart.  As the ice sheet is pushed further out over base support, due to GROWTH, it will crack and break off.  Where do you think Ice Bergs come from?

Report this

By Sepharad, March 26, 2009 at 8:29 am Link to this comment

Matt M.‘s facts are impressively presented, argued and persuasive. Truthdig should ask him to write an expanded article as a contributor then see that it gets additional publicity. Scientists on both sides of the argument could respond in larger public forums. His summary is a concise basis for point and counter points made by disagreeing scientists, not just people who think they are right one way or the other, which is mostly what we have on TD.

Even if there is no manmade global warming per se, we should not stop attacking the many-faceted pollution problems and overpopulation. Carbon emissions are not healthy for anyone breathing them. Air quality has such an effect on people’s health that newspapers publish particle and other pollution levels daily.

Polluting creeks, lakes, rivers and seas destroys our water supply and the fish and other sea creatures. This pollution and over-fishing are directly connected to overpopulation. Cleaning up water also consumes a lot of energy, as does desaliization. Bad water increases the amount of plastic container garbage generated when we can’t get enough clean water where we are to cook with and drink. We live with a shallow 25’ deep well that yields about a gallon and a half per minute. Because it’s not as deep as most nearby wells tapping into the Russian River—heavily polluted by sewage upstream—we can boil it to cook in and bathe in, which is more than our deep-well neighbors can do. But we still can’t drink it without heavy-duty filtering for high mineral content and occasional ag runoff from orchards and vineyards. (All the orchardists and vineyardists claim to be “organic” and that their sprays are natural, sulphur, etc. Still they wear clean-room protective clothing, gloves and filtered mask-hoods when applying. Their explanation is that the stuff is OK as long as you don’t breathe it, and they tell us that on spray day and two additional days neither we nor our horses should move around energetically. Their apples have little worm damage and are shapely. The term “organic” seems to be very elastic.)

On the basis of what Matt M. says, we still need to clean up our act where we can. (Our personal violation: trailering horses far and wide. It took us 8 years to save enough to buy a used Toyota Tundra and a vinyl horse trailer, but cut former gas used by 2/3.) Maybe it’s just as well corporations are being battered by regulations based on the premise that global warming exists: they may not care what carbon emissions do to most of us but if they think they are killing their own families as well their profits, they might try harder to lower carbon emissions.)

Nuclear scientists should push for a solution to the waste problem and tighten up rules and security and every aspect of that industry’s dangers so we have no need for “clean” coal technology—which most businesses have rejected as being too expensive anyway. Underground, strip and “topping” mining all do terrible damage to the earth itself as well as to the miners and the people who live in the areas where coal is being mined whether it is subsequently cleaned up or not. Uncleaned, it’s a horrible pollutant. My grandparents had a coal furnace used as little as possible because there was always a fine layer of soot on everything, despite my grandmother’s endless efforts to remove it, and she reckoned that if it was on the windowsill it was also going into her family’s lungs. So often during the long St. Louis winter’s their tiny three-room house (where they managed to raise two kids and accommodate a piano) was cold except for little floor heaters moved around to where people were. She also cooked a lot (gas stove) which warmed up the kitchen temporarily. The coal furnace was stoked up on 10 degree to below-0 days or when someone was sick.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 8:14 am Link to this comment

Read the International Panel of Climate Change report titled “Nature, not human activity, rules the Climate”.  You can find it on the internet.  I have read MANY works by proponents of your ideas and constantly find fault.  The main faults exist in simple misapplications of the Scientific Method.  That is where Experts in fields OTHER than Climatology come in to this debate.  Medical Doctors who honestly seek truth, Physicists, Chemists alike can all find faulty research and outcome based experiments - and they’re finding them ALL THROUGH the Global Warming “Evidence”. 

So, if you guys are experienced and educated as you say, I invite you to go through that report, as I have, and tell me where the faults lie.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

But seriously - nobody remembers the Scare Tactics and Fear Mongering in the 70’s over “Global Cooling” - Did you really just forget that and move on or what?  The next big thing to make some money off of and there you go.

So Donald, yes, FOLLOW THE MONEY.  When Al Gore tells you to buy “Carbon Credits” from a Company and we find out HE OWNS THE DAMN COMPANY, maybe it’s time to ask some questions.  Like, why the hell doesn’t he turn HIS thermostat down a little since his power consumption is through the roof.

This is such a joke it’s unbelievable.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

Marton,
But there’s simply not a “Consensus” in any Scientific Community - Climatologist or not.  Here’s one small example:

American Association of State Climatologists
  - State Climatologists Skeptical of Administrations Global Warming

Having just returned from the annual meeting of the American Association of State Climatologists (for which I will be President for the next year), I can tell you that there is a great deal of global warming skepticism among my colleagues. For every outspoken scientist like Pat Michaels there are dozens of less verbose but equally committed men and women who do not buy into the Administration’s point of view. Far from being a “done deal,” the global warming scenarios are looking shakier and shakier. I have encouraged the other state climatologists to speak up on this issue and intend to be a spokesman myself (see, for example, July 25 1998 Science News). It’s interesting to me that the tactics of the “advocates” seems to be to 1) call the other side names (“pseudo-scientists”) and 2) declare the debate over (“the vast majority of credible scientists believe…”). I’m grateful for those who are running top-notch Web sites (SEPP, junkscience, John Daly, Doug Hoyt, Pat Michaels, etc.) to keep the dialogue open and enable us to share relevant information and scientific data (and also provide encouragement).

George Taylor, State Climatologist

Oregon Climate Service
316 Strand Hall
Oregon State University
Corvallis OR 97331-2209

And Another from the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

“Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  “

Those are men who were hired BY THE UNITED NATIONS to be on their Panel because of their Expertise.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 7:22 am Link to this comment

Oh, hell.  Why not one more.

Geologist Don Easterbrook, of Western Washington University, says “CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulphur, particulates, metals, etc).  We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy.  We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly.  If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!”

Consensus indeed.

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 26, 2009 at 7:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

FiftyGigs

There is a moniker that people assign to those who just can’t get it, bird brain.

But in the case of global warning, maybe the brains of birds can assimulate natural information quite well. Where I live, it has been reported this year that many species of birds, within the past few years, are migrating over 400 miles further north to nest.

No human can do that but with the use of computers, they can come pretty close, if the right data is fed into the computer. But if a person is unscrupulous and feeds buggered up data into the computer, a totaly different compulation will result. There are those types in every field of science, with a dark streak, and, for the almity dollar, will not hesitate to feed buggered up data into a computer. What is it called, logical result proceeding from a false premise. But, in this case, the birds will smoke them out everytime.

Did President Reagan get information from scientist with a dark streak when he announced to the nation that vegetation is the worst polluter or did he just take advantage of his position of power and just wing it, like a bird without a brain.

Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

I’m sorry - I gotta do one more before I let Fifty respond.

He said: “The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.”

Now, let’s look beyond the myopic vision of Global Warming.  You are aware, of course, that the sun goes through - get ready for this - an 11 YEAR SUNSPOT CYCLE.  It’s part of the 22 year reversal of the Magnetic Field of the Sun.  Before anyone says “That was made up in response to the overwhelming Global Warming Proof”, I’ll put that little piece to bed.  The solar cycle was discovered in 1843 by Samuel Schwabe.  In 1848 Johann Wolf came up with a method of counting sunspots on the solar disk called the Wolf number. We use the Wolf number (averaged from many observing sites) to keep track of the solar cycle.  Anyone know how many cars were operating in the late 1800’s when Wolf was formulating the 11 year cycle?  How many terrible S.U.V.‘s were running around?  Industrial Agriculture?  Yeah, not so much.

Look at some of the major Geological Sites we see today - Valleys, gorges, rivers, plains - Many of these were cut out and scraped by Glaciers as they grew and descended South.  Where are they now?  Why, they melted when the EARTH GOT WARMER!  People thrived because EVERYTHING WASN’T COVERED IN ICE!  This is a good time for us right now, if it is warming which NO ONE can prove it is.  We are destined to move back to another Precambrian type Climate, just like we have MANY times before.

Good luck making the Climate stop changing though.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:51 am Link to this comment

According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Antarctic sea ice extent and concentration for January 2009 were up significantly over 1997, 34.8% for ice extent & 22% for ice concentration. Jan 2009 sea ice was also up 23% over 1980.  Now some, some people may come back saying that some of the Global Warming models predicted increased Antarctic Ice Growth.  However, those people would not be reading.  Those people would have forgotten that those models predicted increased INTERIOR ICE; however, this study shows that SEA ICE CONCENTRATION and EXTENT is up to those numbers.

We HAVE to stop this Ice Growth or else the Penguins will be walking to Brazil soon and we face GLOBAL PENGUIN DOMINATION!!!!  Run, Scurry, FLEE!!!

Scare Tactics people - Just like Clinton, Bush x 2 and ALL other Politicians (Remember, Gore is a POLITICIAN) - anyone who stands to make money off anything will try and scare the hell out of you about it.

Look at infomercials late at night.  Look what they’re selling.  They are not selling a product, they are selling the FEAR of living without their product.  “What happens when you spill a soda?  You don’t have a Shamwow - WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?!?!”  Fear and money - money and fear.  Follow the money and it will typically take you along the path of the very people trying to scare the hell out of you.

Report this

By Marton Zsenei, March 26, 2009 at 6:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

KDelphi: I am already on pension. I did work in the Central Research Institute of Physics in Budapest. I was working some years in the Joint Institute of Nuclear Research in Dubna (USSR) and in CERN in Geneva -Switzerland.
Mainly my work was in computer support of different experiment. Most interestig was the on-board software of the VEGA spacecraft. This spacecraft made the first photos of the nucleus of the comet Halley. For those who interested in planets and moons I have written a Java program:  http://freshmeat.net/projects/planetscape/

To Matt: As far as the “consensus” that is the method of the scientific research concerned it takes me more time.
Now can say: it is not voting, it is peer-review and and who can take part in it should have expertise in the field reviewed. And does not mean that everybody should in agreement with it.
My taking that there is a kind of “consensus” in the climatologist community.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:36 am Link to this comment

Even Roger Revelle, the father of the modern “Greenhouse Effect” concept and Al Gore’s “Green Mentor” said “Drastic, precipitous, and especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.”  Anybody remember how he was attacked and derided during the 2000 Presidential Bid.  Perhaps the Global Warming movement didn’t like hearing that. 

You do realize that the Earth has a Natural Rhythm and that we haven’t always had Ice Caps at both poles right?  It comes and goes - right now we’re experiencing the “Icehouse Effect” from having both of our extremes covered in Ice.  That ice will NOT always be there.  As the cycle of Fusion processes in the sun, as ALL fusion does, you will see distinct changes in the waveform graphs of that energy.  As our orbit ellipses and contracts, as our tilt on the axis changes - People, there are HUGE forces at work here and Cow Farts MEAN NOTHING. 

So no, there is no PROOF that Global Warming 1) Is happening or 2) MUST BE STOPPED NO MATTER THE COST BECAUSE THE EARTH WILL GO UP A FEW DEGREES!!!  So the hell what?  It’s supposed to and it will BENEFIT MANKIND!  Breadbaskets, where now there are only deserts, will flourish. 

PROOF is something that cannot be refuted, challenged or overturned.  THEORIES are things that some right sometimes, are right sometimes and are complete and total crackpot bullshit other times.  I think we found a winner on that last one. 

Go ahead, fight and challenge and deride the Scientists who are interested in nothing but the TRUTH and trust POLITICIANS who are interested in nothing but POWER AND MONEY.  There is a HUGE Scientific following that’s screaming this is CRAP.  Michael Crichton wrote a FANTASTIC Novel about this - State of Fear.  Oh, he’s just an author right?  What does he know?  Well, he is a DOCTOR but who cares these days.  Al Gore knows better.  He has a Power Point Presentation.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

5)A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization.

This is one of the greatest arguments against global warming.  Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6) Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing.

Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012—the target set by the Kyoto Protocol—would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

Report this

By Matt M., March 26, 2009 at 6:20 am Link to this comment

Fifty Gigs - Easy.

1) Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate.

More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2)  Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend.

Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3)Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes.

All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4) The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming.

Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 26, 2009 at 4:38 am Link to this comment

“NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER has been presented by anyone here that even resembles PROOF of Global Warming or any other such crap.”

*sigh*

This’ll be SOOOOO much fun to argue. (I’m being sarcastic. KDelphi is right. It’s useless to “discuss” with you, but… let’s try.)

* During the last 100 years the Earth has warmed by 0.76 °C on average.

* The rate of warming has increased.

* The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the last 12 years.

* The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.

* Europe has warmed by about 1 °C over the past 100 years.

* Europe has warmed faster than the global average.

* Rates of observed sea level rise almost doubled from 18 centimeters per century in 1961–2003 to 31 cm per century in 1993–2003.

* Current concentrations of CO2 and methane are the highest for at least 650,000 years.

* Glaciers are melting, dude.

Sorry, getting tired. It’s the heat.

* Extreme weather events have increased, such as the frequency of violent hurricanes.

* Regional climate patterns are changing, such as the movement of hurricanes to South America.

Okay, there’s some evidence.

Now, come back and argue that I’ve failed to post thousands of pages of supporting data and am only speaking in generalities, even as I anticipate YOUR scientific proof that ocean levels haven’t risen.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Good Tap Dancing Christ - Read back through all the posts.  NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER has been presented by anyone here that even resembles PROOF of Global Warming or any other such crap.

I have given you solid logical arguments that should be considered, reports of SCIENTISTS involved in this that DISAGREE entirely with the notion of “Global Warming” but the only retorts that come back are “We know Global Warming is Real”.  “Jesus Christ will save you”.  “Allah is the only way”.  This is a damn religion and no matter of GOOD Science will overcome any amount of shoddy science in your minds.

Move Cities?  Cap and Trade?  Carbon Tax?  End the Farming of Animals for FOOD!?  This is insanity.  Read the Ice Core reports that took YEARS for REAL Scientists to get and analyze.  ANTARCTIC ICE HAS GROWN.  One shore of Greenland is getting smaller, yes, but the other side is GROWING.  This is a scam, a sham, a load of horse dung that will accomplish NOTHING except growing wealth and power of those that have convinced you of this. 

This is the thing as somebody coming out and saying “Gun Control ends crime” and BOOM!  You have people repeating it over and over and over despite ANY evidence. 

Right Wing control over the Media?  I gotta tell you, I’m terrified if you haven’t figured out that the Right/Left Paradigm is crap and just a puppet show to convince YOU that there’s a real fight going on.  Those in power grin, chuckle and cavort when not in front of the camera’s and the indignantly chastise their “competitors” when the cameras show up.  It’s like trying to convince Jim Jones followers that the Kool-Aid is bad for them and all you get back is “We all know this Kool-Aid is good for you” despite the empty cans of poison all around the ground.

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 25, 2009 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

KDelphi—“Donald—The rich elites of this country, and, the growing consumer base almost everywhere, I suppose. I dont know. They seem to do fine without any middle class. USAns dont buy USA made stuff anymore—most cannot afford it. I hear the Chinese enjoy “American quality”—the Chinese elites.”

The rich are spending like it is going out of style all the time—gold plated swiming pool, 2 story marble bath room, 8 stall gargage filled with luxury cars, etc. The economy still tanked. The collapse of banking was not the cause, it was the effect of the cause which was the collapse of the capitalist market.

KDelphi—“As you say, they choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledumbass (well, you almost said that—i did). If they were educated about other forms of govt economics, I am not so sure that they would choose catpitalism..”

Chosing the best of all possible systems is different (displayed everytime a person pledges allegence to the flag—everytime a person stands when the Star Spangled Banner is sung)from chosing the lesser of the evils political party. Who have you caught saying that there is a better system anywhere around the world?

“If they were educated about other forms of govt economics,” now that is getting somewhere. What would happen if there was not a bias in our educational system? I deffinitly know of such a bias because I deal in the field of education and experienced that for many years. Not just a bias but also delibrate disinformation. Yes. The public is in dire need of fact instead of fiction. With that, I am confident their conduct would go in a positive direction.

Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By samosamo, March 25, 2009 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

This whole commentary does more to show the total mess the msm has achieved by NOT bringing together the real experts with the most accurate data on climate change and the correlation with the human footprint to the environment and ecological system the world over. The data is there but so fragmented that I don’t see anything less than another success of controlling information to create something akin to a religious belief by each individual’s own perception of what information is available. Truely a huge score for those traitorous corporate ‘elite’.
Obama really needs to step in and do something to break up this monopoly strangle hold the neoconservative have on the msm. Everyday that goes by without this break up gives more strength, power and illusion to those conservative owners that will provide for a more ILL INFORMED citizenry.
I am also forced to believe that there are still enough neoconservative operatives out there whose commentary contributions are slick attacks to make those that don’t really know about important issues sort of want to believe some to the arcane disinformation being dished out to the people.
Scott Ritter is one who tries to present information objectively for as many people’s attention that helps in a better informed individual, just too bad the vast part of his works and many others are located here on the internet that does not reach the far too many people that rely on kicking back in the lounge chair and flick in the tv for their infotainment.

Report this

By Cheney is God, March 25, 2009 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s good to see Mr. Ritter developing a systems approach to security matters. There have been only two major threats to humanity, and to the adored homeland: 1) nuclear weapons stockpiles of the major powers and the aggressive lesser powers (pick a “State”), and 2) the bell-curve increase in disaster risk associated with Ritter’s theme.

Several of those commenting insist that global warming is a scam. Simply looking at photos of the polar ice caps falling apart prove the warming is profoundly real. It doesn’t matter whether human activity is responsible. What matters is that we have the ability to reduce the severity of the problem. Practical responses (as distinct from remedies) might be to build city centers away from rising ocean levels. For example, rebuilding New Orleans in its present location makes little sense for real estate which will be under water in fifty years. USGS info is available on rising sea levels for interested parties.

Finally, this matter is vital to US economic survival if nothing else, so I humbly urge posters to take a problem-solving approach and stop worrying about nationalism or the personality quirks we all have when expressing our opinions.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi - I hate to say it buy you’re reacting to a challenge like a child, taking your ball and going home.  If you really believe in this so much that you have FAITH you’re right, prove me wrong.

Exactly what are People Like Me? 

And, pray tell, what other Government Form of Economics is allowed within the Constitution of the United States?  Hell, that’s the problem summed up real clear right there.  Article I Section 8 - The Congress shall have the power to coin money.  Right now, we don’t have Government Economics, we have Federal Reserve Economics and they control the power and destiny of this land.  You want somebody to hold accountable for Environmental Problems - there’s your target.  The Government is supposed to have DRASTICALLY limited authority in this Economy and Country - however, once you get corruption it spreads everywhere.  Now, Corporate Heads can lobby and purchase their own Legislators who are responsible to virtually no one since an International Team of Criminals owns the Government.  Fox guarding the hen house.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

Donald—The rich elites of this country, and, the growing consumer base almost everywhere, I suppose. I dont know. They seem to do fine without any middle class. USAns dont buy USA made stuff anymore—most cannot afford it. I hear the Chinese enjoy “American quality”—the Chinese elites.

As you say, they choose between Tweedledum and Tweedledumbass (well, you almost said that—i did). If they were educated about other forms of govt economics, I am not so sure that they would choose catpitalism..

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 1:29 pm Link to this comment

I said that it is useless to discuss this stuff with people like you. I cant believe I got roped into it. I’m not discussing this with someone who talks like that. I also am not spending the time to go over the science and I’m not talking about Gore..bye.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

Well, first off, NO the bulk of science is not against me.  Show me the bulk of science - discuss the over 600 climatologists that have denied anthropomorphic “Global Warming” - discuss the scientists who helped Al Gore in his “Research” coming out and saying they were wrong.  Discuss discuss discuss.  I honestly don’t think you’re stupid or willfully ignorant, I think you have latched onto this idea and have started to identify yourself through it and are fighting to keep a hold.

Water = Life.  Plain and simple.  When the ice caps were drastically smaller and even non-existent, you would have vast wonderlands of greenery and life where now there is arid wastelands.  Science DOES proof that out due to core samples that are openly available to anyone with a finger on Google.  What is being talked about is not stopping the natural progression of the Earth as a dynamic and ever changing system - it is simply a means of money and control cashing in on what will happen NO MATTER WHAT. 

Now, before I get somebody else coming back on me with this, there definitely ARE real Environmental hazards and dangers present.  A non-belief of the Great Global Warming Swindle does NOT mean that I personally go out and club baby seals with radioactive sticks of garbage. 

The fact that Bees are dying ALL OVER the place has been attributed to what?  Some have tried to link it to “Global Warming” but failed miserably because “Global Warming” can’t be proven.  Others have suggested there might be a Polar Shift coming sometime.  Personally, I think that might be possible; however, the greatest likelihood is Monsanto.  They have created more Genetically Modified Crops in the past few decades than could be believed.  When you start screwing around with the fundamentals of life, the repercussions can’t be predicted because WE DON’T KNOW.  I do know that Monsanto has made corn that was modified to produce it’s own insecticide - can’t be good for the biosphere or the people that eat it.  And that shits being cultivated in the open air to freely mix with non-hybrid seeds.

The question of Nuclear Waste is a valid concern, Industrial Waste, Garbage; however, we as a Nation in the United States spend MORE money, MORE time and MORE worry about these issues than ANYONE else.  Don’t let your good intentions regarding keeping a clean world lead you into believing any Bullshit that’s distributed.  And I calmly and firmly say, Man Made Global Warming, the alarmist screaming over the “Threat of Global Climate Change” is grade A, First Class BULLSHIT. 

If the Sun decides to work a little harder, we get warmer.  If it decides to work a little less, we get cooler.  Has nothing to do with what’s so derisively labeled “Gawd’s Will” - it’s Nature baby and we gotta live in it. 

Warmer is better than cooler - Ice Core Samples, Archeology, Anthropology, Geology, the Fossil Record - it all shows that life on this planet THRIVES when temperatures rise.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 1:01 pm Link to this comment

Matt—The problem is that the bulk of the science does not support your side.

I think cap and trade may be useless. We just disagree as to whether global climate change exists. As I said in an earlier post, there is no point in arguing with people with primitivistic theories of life on the planet.

There is more land going under water. There is less fresh water locked up in the ice. How can that be good??

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 25, 2009 at 12:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the Capts of Industry do not need to pay US workers enough to buy their own products anymore, They just sell them to someone else.”

Could you tell me who those mystical consumers are.

“I am not certain that capitalism (moneyism) is the economics of “choice” here—who the hell knows what the REAl choice would be?”

Everytime workers go to vote, they choose, what their minds are imbued with, the best of all (possible) systems, deciding which of the 2, twiddle dee dee or twiddle dee dum, as they percieve, is the lesser of the evils.

Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science. (google it)

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 12:27 pm Link to this comment

Okay, since you believe that meddling with the Environment is not inherently bad, let’s go into hypothetical mode again, only on my side this time.  Let’s say Global Warming is real, and the Earth’s Average Temperature will be going up a few degrees.  What is your evidence that this SHOULD be stopped.  Perhaps we are moving into another heavy Ice Age, like has happened MANY times before, and an increase of temperature will SAVE us. 

The Earth is cyclical - it gets warmer, hot, colder, cold, warmer and on and on and on.  Yet, you want to legislate, tax and enslave people based on unfounded fears of what may be the best thing that ever happened to us.  Increasing that scary Carbon in the atmosphere and preventing another Ice Age - EXCELLENT!

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 12:14 pm Link to this comment

Yes, Matt, I think that if the planet is
“intent” on destroying its capacity to support life, we should try to fight it, just as we should try to stop a meteor from hitting the earth. I dont think that the earth “naturally” accomodates any life form. It just “happens”

the earth itself, will survive with or without (probably better!) us.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

KDelphi - I said “Now, you’re hypothetically saying that it’s not true and to stop the natural course, MAN SHOULD CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT!”

You’re reinforcing my point that most here are not REALLY reading what I’m saying, you’re just waiting for your turn to respond.  Go back and read it again.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

MattM—No, I have no idea what youre saying…I didnt say that GM doesnt exist, I was saying HYPOTHETICALLY! Because it doent matter whether you believe it or not, just so we DO somethint about it.

Some will never belive that all races are equal,. Many never believed in a woman’s right to equal voting, working, etc. But, if we wait for these middle-agers, we will never achieve anything. Just maybe, if they think it is “gawd is mad , so he is letting stuff get dirty” ,just maybe that is a concept they would accept and allow to get about fixing it.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Besides, the initial intent of this thread was based on “Obama’s Plan To Save The World”.  Once you get past the comical nature of that statement, tell me which of his “Plan’s” is working out well so far?

The economy?  Monetizing the Debt?  Trillions upon Trillions of dollars flowing down the same holes that Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. poured it.  Reagan, Carter, Johnson - hell, all the way back to Woodrow Wilson this has been going on. 

Oh, how about the Mandatory Volunteer Corps?  Glad that your kids are gonna be forced into involuntary servitude by the Government and their “Senior Corps” will press you into service?  I know that most of the Elitists pushing this “Global Warming” farce are the same ones that were out in tye-dye and screaming about the Vietnam Draft.  Now they’re supporting an “Environmental Corp” that’s gonna be drafting your children.  All an interesting turn of events…

Report this

By rollzone, March 25, 2009 at 11:39 am Link to this comment

hello. now this is a discussion on capitalism. the money in the carbetbaggers comes today from a source named political action committees. how did we ever allow the communists to influence our democratic republic by exchanging big bags of money through shadow companies; when this only serves the wishes of the few profiteers? a pac is pushing this global climate change, and carbon taxing; that has already been proven to be based upon comical logic: and the senators and the representatives will get to go on junkets, and the democratic national committee will be enabled to buy even more big brother television time. the ice age ended when the earth’s rotation slightly decreased in proximity to the sun. it was perhaps one day a year closer to the sun. the universe is more dynamic than earth, and people are only specks of imagination clinging to this journey.when will the money grab by the politicians finally bankrupt this great nation? foolish money thrown away in politics instead of green industry.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

Kdelphi - What you’re advocating right now is STOPPING Man’s change to the Climate in the form of “Global Warming”.  Now, you’re hypothetically saying that it’s not true and to stop the natural course, MAN SHOULD CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENT!

Please, tell me you see the problem there?

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

Cap and Trade will do NOTHING except make some people VERY RICH.  The “Toxins” are still being produced, they’re just being shifted around and accounted for differently.  Can anyone describe or explain the MASSIVE bureaucracy that’s going to be created to handle this new system?  You REALLY think we can afford that right now - if it wasn’t completely ridiculous?

Most of the responses I read simply say, like I said about repeating a lie, “GLOBAL WARMING REALLY IS REAL!” with NOTHING to back that up.

And Marton, what I meant by the one’s that don’t know any better are the one’s I’m talking about earlier who simply hear something, repeat it and never investigate it themselves.  That quote is often attributed to Goebbels but it was not his originally.  God knows he probably did say it a couple of times though.  Follow the Money people - see who’s profiting off of this scam and THINK.

Report this

By Matt M., March 25, 2009 at 11:31 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marton,
No problem - your english ain’t bad - just a misunderstood comment regarding my proposal’s phrasing.

First, I’ll say this.  There is NO proof of “Global Warming”.  The Ice Core Study even shows that frozen caps of the modern world were once lush and green and then frozen before that.  If it cooled to the point it is now, then it had to have warmed before that.  I keep seeing this line - “CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING!”  Of course it is and let’s hope for hell that it KEEPS CHANGING!  We’re all really screwed if it doesn’t.  Again, the last Ice Age ended, which means the Average Global Temperature increased, i.e. THE GLOBE WARMED, and it was a GOOD THING.  We’ve been in the middle of a damn little Ice Age for awhile now, that’s why the Polar Caps are there, and it looks like it ain’t going away for some time.  Coldest winter on record anyone?  Oh, right.  That doesn’t matter.  It’s not “Global Warming”, it’s “Climate Change” now.  Even the Rhetoric is ridiculous.

Another thing - there is no “Consensus” among Scientists.  I posted earlier several prominent examples that this just doesn’t exist and there’s PLENTY more where that came from.  And, as I said earlier, a “Consensus” doesn’t mean ANYTHING.  There was a “Consensus” that the Earth was flat, that we lived in a Geocentric Solar System and that heroine was a good idea for coughs.  Oops.  Scientists screw up just like everybody else.  The arrogance of the “Global Warming” crowd is unbelievable.  Man is insignificant in the big picture.

Nitrogen and Oxygen make up over 99% of the Earth’s Atmosphere.  Of that last <1%, Carbon Dioxide is the 3rd Most Prevalent.  It is INSANE to think THAT would be the driving factor when it makes up a minuscule amount of the Gaseous atmosphere. 

What else is insane is, let’s say Cow Farts are killing the world.  Okay, how do you solve that?  Stop agricultural animal cultivation and grazing?  Okay, then you get a significant DROP in Methane - do you know what that might cause?  You also get a marked increase in grass which will convert the CO2 into O2 to a marked degree.  We can’t live in too rich an O2 atmosphere either.  The lack of CO2 might cause a new Ice Age which will kill everybody - makes sense if the “abundance” of CO2 is going to burn everything.

There are so many damn variables that are either assumed or discounted but in a system this complex neither of those things can be done and consider the results to be accurate.  To advocate “Global Action”, a new Tax Scam or any other further Control over our lives is LUDICROUS! 

Now, all this you’ve all heard before I’m sure and most have probably ignored it.  You’re convinced of your beliefs despite any HARD, VERIFIABLE, and REPEATABLE evidence.  There’s a word for that - RELIGION.

Now I’m also seeing people making the logical leap that if someone doesn’t believe in the Global Warming Scam then they either love or don’t care about Pollution.  That leads me to think that most aren’t actually reading what I’m saying but just instantly spouting the things they’ve been classically conditioned to repeat.  There are REAL Environmental Dangers - we are screwing around with the basic building blocks of Nature itself and then letting those things loose to interact with the world.  Pollution is a concern, yes, but not in this Global Architecture designed to simply fleece more money out of you.  When you run the exhaust to a tube and then into your car, what kills you?  The “Carbon”?  Nope, the fact that that carbon is attached to a single oxygen molecule which your body can’t respirate, combine with glucose and burn for energy.  Yet, I hear talk in Washington of classifying “Carbon” as a damn toxic material so it can be TAXED!

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Domnald Donaker—two problems: 1) the Capts of Industry do not need to pay US workers enough to buy their own products anymore, They just sell them to someone else. 2)I am not certain that capitalism (moneyism) is the economics of “choice” here—who the hell knows what the REAl choice would be? Most USAns dont know enough about any other system to support capilism or otherwise.

OK, just for fun. lets say that man-caused climate change is a myth—so the warming (in some areas, some seasons) is just a product of natural variance—so do we just sit here and let people die from a lack of water and continue to filth up our envienronment, becaause “we arent causing it”?? Shouldnt we try to avert it, in any case?
Or, are some here of the notion that it must be “gawd’s will”

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 25, 2009 at 11:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Shift
“The old realities and dependable prescriptions have been erased and people are confused and frozen in inaction.”


Charlie Reese says:
“We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!”

The age old question is: What do we replace them with?

Right now capitalism is the people’s economic system of choice. Fron there it follows that the political government reflects the economic system. And finally, it follows that the political and economic espect of our society benifits the capitalist class, otherwise there would be no capitalist class, therefore there would be no capitalist system. So we have no alternative but to put up with the mess because the capitalist class calls the shots, mess or no mess.

There has to be more than waiting for the next election with the idea of, “Out with the old and in with the new,” because the new is really old too.

The same banking problems were festering way back in the Clinton and Bush Sr administrations. They just threw a blanket over the fire and it kept smoldering until now when it finally burst into flames.

The crux of the matter is, if workers do not get enough pay to buy back what they produce, there is always going to be a problem with the market.
It is impossible to pay them enough because then there would not be a capitalist class.

The only means to keep the market going is credit and that condition cannot go on forever. But that is exactly the condition that is attempting to be restored with the utmost fervor.

From Donald J Donaker, Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By Marton Zsenei, March 25, 2009 at 10:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matt:
I am Hungarian and my command of English not perfect.

But I think you misunderstood me. I try to say that weather and climate somewhat different: In central Europe we have for seasons: And it depends on a very few geographical and astronomical data .
So we know that the summer hotter than winter without any computer. On the other side to say exactly what kind of weather will be 1.st of June in Budapest in this year almost impossible. With some simplification one can say: our climate depends on the relation solar energy which is coming in and reflected out into space. This relation mainly depends on the green-house effect which also computable.
So if the conditions for green-house effect is changing the energy of the earth system is increasing and we can infer something about the climate.
This is the basis our knowledge of differences of climate of the Venus, Earth or Mars. We can say why Venus has a climate of 400 Celsius, but maybe have problem to do weather forecast on Venus too.
———-
“Actually, it wasn’t Goebbels.  That is often attributed to him but only but those who don’t know any better.”
And who know any better?

Report this

By Shift, March 25, 2009 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

The old realities and dependable prescriptions have been erased and people are confused and frozen in inaction.  Seeing their lives in a tailspin with no apparent controls, no power, and the President appointing people to positions of power who engineered this decline leave them breathless.  If ever there was a need for tough mindedness it is now yet most people are jello brained.  Each day people are mindlessly marching over the cliff.  I have never before witnessed such an effortless slaughter.  Add to this the worsening effects of global warming and it’s anyone’s guess how people will behave.  Panic may be the outcome.  Whatever it is, it’s getting closer and moving faster. Each of us it appears will be forced to march through the cauldron.  What we will be on the other side, if anything, is unknown.  The Great Change is upon us.

Report this
Hulk2008's avatar

By Hulk2008, March 25, 2009 at 9:49 am Link to this comment

To those who doubt the world climate is changing, we must repeat:  IT IS CHANGING -  as surely as the western states are draining away the Colorado River.  And it IS people who are affecting the climate - e.g. who is raising all those cattle who generate cow farts, not to mention acres of run-off from cow pens?  who is raising the billions of chickens whose defecation cannot be scooped fast enough into pits?  who is slashing and burning the rain forests?  who is “finning” the ocean’s predator species decimating the food fish and putrifying all the coastal water with run-off and raw sewage?  Who is turning the western states into a future dust bowl from overuse of water?  Clue:  it isn’t the armadillos.  Let’s stop calling the problem “global warming” long enough to realize that Human Beings ARE affecting our increasingly smaller planet’s resources.  As a child of the 40’s and 50’s I can provide first hand experience with stoking a coal furnace for our family’s heat - and the resultant filthy dust that covered everything inside our home and out. The so-called clean coal commercial now on TV is so hilarious .... and CORRECT.  Those who argue against global warming, climate change, ecological demise, or whatever term is applied are all too darned young to see the changes that have occurred in a relatively short human lifetime.

Report this

By KDelphi, March 25, 2009 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

“That said people who react against… uh, “pro climate changers” still have a point when people like Ritter make statements like: “The potential catastrophe that global climate change could unleash on America makes every other foreign policy crisis pale in comparison.”

He states POTENTIAL, and, most scientists agree with him. As you said, the null hypothesis has no place here, as there is so much evidence. I am not crazy about ‘cap and trade”, but, we need to do something, as the rest of the world waits on teh biggest global warmer of all time, to “lead , follow or get out of the way”.

Nationally subsidized high speed rail would answer many problems in major cities—make it coast to coast. It already exists in most “free” countries. It works and people love it. I did, when I lived elsewhere. It does not have to be uncomfortable, and, if you hate your neighbors that much, stay home.

Marton—where do you work as a physicist?

What kind of “liberty” do you have to dump your crappy, meat-eating waste into my birthright water and air? It is, again, as all things in a capitalist (moneyist) society, all about MONEY! If USAns dont beconme concerned about something else, wwe deserve to lose our standing in the world. Let someone else take over.

It becomes so tiresome to listen to ‘Merkins denying what the rest of the world already accepts. Sigh. I guess we will have to be subdued and forced to stop killing everyone else with our excesses.

Report this

By Donald J Donaker, March 25, 2009 at 7:40 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Matt M. says:

“Martin, Actually, it wasn’t Goebbels.  That is often attributed to him but only but those who don’t know any better.” That among the other endless bits of know better he sets the table with.

Don’t you people get it by now. Matt M. knows better but doesn’t need to tell you what it is. Sounds like a good candidate for president—the man on the white horse commeth.

Cut to the chase—get a head start on his presidental campaign now.

Don from Real Union Of Social Science (google it)

Report this

By FiftyGigs, March 25, 2009 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Those people who contend “global warming is a scam” represent the “null hypothesis” in scientific terms. It states that the results of testing will prove there is no climate change happening. That’s a valid point. However, it has been disproved so much and so well there really isn’t the slightest scientific evidence supporting it any longer.

Climate change is happening.

That said people who react against… uh, “pro climate changers” still have a point when people like Ritter make statements like: “The potential catastrophe that global climate change could unleash on America makes every other foreign policy crisis pale in comparison.”

Ritter is abandoning scientific rationality here, and simply trying to rationalize every radical remedy he can dream up. He needs to get a grip. The… uh, “anti climate changers” are wasting their time trying to thwart the Scott Ritter’s by attacking the science. Instead, they’d be better served by trying to control the solution.

Report this

By Sepharad, March 24, 2009 at 9:08 pm Link to this comment

SteveK9, You’re not “annoying” me though a leftist I am. So far, I think nuclear power is the only source of energy available now that will make enough difference in time, but the downside is still the waste disposal problem. Last I heard, the waste disposal technology is still flawed, and considering the halflifes of this stuff we can’t just continue letting it leak out in the oceans, underground or anywhere else. You know Yucca Mountain isn’t a good enough long-term option, and the day has passed when poorer states will continue to allow dumping of nuclear waste for any amount of money. Has there been some innovation in waste disposal tech I’ve missed? You’re a scientist: can you tell me there is progress in that area, and if so has enough testing been done so we’ll know it will work be better contained for a sufficiently long time?

Cap and trade isn’t going to reduce the total amount of carbon emissions any more than sending more soldiers to Afghanistan is going to work. But the inability to contain nuclear waste would give us more problems than we already have in terms of environmental pollutants. There’s other downside factors too. After the Thresher went down, Admiral Rickover said he’d shut down all future nuclear projects if he could because of the human factor. Faulty copper wiring sunk the Thresher—somebody saved a little money buying wiring not up to the designer’s specs. Human greed and fallibility are not always fatal, but with nuclear power reactors rules have to be tighter, nothing overlooked. E.g., how in the world did someone propose and the rest of the system approve building a nuclear reactor on an active earthquake fault in the San Luis Obispo area?

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Martin,
Actually, it wasn’t Goebbels.  That is often attributed to him but only but those who don’t know any better.

The question is apt and if grammar is your concern we can go through your statements afterwards.

And no, the general behavior of the system is not easy to predict.  The number of variables included in that system exponentially increases the likelihood of errors as each changes.  Me falling from a cliff includes 2, maybe 3 variables.  Gravity, my forward trajectory and maybe wind if it’s a damn high cliff.  Would you like me to spend the next 3 days listing ALL the variables included in “Weather Models”, all of which are guessed at while each variable introduces a new fork in the road which will have to be backtracked from the beginning to try a new one.  No different than performing a brute force attack on a computer system - each time you increase the bit string length - the time it takes to crack is exponentially grown.  We’re not talking about figuring out if a Hurricane is brewing (which NEVER gets predicted accurately anyway) but a worldwide system where ONE variable is being held as responsible for ANY change while that ONE variable is NEGLIGIBLE in this system.  Meanwhile, that big ass ball of fire in the sky can’t possibly play a major part.

Again, yes, people die from the heat.  No joke - read what I wrote again and the point to it.  Humans survive warm better than cold.  That’s why the SUN is so damned important to us.  You know, Sun Spots, Solar Flares - nah, that doesn’t affect the Planet, Cow Farts do.

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the solution to the Global + ‘whatever problem they can make up’ will only result in a loss of liberty for all.” - Yep, because the solution will always be Global + Control

Report this

By BlueEagle, March 24, 2009 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

Have you noticed that they have stopped talking about “Global Warming” and now speak of “Global Climate Change”?

If they cant create problems like the did with 9/11 and the financial meltdown, they look for problems to save *us* from. The The Hegelian Dialectic is in full effect, and the solution to the Global + ‘whatever problem they can make up’ will only result in a loss of liberty for all.

It nice to see that Obama’s COS Rahm Emanuel, just like Milton Friedman, feels that no good crisis should go to waste.

I second GW=MCHammered post.

The Obama Deception
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

Report this

By Marton Zsenei, March 24, 2009 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Matt M.:
“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin
I think it was said by Gobbels, the NAZI propaganda minister and not by Lenin.

“Anybody ever really compared the number of people who are reported as killed by heat in the summer when they didn’t have an air conditioner and the number killed by cold in the winter who didn’t have a heater?”

Some few years ago a lot of old people died ,for example, in Paris from heat. I think more than from cold. But the question is wrong.

And as a physicist, I find really funny, when not experts of the fields to solve a scientific problem by voting.

“Good lord, weathermen can’t even tell me if it’s gonna rain on Friday and you idiots really believe that some Climate Model can tell you this kind of intricate and detailed information?”
The weather -where when and what- a really intricate question, but the overall behaving of a system usually easier to follow: If you fell from a cliff, your general characteristics of your moving anybody can guess, but not easy to give the exact moving your parts.

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 4:59 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Paul - If you’re addressing me, I would suggest you go back and read that again because you COMPLETELY missed the point of what I’m saying.

Report this

By paul bass, March 24, 2009 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

p.s. your local weather patterns have no bearing on global climate.

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

TAO - While I’m not sure that I subscribe to the Mother Earth mentality - I definitely agree that, the Earth as a System, will NOT be effected, destroyed OR saved by us.  We are insignificant and the Earth will destroy us long before we kill it.  The single power of a Volcano is something that we cannot even yet understand, much less control.

My approach and presentation may be prickly and unsweet - maybe even obnoxious to some - I no longer have the patience to calmly explain utter bullshit to people who just don’t see it.  We have neither the time to try and convince blind people of the Con-Job being perpetrated on them nor the power to change what the Solar System decides it will do.  Go ahead and pay your Carbon Taxes to the International Banks, go ahead and let the “Conservation Corp” of the National Civilian Community Corps into your home and inspect your thermostat - hand over your Freedom and Liberty to Tyranny and Oppression.  I will have none of it.  Junk Science, The Religion of Global Warming and a Cult of Personality Following will not subjugate me.

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 24, 2009 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

There are those who believe Barack Obama himself already subscribes to those messianic pretensions imputed to him (tongue-in-cheek?) by the heading of Scott Ritter’s article here.  There does indeed appear to be something of a cult-like mystique forming around his perceived very-public/semi-private persona.

However “prickly” Matt M.‘s presentation, his recommendation that people “follow the money” seems worthwhile.  Profitting from actual and even only make-believe CONsequences of “global climate change,” whatever those turn-out to be, certainly fits-in with Naomi Klein’s perceptive exposure of the “disaster capitalism” gang-bang….might even be its ultimate CON.

Something else it might be well to remember is the well-known tendency of those who stake their “sacred fortunes” on certain specific “patterns” of Human behavior, to do what they can to manipulate captive people into those maybe otherwise rather unlikely “habits,” so as to “guarantee” a steady return on some particular “investment.”  Those here who remind us of the difficulties of “prediction,” of events and changing circumstances in the overall as well as the specifically domesticated Human “environment,” also merit some thoughtful consideration.

Fact is, whatever the effects of changes in our Mother Earth’s “climate,” Her Two-legged Children are likely to respond in ways neither foreseen nor welcomed by those who hope to CONtinue in their own patterns of ruthless exploitation.  There could even be some genuine comfort in knowing She is doing Her own part in this process meaning to bring Humanity through it essentially intact….at least so far as the fulfillment, with integrity, of our given organic function in Her Living Arrangement goes.  This old Indian sure doesn’t begrudge whatever solace is due those who “....have a friend in Jesus,” for example, but our Mother Earth has always been right here with us every Day.

So, to those fools who still think they can “own” (and thus dispose-of as they please) the earth, here’s a little unsolicited advice from their own “workbook.”  “Let the buyer beware!”

HokaHey!

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

JFoster,
“Here’s a piece of news - The Climate is SUPPOSED TO CHANGE.  Always has, always will.  This is not a static planet we live on.” - Maybe you missed that part. 

And, as I said and efficiently documented (Which you can easily find more of via Google), there is NOT a “Resounding” anything in the scientific community.  Not even close.  And, again, a “Consensus” does NOT equal Truth. 

We are at the crunch time here JFoster - We don’t have time for people to support and allow bullshit.  The GIVE Act just passed, we have non-existent money flowing out of the Federal Reserve into the Treasury, especially since they just monetized the debt, we have voracious Gun Control being presented - it doesn’t matter how or what you think about any of these things.  What it comes down to is the Government does NOT have the Authority or the Consent of the Governed for any of it. 

This Great Global Warming Scheme is a Money Making Operation.  Nothing more, nothing less.  Show me HARD Science that proves your claims because I can show you HARD Science that says otherwise.  There is no consensus on this subject because there’s no way in hell to predict Weather Patterns.  Just can’t be done.  While we waste time arguing a RIDICULOUS concept as “Fighting Global Climate Change” which, as we’ve both expressed is like fighting the Sun Rising, we have REAL environmental problems happening.  The demonization and possible criminalization of Carbon is preposterous.  The controlling of Carbon is Criminal because you and I both create it all day long.  You really are ready to hand over control of your body to a Government, ANY Government?  I’m not and I won’t.  Yet, you have people on here who CANNOT provide anything.  I’ve provided the very simple reasoning that someone has latched onto the inescapable fact this planet’s Climate will ALWAYS change and has figured out how to make money off it.

First it was another Ice Age was coming from Global Cooling, the it was famine, then it was overpopulation resulting in famine and pestilence, then it was the Ozone Hole, then it was Global Warming and now it’s “Global Climate Change”.  It rained more this Year - WHY - THAT’S GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!  It didn’t rain as much this year…The storms are bigger…the storms are smaller…it’s hotter…it’s colder…IT’S ALL GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE!

It’s a brilliant plan by those who will profit off of this - find something that’s a constant - i.e. the Fact that the Environment is NOT constant - and profit off it.  That’s what’s being done but the Government’s of the World have caught on as well and are now going to gain POWER and CONTROL from it. 

Yet, so many sit here and say simply “Global Warming is Real” and stop at that.

Report this

By JFoster2k, March 24, 2009 at 2:03 pm Link to this comment

Matt,

Despite your obnoxious retorts, unreasoned attacks and anecdotal “evidence”, I will give you credit on one thing… “How did the last ice age end?” is a good question. The answer espoused by many prominent geologists is volcanic activity.

While humans are contributing to climate change, we alone are not responsible for it. The most pronounced human factors are the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, but there are a myriad of other agents at work.

Nature is cyclical. Another ice age is inevitable. The earth wobbles on its axis and wobbles in its solar orbit. Even without the existance of humans the earth would go through cooling and warming trends over time due to it’s changing position relative to the sun. The real question is not “if”, it’s “when”.

To deny climate change is absurd on it’s face. You may as well deny the existence of wind or atomic particles (you can’t see them either). Our planet is ever-changing. Whether it be continental drift or global warming, the planet will do what it does.

What we need to ask ourselves is, “Are we accelerating the process?” The scientific community has said resoundingly, “Yes!”

Report this

By KDelphi, March 24, 2009 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Oh no…dont tell me youre just going to ‘debate” “global climate change” here…sigh..oh, well. Not much point here..I see that Jason!! is back. Hannity or Limbaugh mustve put out a conservative alert.

I was hoping that, at a progresive site, we wouldve moved beynod that. Debating it with these people is hopeless, peeps.

Report this

By samosamo, March 24, 2009 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Good to see Scott Ritter getting in on the ‘global warming’ issue though I am more inclined to believe that though global warming is happening, it is more to do with the inherent ice age cycle this planet goes through about every 100,000 years +/- 10,000 years of which the planet is about 2000 year from the beginning of the next ice age. And no doubt about the human factor in contributing to the natural warming of the ice age cycle which will contribute to the unpredictable and volatile weather this planet will endure. I am more of opinion to take the creation of more greenhouse gases as being unhealthy pollution that we the people have let corporations make us believe they must be allowed to do to ‘conduct a profitable business’ but that is at the expense of degradation of health of all life and the environment for those few people to rake in more money.
But one thing I believe is for sure and that is there is actually very little that can be done to stop the additional warming brought on by human activity from far far too many people. We have stripped much too much in the way of rain forests, both tropical and temperate, that used to be part of some control of the climate, but now it doesn’t matter because people will cut down the last tree, so to speak, just to keep warm or to make a big stack of money just because it would be the last tree standing. There is change coming and it is not just climate change and what some people call god, I call nature, and nature will take charge, so hurry up and buy your piece of mars because there is about the only place to avoid what is going to engulf this planet.

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 11:26 am Link to this comment

SteveK9 said: “Global warming is real.”

I refer you to my previous statement. 

Now, SteveK9 say’s he’s “A Scientist”.  What discipline?  In what field?  What specialty?  “I’m a Scientist” is like giving me advice on my neurosurgery and saying “It’s okay - I’m a doctor”.  Well, maybe so, but a Podiatrist isn’t going to help much here.  Please, some details.

As far as there not being much debate in the Scientific Community - Bull - Hogwash - LIE.  Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. 

This is from Science and Tech Magazine -

“The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists.

But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a “sham” given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings.

Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel.

“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed,” he said. “It’s not true.”“

How about Phillip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, who said “The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.  It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c.”

Oh, how about the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works -

“The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.”

Do you see how it’s not really “Global Warming” anymore but “Climate Change” now?  That’s because every time Gore showed up to premier his Power Point Presentation, the city would have one of the COLDEST DAYS ON RECORD.  So, it became “Climate Change” which is the most innocuous piece of tripe that I’ve ever heard.  And you people want LEGISLATION OFF OF THIS?  Here’s a piece of news - The Climate is SUPPOSED TO CHANGE.  Always has, always will.  This is not a static planet we live on.  We have had extreme warm periods - we have had ICE AGES for crap sakes.  You are about to be fleeced of Money and FREEDOM based on a bunch of BULLSHIT.  There is no “Consensus” and, even if there WAS, when did a “Consensus” equal TRUTH?  Tell Galileo, Magellan, Newton or Aristotle about a Consensus meaning truth and see what they have to say.

START USING YOUR BRAINS PEOPLE.

Report this

By paul bass, March 24, 2009 at 11:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

yes yes those sneaky sly scientists i always new they where up to no good… ever since that so called “polio vaccine” or “space exploration”

its a good thing people are catching on and opening up your eyes trow of the chains of literary and lets enjoy together the modern wonders jesus has given to us the chosen people


and remember its almost that time of the year god destroys city for homosexuality aka hurricane season so call your congress man and have them shut down the heretical national weather service and go to church.

Report this

By SteveK9, March 24, 2009 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Global warming is real.  I am a Scientist and despite what you may have heard there is no controversy about the effects of the rise in CO2 from fossil fuel burning in the Scientific community.  The National Academy of Sciences tried to settle this a couple of years ago with the statement that CO2-induced climate change is as certain as scientific theories get (perhaps paraphrasing a bit).  That is also the stated opinion of the Science Academies of 8 other scientifically-advanced nations.

It is not too late.  At least not too late to do some good, if too late to prevent any effects (e.g. the North Pole will be completely free of ice in the summer in all probability in less than a decade).

The answer is Nuclear Power.  Now I am annoying many on the left.  I encourage everyone to educate themselves on this.  There are many good places.  A recent book by Gwyneth Cravens: ‘Power to Save the World’ is written for a popular audience.

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 9:32 am Link to this comment

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” Vladimir Lenin

“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
William James - The father of modern Psychology

Have any of you REALLY thought about this?  REALLY followed the money on this issue?  REALLY considered the truth and veracity of this subject while considering the fact that there are men who are going to get even MORE immensely rich off of you?

Report this

By Matt M., March 24, 2009 at 9:20 am Link to this comment

Greystone,
That was the most non-sensical response I’ve ever heard.  I want one simple, reasoned and intellectual answer to this question - How did the last Ice Age end?

Christ on a Crutch - CARBON DIOXIDE IS ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE ON EARTH!!!  Water Vapor is the leading cause of Atmospheric Heat and IT’S A GOOD THING!  You wanna get rid of that too?  Anybody ever really compared the number of people who are reported as killed by heat in the summer when they didn’t have an air conditioner and the number killed by cold in the winter who didn’t have a heater?  Go ahead, look it up.  Humans survive better in warmer weather than in colder.  Besides, there is no Global Warming.  Good lord, weathermen can’t even tell me if it’s gonna rain on Friday and you idiots really believe that some Climate Model can tell you this kind of intricate and detailed information?  Oh, that’s right.  You have Al Gore.  Wow, lucky you.  The man’s making money hand over fist off you people.

Report this

By greystone, March 24, 2009 at 9:10 am Link to this comment

voice of truth. funny handle. but not from your perspective. k. so. I think you might be wrong on that 5 per cent. I think power plants are the primaries with autos coming in second at 19 per cent. 
Just finished reading “The Revenge of Gaia” by J Lovelock.  He says something about remembering how to hear our instinct and mine is well I’ve watched dumbfounded while we develop. funny word for desecration.
Tending to think now that we better aim for damage control. In response to the damage we seemingly were un aware we were doing, there will be I think a physical response= incoming damage from the animate inanimate system which we are of but a part.
Too voice of truth I love humanity but don’t you too feel a little crowded?

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook