Itz coming

[Cleve Blakemore]

http://www.rense.com/general38/alert.htm

[DennyA]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

(The above should be the standard response from all QT3 members to any posts by said poster. Thank you for your cooperation.)

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

And for a quick copy and paste:


Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Gary Whitta]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Brian Koontz]

Well... I think Cleve's departure was very much up in the air... its not exactly shocking to see another post from him.

Shall I make constant replies to Met_K referring to when he said he was going to ban himself?

[Met_K]

Well... I think Cleve's departure was very much up in the air... its not exactly shocking to see another post from him.

Shall I make constant replies to Met_K referring to when he said he was going to ban himself?

I can't ban myself, actually. Though that'd be kind of like that time that... well. Inside jokes. Only I'll get it.

The point: Tom and Mark will probably ban me if Cleve comes back.

[bmulligan]

So, did anyone read the article? I know you all clicked the link.....

This type of scaremongering smells just like a commie liberal environmentalist tactic. Big deal, so we set another record for tornadoes. Could it be that there are more whether freaks looking for tornadoes today? Could it be that areas are more populated today and therefore more tornadoes are identified and reported since there are more people covering more surface area? Give me a break.

Global average land and sea surface temperatures in May 2003 were the second highest since records began in 1880
Wow, thats good science. How accurate were records about the weather in 1880? How can we determine the average temperatures as significantly higher it could be becuse of our accuracy and volume of data availible today.

Case in point: there were only 205 tornadoes reported in 1950. Most of the tornadoes that occurred, probably didn't get reported because there weren't people there to observe them and report them. Tornadoes don't just 'appear' in someones database from a radar picture. They have to be seen and reported to the National Weather Service. And in 1950, there simply werent the same number of populated areas to have seen all the tornadoes that touched down.

Ooooh,Ooooh, please help us from all the impending destruction. God must be seeking his revenge for our sins!!!

Fuck you Cleve. Stop being such a crybaby an post one of your ramblings instead of just popping in an idiotic link.

[Jason Lutes]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

And let's not forget this chestnut:


I've had it with you fuggin' halfwits, I heard this board was slightly better quality than Usenet, truth is it is where all the worst retards crawled off to die. I can't fathom why I would waste one second's worth of brain power talking to you crispy critters, you've all got OBSOLETE stamped on your forehead in giant letters. Remember to smile for the contrails and wave your TV guides.

[Jason Lutes]

Ooooh,Ooooh, please help us from all the impending destruction. God must be seeking his revenge for our sins!!!

Call it God, call it Gaia, call it Progress -- If you think the world's ecosystems, watersheds, and weather patterns haven't changed dramatically for the worse (as far as the human race is concerned) in your own lifetime, you're living under a rock. The excuse that extreme environmental shifts have occurred over millennia and we're just going through another inconsequential down phase right now just doesn't hold, unless you think a 40% thinning of polar ice in the last 30 years is business as usual, and something we'll all be happy about in another 30 years.

More importantly though, I'd be interested to hear your theory as to why you think commie liberal enivronmentalists undertake such extensive scaremongering. What exactly do you think they have to gain from it? Are they lining their pockets by trying to establish more strict environmental regulations? Are organized groups of the world's foremost climatologists and oceanographers promoting some sort of secret commie agenda, or are they just getting together to smoke crack?

[Mark Asher]

"More importantly though, I'd be interested to hear your theory as to why you think commie liberal enivronmentalists undertake such extensive scaremongering. What exactly do you think they have to gain from it? Are they lining their pockets by trying to establish more strict environmental regulations? Are organized groups of the world's foremost climatologists and oceanographers promoting some sort of secret commie agenda, or are they just getting together to smoke crack?"

And look who fight against the idea that we need to take dramatic action to protect the environment -- the politicians who represent the monied class, the people with business interests who will see their cost of doing business increased. These people do have a vested interest in fighting against environmental protection measures.

Who would you trust? The scientists who have nothing at stake but their reputations, or the people who are mostly worried about making sure they maintain their profit margins?

And wouldn't you rather err on the side of protecting the environment? It's much easier for businesses to retool than it is to restore the polar ice caps and lower the sea levels.

[Linoleum]

Once upon a time, there were dairy farms in Greenland. (http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/)

[Rywill]

Who would you trust? The scientists who have nothing at stake but their reputations, or the people who are mostly worried about making sure they maintain their profit margins?
Well, that's a little facile. You don't think scientists have agendas? You don't think, for example, that folks get more grant money if they say they're studying a problem that threatens the existence of civilization? That doesn't mean the scientists aren't right. But it's false to suggest that scientists, unlike any other class of people, have no reason to speak anything but the truth.


And wouldn't you rather err on the side of protecting the environment? It's much easier for businesses to retool than it is to restore the polar ice caps and lower the sea levels.
Also way too simplistic a response. Obviously a tradeoff must be made. It's not enough to say simply "We should err on the side of protecting the environment, because it's easier to reduce possible harms than rectify later damage." By that logic, we should eliminate all factories and power production and live as hunter-gatherers. We need to make an informed decision about the probable risks and probable gains of each industrial advance (either "upward" advance in the form of increasing technology, or "outward" advance in the form of more of the same). I agree that caution is needed, but I think we really don't understand what is going on with the weather. It could be that it's a natural cycle. It could be that it's caused by things other than industry--such as the vastly increased number of domestic food animals like cows. There are a lot of questions unanswered, and a knee-jerk reaction is not appropriate.

[Jason McCullough]

The "scientists making up 1 trillion dollar policy suggestions just to get some more grant money" thing is a tad absurd.

These two statements are true to the best of scientific knowledge:

1) Humanity has significantly increased the heat-absorbing (carbon, soot, methane) content of the atmosphere in the last few decades.
2) This will tend to make the planet hotter.

"Maybe the earth is getting hotter anyway" isn't much of an answer; don't we want to stablize the planet's temperature through active management? I doubt we're just going to suck it up the next Ice Age that comes along.

Oh, and if cow-produced methane is doing it all, why does that make it ok to melt the ice caps?

[Jason Lutes]

Also way too simplistic a response. Obviously a tradeoff must be made. It's not enough to say simply "We should err on the side of protecting the environment, because it's easier to reduce possible harms than rectify later damage." By that logic, we should eliminate all factories and power production and live as hunter-gatherers. We need to make an informed decision about the probable risks and probable gains of each industrial advance (either "upward" advance in the form of increasing technology, or "outward" advance in the form of more of the same). I agree that caution is needed, but I think we really don't understand what is going on with the weather. It could be that it's a natural cycle. It could be that it's caused by things other than industry--such as the vastly increased number of domestic food animals like cows. There are a lot of questions unanswered, and a knee-jerk reaction is not appropriate.

I think Mark is simplifying things because that's how desperate things feel to those of us concerned about this stuff. I completely agree that scientists have their own agendas and that we clearly can't just revert back to hunter-gatherers, but the idea that what's been happening is part of a "nautral cycle" is ludicrous unless you consider the isolated economic and industrial systems with which we are rendering the world unlivable to be "natural." This may in fact be a valid interpretation, but not one that'll keep the shit from hitting the fan any faster than it already is.

I personally have had it with a "cautious" approach. "Caution" is always trundled out whenever an environmental concern threatens to curtail profits or inconvenience those people who have sense of entitlement about their place in the world. Why did Bush refuse to sign on to the Kyoto Protocols? Because it would have given Europe an economic edge and hindered American industry. What Mark says is basically true: the people in power have a vested interest in keeping regulation to a minimum. They're gonna fight anything that threatens to put a dent in their profits until the sewage is lapping at the back door of their vacation home.

Also, "the vastly increased number of domestic food animals" is in fact industrial in nature. It's called factory farming or industrial agriculture. Most of the world's cattle are raised by or for the fast food corporations.

[Rywill]

The "scientists making up 1 trillion dollar policy suggestions just to get some more grant money" thing is a tad absurd.
No more or less absurd than your "industrialists dooming the planet to ruin just to get some more factory money" theory.



"Maybe the earth is getting hotter anyway" isn't much of an answer; don't we want to stablize the planet's temperature through active management? I doubt we're just going to suck it up the next Ice Age that comes along.

Oh, and if cow-produced methane is doing it all, why does that make it ok to melt the ice caps?
It doesn't. But it would mean that reducing factory emissions isn't going to save the ice caps. My point is not that nothing should be done; it's that we don't know what should be done or, if we're really honest about it, whether anything (a) needs to be done; and (b) can be done.

[Jason McCullough]

If cows are doing it all, sure, but scientists don't think they are; they think they're one component. If factory emissions and cows both increase temperatures, it doesn't follow that cutting cows is the only course of action.

The "we don't know what to do" thing is getting tiresome. We *do* know what to do; either cut emissions or actively take it out of the air somehow. Check out these interesting (http://www.tnr.com/072301/easterbrook072301.html) plans from Easterbrook. The problem here is that business refuses to do anything, anything at all; they even oppose carbon emission cap-trading, for god's sakes, which would cost like about $12.

[Rywill]

the idea that what's been happening is part of a "nautral cycle" is ludicrous unless you consider the isolated economic and industrial systems with which we are rendering the world unlivable to be "natural."
First off, like I said, nobody is sure how much the world's temperature is increasing, and nobody is even remotely sure whether its increasing because of things we've done or because of a natural cycle. We just haven't kept records long enough, and don't understand how the weather works well enough, to know what is happening or what, if anything, can be done about it.

You assume in your statement that industrial systems are the cause of any heat increase, but that's just a tautology: you're basically saying, "If I am right, then I am right." Well, I agree with that statement as a matter of logic, but I am not sure that you are right as a matter of fact. Also, you assume that the planet is being rendered "unliveable," and I don't know that that's true either (and I'm not just saying "It won't be literally unliveable because some people will live." I'm saying I don't know that any appreciable damaging change is being done. Do we need cleaner air? Hell yeah, especially here in LA! Does the air pollution irrevocably inflict large-scale damage to the Earth? I don't know that it does).


I personally have had it with a "cautious" approach. "Caution" is always trundled out whenever an environmental concern threatens to curtail profits or inconvenience those people who have sense of entitlement about their place in the world.
Again, it's all a matter of perspective. You may feel that you have no stake in business or industry and therefore have nothing to lose, and everything to gain, by taking an aggressive approach to environmental protection. That's fine. But it's no more or less selfish than what you accuse the businesspeople of doing. The only difference between the two of you is that they have power and you don't.

Like I said, there's a balance that needs to be struck between industry and the environment. Simply saying "I'm sick of industry and the environment should take precedence" is not enough, IMO, because it doesn't justify your balance as being any better than the current balance. Unless you're advocating elimination of industry entirely (and I know you said you're not advocating that), the argument just doesn't hold up.


What Mark says is basically true: the people in power have a vested interest in keeping regulation to a minimum. They're gonna fight anything that threatens to put a dent in their profits until the sewage is lapping at the back door of their vacation home.
Absolutely. I agree. Everyone has an agenda and wants to protect whatever it is that benefits them, most assuredly including the representatives of industry. I have no doubt that if they thought they could gain extra profits at the expense of ruining the planet in 150 years, they'd think, "Well, I'm sure someone will fix it later" and charge on ahead. Recognizing that both sides have an agenda is helpful, but doesn't solve the problem. You can't just say "industry has an agenda, let's do everything the opposite of what industry wants!" any more than the folks on the other side could say that environmental groups have an agenda and we should do the opposite of what they want.


Also, "the vastly increased number of domestic food animals" is in fact industrial in nature. It's called factory farming or industrial agriculture. Most of the world's cattle are raised by or for the fast food corporations.
Technically true, but not relevant to this discussion. I was using "industrial" in its common sense, meaning manufacturing and other such processes, and I think everyone understood that. My point was simply that people saying "We need to reduce factory output!" don't necessarily know what they're talking about and, if we followed their advice, we might incur serious hardship for no gain. Maybe we should keep factories but all become vegetarians. Nobody knows.

[Jason McCullough]

"Destroy factories" is not the same as "build anti-pollution measures with taxes on factories, or carbon trading".

[Rob Slater]

Well, that's a little facile. You don't think scientists have agendas? You don't think, for example, that folks get more grant money if they say they're studying a problem that threatens the existence of civilization? That doesn't mean the scientists aren't right. But it's false to suggest that scientists, unlike any other class of people, have no reason to speak anything but the truth.

I realize it's gone out of fashion, but I'd like to knock around the idea that peer reviewed research has a long history of producing good results with regards to screening data, refining hypotheses and predictions, and producing real-world applications. While it may be more emotionally satisfying for certain people to believe that there's a worldwide conspiracy among geologists, meteorologists, and climatologists with aligned interests in promoting ecological conservation to slow, halt, or even reverse the march of progress, perhaps that very emotional satisfaction is telling about the objectivity of those people.

To alter a phrase, the wheels of science grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine.

[Rob Slater]

Also way too simplistic a response. Obviously a tradeoff must be made. It's not enough to say simply "We should err on the side of protecting the environment, because it's easier to reduce possible harms than rectify later damage." By that logic, we should eliminate all factories and power production and live as hunter-gatherers. We need to make an informed decision about the probable risks and probable gains of each industrial advance (either "upward" advance in the form of increasing technology, or "outward" advance in the form of more of the same). I agree that caution is needed, but I think we really don't understand what is going on with the weather. It could be that it's a natural cycle. It could be that it's caused by things other than industry--such as the vastly increased number of domestic food animals like cows. There are a lot of questions unanswered, and a knee-jerk reaction is not appropriate.

I think it is more accurate to say that you and I, not professionally studying weather or the climate, don't really understand what is going on with the weather. Not having studied in the field or being conversant with its research publications, organizations, or conferences, we're not really up on the state-of-the art with regards to weather prediction or climatology. I don't think that you or I are necessarily the appropriate people to say what is or isn't understood about what is going on with the weather. The fact that you are willing to ascribe observed increased volatility in a system as complex as global weather and climate to as improbable a single cause as an increase in domestic food animals, however, doesn't lead me to believe in your credibility. As a rhetorical flourish, perhaps it works in a common-man "Science is complicated. I don't trust what I don't understand." kind of way, but as a point of discussion in a topic area where there is real data and testable predictions and a great deal of study, it falls very short.

Yay, post padding! I'm not sure that I'm really in the running for anything here with posts, but two replies to the same post must count for something.

[DennyA]

You people can't follow instructions worth a damn, you lousy bunch of troll nippers.

[Jason Lutes]

Nobody knows.

First of all, Rywill, I appreciate you engaging in this conversation in a civil manner. This subject is one that's pretty easy for people to get riled up and irrational about, and it's worth noting whenever a messageboard dialogue doesn't devolve entirely within three posts.

I could respond to the idea that "nobody knows" in any number of ways. I could spend an hour finding articles and reports to back up my perspective on any given environmental issue, and you could do the same in response. I could try to make my points rationally and logically, and you could do the same, but smarter people than us have already done better jobs of it elsewhere. I'm the first to admit that my understanding of these issues is limited to a layman's perspective, gleaned largely from secondary sources.

I'm tired of "nobody knows," because our current way of life is unsustainable, and ignorance is no excuse for allowing that to continue. The logical, rational arguments of pro and con pundits (amateur or professional) will likely go back and forth in a perfect, counterbalanced harmony while the world winds down around them, so that arena is of little interest to me. In the end, I'm left with my gut feeling, and over the years, as I've paid more and more attention to my surroundings, that feeling can be summarized, basically, as If we don't do something, we're fucked.

I'm not talking about the dismantling of the industrial economy, although that idea certainly has visceral appeal. All I can do as an individual is try to identify the decisions I can make that will have a positive impact and choose accordingly. In my personal life that means I don't own a car, I buy only locally-grown and organic food, and I don't buy from companies with poor environmental or labor practices. Computer gaming is my big sin in that regard, my personal hypocritical indulgence. But even with that in my favor, I guess I still qualify as a commie liberal environmentalist.

It's true that nobody knows, conclusively, the true extent of damage caused by CO2 emissions, whether or not the thinning of National Forests is better or worse for tree health, or what the environemental impacts of GMOs will be ten years down the line. But I do know what I feel about those things, and will act accordingly.

[Rywill]

(Reply to Rob)
What testable predictions? The predictions, and the test results, are inconclusive at least insofar as what is causing the buildup of greenhouse gases, as the scientists themselves admit. I'm all for science and peer-reviewed work, but I think you're missing the point of today's discussion. There's widespread agreement that greehouse gases are building up, and at least a growing consensus that the planet is getting warmer. My point is that nobody knows why, or how much. Since you're a big fan of science, I guess you're going to have to agree with me, because the scientists (http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/science/03/14/greenhouse.gases.02/index.html) are on my side:


In fact, whether this greenhouse effect will lead to global warming or global cooling is unclear, the study scientists said.

The greenhouse effect could start a cycle in which more clouds are formed, stopping the sun's energy from reaching Earth's surface in the first place, Harries said.

"The effect of clouds on the planet is very complex, and frankly we don't understand it," Harries said.

Even if these folks hadn't already come right out and said that they don't know for sure what causes this or what factors are most important, a lay person like you or me can pick up on that pretty easily. Some scientists have come to tentative conclusions about what is going on, but the conclusions from different groups vary signficantly enough that I--even without understanding by what methods the conclusions were reached--can understand that the varying coclusions indicate the problem isn't really understood at this point. A friend of mine is a PhD atmospheric chemist, and I assure you, she and her colleagues are still trying to understand even small pieces of how the whole system works.

As for cows contributing to global warning, don't take it from me, take it from scientists again (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/06/13/offbeat.cow.breath.ap/index.html). I'm obviously being flip when I say "maybe we should all become vegetarians"; my point is just that nobody knows how this all works and jumping into a painful solution now is probably not the right idea. Cows are just one example--various scientists have made good claims that things like wildfires (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/11/06/wildfire.warming/index.html) or deforestation (http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9812/31/landscape.enn/index.html) are primary contributors. Until we know more, the idea of clamping down on factories is probably premature.

I'm all for trying to find ways to clean up their emissions, as Jason alluded to. But your implication that scientists have published peer-reviewed work that lays out the mechanisms of global warming, and points to a solution that we are just too ignorant or resistent to implement, is untrue.

[Rywill]

First of all, Rywill, I appreciate you engaging in this conversation in a civil manner. This subject is one that's pretty easy for people to get riled up and irrational about, and it's worth noting whenever a messageboard dialogue doesn't devolve entirely within three posts.
Not to turn this into a lovefest, but same back to you. WRT the rest of your post, we'll just agree to disagree, I guess. Everyone has to live by their own lights, and I respect you for putting your money where your mouth is and living by yours (I'm always willing to cut people slack when they make exceptions for computer games :wink: ).

It's not that I'm unconcerned about the environment. I don't own a car either (although I have a motorcycle), and I took a bicycle and the train to work until I had four bicycles stolen in 18 months and decided it wasn't worth it anymore. It's just that I think we don't understand what is happening well enough to engage in drastic solutions at this point. But I understand your feelings on the matter.

[bmulligan]

Call it God, call it Gaia, call it Progress -- If you think the world's ecosystems, watersheds, and weather patterns haven't changed dramatically for the worse (as far as the human race is concerned) in your own lifetime, you're living under a rock. The excuse that extreme environmental shifts have occurred over millennia and we're just going through another inconsequential down phase right now just doesn't hold, unless you think a 40% thinning of polar ice in the last 30 years is business as usual, and something we'll all be happy about in another 30 years.

More importantly though, I'd be interested to hear your theory as to why you think commie liberal enivronmentalists undertake such extensive scaremongering. What exactly do you think they have to gain from it? Are they lining their pockets by trying to establish more strict environmental regulations? Are organized groups of the world's foremost climatologists and oceanographers promoting some sort of secret commie agenda, or are they just getting together to smoke crack?

Let me crawl out from under my rock for a minute and explain something to your earthcentric spongebrain. It's short sighted to think that all things on the earth stay the same for any amount of time. Things change and it does not necessarily follow that all change is bad. Whether they have changed becuase of humans cannot be proven, only theorized. And if I am unable to determine 'business as usual', what gives you that special power? Do you have the power like Cleve to step back and analyze in your genius mind the patterns of the earths climate for 4 billion years?

My theory of scaremongering by environmentalists is not theory. It's a fact that they blame human industrial progress for every fault in the environment and their objective is to forcibly remove our system of capitalism and replace it with their own agenda of control, moderation and eliminate freedom of choice.

Power is the incentive. The power of knowledge is tantamount to controlling the world. When clerics told masses that eclipses were due to the anger of the gods, they could control them. When the astronomers told the pope that the sun went around the earth, they gained favor, while the truth made you an outcast.

How do scientists benefit? Well, the ones who say what is pollitically expedient, get money for their research as mentioned in earlier posts. Politicians use them to forward their attempt to gain power. The more accepted their research becomes, the more they are commissioned for additional study. As long as this research is parallel with a political agenda, they gain favor with the pope. Tell me none of these scientists enjoy their elevated status, especially within their own community. In the egocentric acedemic world, status is king.

Let's say I accept your premise, that the world is on the road to environmental collapse. What should we do? Eliminate freedom and let those with the 'knowledge' lead us back to the garden? No, we should use our power to eliminate the things we think are bad. Don't go to McDonalds. Don't drive a car. Don't buy that dispossable razor. Educate your friends, family, associates. The power we hold as mass consumers is supreme. Those big, bad corporations could not exist without our dollars, so stop feeding them. Why is it always the governments responsibility to clean up our mess when we are too lazy to do it ourselves?

[Robert Sharp]

This reminds me of an anecdotal story. Last summer I had to have an AC repairman come out and look at my unit (umm, my AC unit!). While he was working on it, I mentioned how hot it had been lately (last summer was VERY hot here..this summer is not so bad so far). Jokingly, I said, "Guess global warming is catching up to us!" He turned and laughed a bit and said, "I don't believe in that shit. They say that it's caused by cows farting, but that can't be right. Cows have been around for a long time, and they didn't cause any problems before." All I could do was stare at him. I had no reply.

I guess I COULD have explained that there are more cows around now because we breed more of them to make food and milk, etc. But it was clear that he had figured the whole thing out, so I figured why bother.

[bmulligan]

so then he said,"Looks like you need a new compressor, that'll be $400," and thought.....you damn environmentalist whako nut........

[MikeOberly]

Jokingly, I said, "Guess global warming is catching up to us!" He turned and laughed a bit and said, "I don't believe in that shit. They say that it's caused by cows farting, but that can't be right. Cows have been around for a long time, and they didn't cause any problems before." All I could do was stare at him. I had no reply.


Your AC repairman was on the right track,but since global warming is actually caused by mammals farting(not just cows),his database was inaccurate.This issue certainly calls for further study.

[bmulligan]

If we could only find a way to harness all of the farting, we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. Damn, there goes another puff of potential energy.

[Cleve Blakemore]

In spite of all the links I've posted up here, there is not ONE of you chattering primates that "gets" it. Not one. You babble for 29 posts about meaningless trivia and not a single one of you has the slightest clue what is going on. Your brains are useless for anything but random generation of inane, off-topic chittering.

It's natural. It's cyclic. It's not about warming. It's about cooling. Very, very quickly. Mammoths from the last ice age were found snap-frozen with tropical grasses in their stomaches undigested. We now know the severe ice ages are always preceded by a brief period of warmth which is countered by thermohaline reversal in the ocean currents. These cycles occur at 11,500 years like clockwork. Guess when the last severe, prolonged ice age occurred?

Warmth = Precipitation = Epic, Biblical storms During Transitional Period = Surreal Snowfall = Glacier Advancement = Ice Age II

Read THE COMING GLOBAL SUPERSTORM.

I'm not giving you people any more free hints. I'm too bright to even be posting to this board. I just thought I'd give you confirmation by the WMO that what I've posted previously to this board about the coming ice age has all been accurate.

In twenty years, it is likely most of North America will be largely submerged under a 30 foot layer of permafrost.

Build an underground shelter at a high altitude and stock it with food, water and resources.

This is your last free warning, I can't waste any more time with idiots like yourselves. Thought maybe the WMO would jog your memory ... "Hey! This is like what Cleve was talking about 7 days ago!"

Some people are simply not intended by nature to survive. They are animals, programmed to die like grasshoppers when the winter comes.

http://iceagenow.com/

[Rywill]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Creole Ned]

For Denny. ;)


Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Gary Whitta]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

You're all fucking morons. I agree with Cleve on that.

[quatoria]

My theory of scaremongering by environmentalists is not theory. It's a fact that they blame human industrial progress for every fault in the environment and their objective is to forcibly remove our system of capitalism and replace it with their own agenda of control, moderation and eliminate freedom of choice.

Wow. I think, outside of Cleve, I have never encountered this much rampant paranoia in one fleshy package.

[hermyhermit]

My theory of scaremongering by environmentalists is not theory. It's a fact that they blame human industrial progress for every fault in the environment and their objective is to forcibly remove our system of capitalism and replace it with their own agenda of control, moderation and eliminate freedom of choice.

Wow. I think, outside of Cleve, I have never encountered this much rampant paranoia in one fleshy package.


Nor have I ever encountered such judgemental hubris in one package. Welcome to the party!

[bmulligan]

My theory of scaremongering by environmentalists is not theory. It's a fact that they blame human industrial progress for every fault in the environment and their objective is to forcibly remove our system of capitalism and replace it with their own agenda of control, moderation and eliminate freedom of choice.

Wow. I think, outside of Cleve, I have never encountered this much rampant paranoia in one fleshy package.

The wind blows left and the blind troll follows it back to his bridge. There he awaits further instruction from his moral and philisophical superiors.

[Jason Lutes]

Cleve, bmulligan, hermyhermit...

I http://www.lightlife.com/images/heart.jpg YOU GUYS!!!

*sniff*

[JeffL]

A couple of FWIW comments:

First, lumping all "scientists" into one homogeneous clump and saying "scientists" believe this or that is as fallacious as saying "writers all believe xxx". I've had a bit of scientific training, and I live and work in that world. Scientists are as varied as anyone else - both in their training, their expertise, their "smarts", and their agendas. There are as many well written papers by good scientists questioning the reasoning for various observed meterological occurrences (and what they mean) as there are by those claiming they know the reason.

Scientists, depending on where they come from and how they make their living and their own political background (yeah, scientists are people with conservative, moderate, and liberal backgrounds) have a lot of agendas. Some make a living off of global warming, via speeches, consulting, books, etc. Some are making a good career working in large industrial firms leading R&D on how to transform the company away from fossil fuel bases to more sustainable feedstocks.

I've read most of the papers and symposium proceedings on global warming and the hypotheses on its origins. I've gone back and forth on whether what we're seeing is indeed a natural cycle (the length of the cycle would be the question - we're so hung up on human perspectives that we feel like 50 to 150 years is a significant length of time). My opinion from all that I can read on both sides is that there are atmospheric changes that are a result of the contribution of all of the fuel that is burned in the world. But I also think that we don't have enough historical data to really understand the difference between what we're seeing today versus what has happened over the last 200, 400, 500 years or so.

On a political note - my problem with the Kyoto treaties was that it basically looked targeted at the US with some major economic impact beyond what the average person realizes. While at the same time letting most other nations with the most aggregious atmospheric polluting industries do whatever the hell they wanted (yeah, the US has the most but with the air regulations it's surprising how clean most major US plants are - believe me, I've gone to visit factories and plants around the world and they are unbearably bad.)

And one last note - most major US industrial companies are actively pursuing science and technology to move away from gas and oil feedstocks. The problem is not trivial - most alternatives have their own sets of drawbacks. But companies are spending major bucks trying to crack that nut.

FWIW

[Jason Lutes]

Thanks, Jeff. I think you're one of those aforementioned "people who are smarter than me," and I appreciate your take on the situation.

[JeffL]

Thanks, Jeff. I think you're one of those aforementioned "people who are smarter than me," and I appreciate your take on the situation.

LOL! No, I'm not smarter than anyone, just went to school in a different field. Some of the dumbest people I've ever met in my life were scientists.

The best scientists are quite slow to jump to the "answer" part of an issue (in fact, it's what makes being a manager of scientists somewhat frustrating some times) - good scientists are sceptics by training. The formal scientific method is even sceptical by its very nature: once you develop a hypothesis, you don't try to prove it - good scientific method proscribes that you try to disprove it. But scientists are just people, like writers, accountants, lawyers, preachers, etc. with all the baggage of agendas, opinions, quirks, etc.

[Robert Sharp]

Jeff's point is a good one. We often fall back on the "scientists say" line, which is often dangerous. Science works with models, which can be either more or less effective at predicting situations than other models. They don't work with metaphysics, and they don't try to explain things in the way people usually attribute to them. Instead, they develop ways of looking at the world (usually theories) that are meant to predict things or affirm connections between things. So, for example, the big bang as a theory is meant to describe the way the universe started. It's a model, and there is evidence suggesting it is a good model. However, it doesn't explain much because no one can explain how or why things happened this way. they can only try to suggest that it did happen this way (or might have). On the other side, the Ptolemaic view of the universe (earth as the center) worked as a model. They could predict eclipses and everything, but it was much more complicated than the later Copernican model (sun as center).

My point is not that the Copernican model isn't better (it is), but that scientists can often make their models FIT the situation, even if it isn't the best model available and can even be misleading (or inaccurate) about what is happening. Cleve can cite some scientist(s) that think an Ice Age is coming. Others can cite some that say the opposite. Both groups will have evidence to support their views, but both cannot be right. Cleve seems to find the most oddball theories out there (in the sense that there is very little consensus on them) and then take them to be the only right views. Fortunately, that doesn't make them right. Of course, we have to remember that consensus alone doesn't make something right either. Scientists vary wildly, as Jeff suggests, and since most of us cannot really check the data for ourselves we have to listen to the arguments these scientists give us and hope we buy into the right one. Not that it makes much of a difference since the world doesn't really seem to care what we believe to be true.

[bmulligan]

Sharp-

Sometimes I wish my head were as level as yours.

[Mark Asher]

"My theory of scaremongering by environmentalists is not theory. It's a fact that they blame human industrial progress for every fault in the environment and their objective is to forcibly remove our system of capitalism and replace it with their own agenda of control, moderation and eliminate freedom of choice."

Environmentalists wanto to get rid of capitalism? Wow, did Rush Limbaugh tell you that? That's some far out stuff.

[bmulligan]

Yes, the environmentalists do. I know many of them. The University of Michigan is FULL of them and I know many environmental 'activists'. Not joe hippy protestors, but faculty at the U of M and local branches of envoronmental groups. These people belive at their core that capitalism is the cause of the earth's destruction and are seeking an installation of an alternative form of economics to fit their philosophy. They want control whether by appointment or by proxy. It's not 'far out stuff' as you might think.

The scary thing is that they recruit young minds in college with their ideas of global demise. Young adults whose moral cement has not yet cured. They're indoctrinated into an umbrella of altruism before they even really understand econimics, politics, and philosophy. I used to be one of them but, thankfully, was able to snap out of it.

Yes, there is science for both sides of the argument, but the destruction theories get the most airtime in the mass media for some reason.

And no, Rush Limbaugh is not a personal friend of mine.

[Tom Chick]

Sometimes I wish my head were as level as yours.

After reading the previous post, I think many of us agree.

-Tom

[MikeOberly]

I'm relieved that we're all gonna die in a new ice age,since Cleve really had me worried about dying a twitching death from radiation poisoning.Finally,something to look forward to.

[Aeroplane]

Yes, the environmentalists do. I know many of them. The University of Michigan is FULL of them and I know many environmental 'activists'. Not joe hippy protestors, but faculty at the U of M and local branches of envoronmental groups. These people belive at their core that capitalism is the cause of the earth's destruction and are seeking an installation of an alternative form of economics to fit their philosophy. They want control whether by appointment or by proxy. It's not 'far out stuff' as you might think.

There are certainly a number of environmentalists who think this way, but it isn't accurate to claim that they all do. I know many environmentalists myself, and quite a few of them don't think that capitalism is the cause of all of the earth's problems. Additionally, there are valid criticisms to be leveled at capitalism. The profit motive is not the one, true measure of whether an action is right or wrong. History is replete with examples of actions being taken in the name of capitalism and profit that were detrimental to the people and the environment. This is why so many industrialized nations had labor movements in the past, and part of why you see such an environmental push now. Capitalism survived the labor movement, and was actually improved by it. I am confident that the same will be true of the environmentalist movement.

Though I think that capitalism is the best economic model we have found so far, it is by no means perfect. We don't practice laissez-faire capitalism, because experience has shown that we need some restrictions in place to prevent abuses of the system. There are compelling arguments for preserving natural resources and taking better care of the environment. However, problems do arise when environmental "true believers" begin to think that environmental concerns always trump economic concerns. The fact that the profit motive has driven decisions that cause environmental harm does not mean the the profit motive should be eliminated, just that it needs to be applied more judiciously in certain circumstances.


The scary thing is that they recruit young minds in college with their ideas of global demise. Young adults whose moral cement has not yet cured. They're indoctrinated into an umbrella of altruism before they even really understand econimics, politics, and philosophy. I used to be one of them but, thankfully, was able to snap out of it.

People are indoctrinated into all kinds of ideas in college. Although academia clearly has a more liberal bent than the society at large, there are also campus Republicans and Stuents for Objectivism and all kinds of groups vying for impressionable minds alongside the environmentalists and altruists. Ideally, we would teach people to think and to reason before they get to college, so they are able to make informed, rational decisions when they are presented with all the new ideas they run into on campus. Unfortunately, the American education system has to a large degree abandoned the task of teaching children how to think.

[quatoria]

The scary thing is that they recruit young minds in college with their ideas of global demise. Young adults whose moral cement has not yet cured. They're indoctrinated into an umbrella of altruism before they even really understand econimics, politics, and philosophy.

Wait, now you're calling altruism a bad thing? "Damn those philanthropists! Are there no orphanages? No poor houses?"

[Cleve Blakemore]

I'm relieved that we're all gonna die in a new ice age,since Cleve really had me worried about dying a twitching death from radiation poisoning.Finally,something to look forward to.

Actually you're going to twitch and freeze at the same time. The twitching will likely generate enough body warmth to keep you alive long enough to die of the rad sickness, then you'll freeze. All the while hacking up huge gobs of mucus from various pandemic influenzas.

[bmulligan]

Yes, altruism is a bad thing when it is forced upon you. When freedom is the cost, then the price of altruism is too high.


There are certainly a number of environmentalists who think this way, but it isn't accurate to claim that they all do.

Neither is your assesment of my claim, I did not say ALL.


The profit motive is not the one, true measure of whether an action is right or wrong.

Yes, it is. If a product is a detriment to the environment, then don't buy it. It is not profitable for you to create a demand for something that is destructive.


Though I think that capitalism is the best economic model we have found so far, it is by no means perfect. We don't practice laissez-faire capitalism, because experience has shown that we need some restrictions in place to prevent abuses of the system

Capitalism is a natural occurance in a free society. It is not a 'model' to be implemented. The restrictions should be made by the choices we make in our transactions. The reason we don't practice "laissez-faire" capitalism, is that some have realized that there is profit in contolling the restrictions. It's why your sugar is artifically inflated, your milk, the steel in your cars and buildings.

And, Tom, I said I wished for a 'level' head, not one that leans to the left like some of you.

[Tom Chick]

And, Tom, I said I wished for a 'level' head, not one that leans to the left like some of you.

Actually, I don't lean to the left at all. I just appreciated the level of discourse between folks like Ryan, Jason, and Jeff who can disagree without resorting to polemics.

FWIW, you and I probably have similar conclusions on environmental issues. The difference is that I don't need to demonize the other side as a monolithic movement trying to control the government and indoctrinate young minds with 'wet moral cement'. With crap like that, you're just as bad as the people you're supposedly railing against.

-Tom

[Aeroplane]

The profit motive is not the one, true measure of whether an action is right or wrong.

Yes, it is. If a product is a detriment to the environment, then don't buy it. It is not profitable for you to create a demand for something that is destructive.

Of course it is. People have created demand for fossil fuels, for instance. These are demonstrably destructive, and highly profitable. People will hunt animals into extinction without legislative barriers against doing so, because it is profitable to do so while they are alive. It is true that in the long term it is not profitable to create a demand for something that is destructive, but people are not in general concerned with the long term. If they can make a buck now, most will, regardless of the long-term consequences.



Though I think that capitalism is the best economic model we have found so far, it is by no means perfect. We don't practice laissez-faire capitalism, because experience has shown that we need some restrictions in place to prevent abuses of the system

Capitalism is a natural occurance in a free society. It is not a 'model' to be implemented. The restrictions should be made by the choices we make in our transactions. The reason we don't practice "laissez-faire" capitalism, is that some have realized that there is profit in contolling the restrictions. It's why your sugar is artifically inflated, your milk, the steel in your cars and buildings.

Ah, market populism, the new religion. Since capital itself is an artificial construct, it is somewhat difficult to call capitalism "natural". The reason we don't practice laissez-faire capitalism is because people were working 80 hour weeks for subhuman wages and children were being put into factories even under the less restricted forms of capitalism we had in the past. Unfortunately, not everyone is concerned with the welfare of others, even if those people are their employees. And it is common for the wealthy and powerful to take measures to secure their hold on their wealth and power to the detriment of others. The fact that this makes them more successful does not necessarily make them right. And as convenient as it is to say that those people should have just gotten jobs elsewhere, that was not always an option. Especially if all employers treated their employees similarly, there would be nowhere else to be employed.

Additionally, people are highly susceptible to advertising and marketing, which allows business owners to manipulate markets to their ends, and to get people to do that which is not in their best interest. This is not just, and is legitimately to be regulated by governments. If human nature did not include avarice and lust for power, then laissez-faire capitalism would be wonderful. As it is, human nature does include these things, so some checks are necessary to curtail our natural tendencies to harm others for our own personal gain.

Mind you, I am not arguing for the abolition of capitalism. But it is not the religion that many have built it into. It is no more natural than any other economic model, and it is as prone to abuse as any other.

[bmulligan]

Actually, I don't lean to the left at all. I just appreciated the level of discourse between folks like Ryan, Jason, and Jeff who can disagree without resorting to polemics.

FWIW, you and I probably have similar conclusions on environmental issues. The difference is that I don't need to demonize the other side as a monolithic movement trying to control the government and indoctrinate young minds with 'wet moral cement'. With crap like that, you're just as bad as the people you're supposedly railing against.



I was not refering to you as having a slanted head, sorry if that appeared to be the implication.

But polemic? Surely you must be being sarcastic. I don't see how any of my posts were belligerent, or threatening in nature. Confronting these social engineering types at their core is necessary. Or should we just pussyfoot and play nice-nice until everyone's achieved nirvana?


Ah, market populism, the new religion. Since capital itself is an artificial construct, it is somewhat difficult to call capitalism "natural". The reason we don't practice laissez-faire capitalism is because people were working 80 hour weeks for subhuman wages and children were being put into factories even under the less restricted forms of capitalism we had in the past.

Ah, solial elitism, the old religion. Currency, the basis for capitalism, is
not an artificial construct. It is an agreed upon standard for trading goods and services. Money stands for something. It represents things. It is an abstract concept, not an artificial one.

People were not forced to work subhuman hours for subhuman wages. If they were forced, thats not capitalism, thats slavery. Stop putting silk on a whore.


Additionally, people are highly susceptible to advertising and marketing, which allows business owners to manipulate markets to their ends, and to get people to do that which is not in their best interest. This is not just, and is legitimately to be regulated by governments. If human nature did not include avarice and lust for power, then laissez-faire capitalism would be wonderful. As it is, human nature does include these things, so some checks are necessary to curtail our natural tendencies to harm others for our own personal gain.

People cannot be responsible, therefore, someone must step in and control them. Someone like you perhaps? If avarice and power are man's nature and inherently bad, then whom do you place in power if all are corrupt? If greed and lust didn't exist, there wouldn't be capitalism. There wouldn't be technology, there wouldn't be people.

Capitalism is not religion. It is the only legitamate form of democracy. You hold the power to choose which companies live or die with the dollars you hold in your greedy little hand. There are always two sides to an equation. Those that offer, those that accept. This basic form of trading, value for value, has been around longer than the spoken word. It is not a model. It is a concept of the human mind.

The fact that you have such a low opinion of human beings, that they are purposefully injurious, weak, greedy, and must be controlled is a more offensive statement than any polemic display of mine.

[Jason Lutes]

I don't see how any of my posts were belligerent, or threatening in nature.

Let me crawl out from under my rock for a minute and explain something to your earthcentric spongebrain.


Confronting these social engineering types at their core is necessary. Or should we just pussyfoot and play nice-nice until everyone's achieved nirvana?
"Confronting" me about things I hadn't even said and then lumping me in with everything on the left side of your apparently bifurcated worldview doesn't exactly speak to my "core," and even if it did, what do you think you accomplish by insulting and stereotyping me? Do you think that, if pressed hard enough, I'll squeal "Uncle!" and my beliefs will collapse like a cardboard facade to reveal my true, capitalist soul?

The more belligerent and unreasonable you get, the less I care about your opinions, and if it goes on too long, it starts to get sad and pathetic. Look at Cleve: nobody even notices he's around any more. Or if they do, it's in the way people having a conversation over dinner notice a dog that does tricks for table scraps.

Other folks who post here have perspective similar to yours, yet present it in the context of a civil dialogue, and guess what? I listen to what they have to say. Before the war started, I read a lot of intelligent and reasonable discussion about it from people with whom I disagree, and it made me examine my own beliefs on the issue more deeply. Is civility so challenging?


Actually, I don't lean to the left at all.
Tom, you capitalist pig-dog! Let me crawl out from under my VW bus and explain something to your moneycentric bankbrain.

[bmulligan]

-- If you think the world's ecosystems, watersheds, and weather patterns haven't changed dramatically for the worse (as far as the human race is concerned) in your own lifetime, you're living under a rock.

You set the tone. If you can't handle it, then don't dish it out. I don't need to stereotype you, you do a good job of that yourself.


Are organized groups of the world's foremost climatologists and oceanographers promoting some sort of secret commie agenda, or are they just getting together to smoke crack?

Your patronizing tone is no less confrontational than my own.


The more belligerent and unreasonable you get, the less I care about your opinions, and if it goes on too long, it starts to get sad and pathetic. Look at Cleve: nobody even notices he's around any more. Or if they do, it's in the way people having a conversation over dinner notice a dog that does tricks for table scraps.

More of the same, perhaps going on a bit too long.....


"Confronting" me about things I hadn't even said and then lumping me in with everything on the left side of your apparently bifurcated worldview doesn't exactly speak to my "core," and even if it did, what do you think you accomplish by insulting and stereotyping me? Do you think that, if pressed hard enough, I'll squeal "Uncle!" and my beliefs will collapse like a cardboard facade to reveal my true, capitalist soul?



In a word, yes. Perhaps you need to examine your bifurcated core before condemning me for identical behavior to your own. [/quote]

[Tom Chick]

Perhaps you need to examine your bifurcated core before condemning me for identical behavior to your own.

Bmulligan, perhaps you need to read the rest of this thread to see how people can disagree with each other without behaving like jackasses? I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I'm not saying that's not what you're doing either. :)

-Tom

[Ben]

bmulligan- There are people who are wrong or evil in the world who are not communists. Not everything bad in existance is caused by the great global collectivist movement. When you stub your toe do you accuse your table of planning to overthrow your house's economic system? Do you perhaps have a list of appliances that are commie infiltrators?

But, in short, you're right. Enviromentalists are all hilariously wrong. You notice that we have them debating whether we are looking at global warming or global cooling. They don't know what to do, but we need to do something. Something somebody else will pay for, if possible.

Why do people do this? There's some natural human urge to cry the sky is falling, I guess. People like the attention. But from Malthus to Ehrlich, they've all woven these pseudo-convincing tales of doom and been completely wrong each and every time. Oh, but now, these new guys are right. So let's go cripple the economy!

Lutes, buy a car, or at least get some real food. You're making a nice little point but even if you're right, everybody else is driving Escalades through the Burger King drivethrough. If you're wrong(and you are), you are depriving yourself for no reason at all.

Bush didn't sign the Kyoto treaty because like most things concocted by the rest of the world that involve the United States it was an abrasive assfucking of our industry. It was one of the few things that Bush did a good job on, rather than trying to curry favor with the greenies and caving then giving his little cadre of friends special exemptions or massive compliance subsidies.

[ydejin]

But, in short, you're right. Enviromentalists are all hilariously wrong. You notice that we have them debating whether we are looking at global warming or global cooling. They don't know what to do, but we need to do something. Something somebody else will pay for, if possible.

Why do people do this? There's some natural human urge to cry the sky is falling, I guess. People like the attention. But from Malthus to Ehrlich, they've all woven these pseudo-convincing tales of doom and been completely wrong each and every time. Oh, but now, these new guys are right. So let's go cripple the economy!

Perhaps. However, scientists were correct about CFCs. If I recall correctly when Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first described the mechanism with which CFCs were destroying the Ozone layer, people also accused them of playing Chicken Little. As it turns out they were right. CFCs have since been outlawed and Rowland and Molina were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work.

Industrialists have a strong tendency to decry scientific theories which might cost them money, even after a considerable body of evidence has been shown to support the theory and even after the vast majority of the scientific community has accepted the theory as truth. For a particularly egregious example take a look at how long the tobacco industry insisted their products did not cause cancer.

[Jason Lutes]

You set the tone. If you can't handle it, then don't dish it out. I don't need to stereotype you, you do a good job of that yourself.
That initial hyperbole was an attempt to express how I feel about this issue, thrown into the general conversational melee, not at any specific person. I'm sorry if you interepreted it as a personal attack.

Lutes, buy a car, or at least get some real food. You're making a nice little point but even if you're right, everybody else is driving Escalades through the Burger King drivethrough. If you're wrong(and you are), you are depriving yourself for no reason at all.
Maybe you're joking Ben, but I can't tell. I like not having to drive a car. I like eating healthy food. I have zero stress and I'm happier than I've ever been in my adult life. If you were in my shoes, maybe you'd feel deprived, but I don't.

[Jason McCullough]

College students and professors are simultaneously:

1) A group with no power that we can safely laugh at.
2) A crazed one-world powerful conspiracy out to replace capitalism with some some of granola nut bar commune.

[Anders Hallin]

Capitalism is a natural occurance in a free society.
I'm going to go get a gun, and when I come back, I'll demonstrate how long capitalism will survive without society's protection. :)

My opinion is that capitalism is very much like fascism, but without the weapons. This doesn't mean I am against a market economy, it's clear that's what is best for society (EDIT: at this point in time, we might find something better), but it does mean that I believe it is a force that must be harnessed by society/government to work for the betterment of all.

[Anders Hallin]

Ah, solial elitism, the old religion. Currency, the basis for capitalism, is not an artificial construct. It is an agreed upon standard for trading goods and services. Money stands for something. It represents things. It is an abstract concept, not an artificial one.
So when people in society agree on the value of currency, it is not an artificial construct by society?
Pray tell, what is your definition of an artificial construct?


People were not forced to work subhuman hours for subhuman wages. If they were forced, thats not capitalism, thats slavery. Stop putting silk on a whore.
When the stratification of wealth is so extreme, and a large number of people are required for a job that doesn't require ten years of education, then it's quite possible for all those offering the jobs to set the wages at sub-human levels, which they also did. So the choice was "starve to death in a month" or "die from tuberculosis in ten and meanwhile watch your children get stunted growth". Oh, after a while these enormous amounts of people realized that since in actuality, they were the engine that drove the machine, they could, by working together, change things.


People cannot be responsible, therefore, someone must step in and control them. Someone like you perhaps? If avarice and power are man's nature and inherently bad, then whom do you place in power if all are corrupt? If greed and lust didn't exist, there wouldn't be capitalism. There wouldn't be technology, there wouldn't be people.
The thing is, when the power is centralized on a few companies, which almost always happen because the way capitalism works, money often begets money, they will control a person's world-view in such a massive way that they can create the "consumer" out of the human that once was. You don't need Tranquility Bay to brainwash people. They can create a perception of what a successful person is, an acceptance and indeed the guiding force of ads and through that create a population that is susceptible to manipulation by companies.

I think someone once thought up the idea that since power can and will be used for oppression, it must be split up different equal parts, which ideally has interest in working against each other. There are people who want to disband the political power over the economy, but I think that would be a horrible idea, because if there is no opposing power to economy, then the common economic reasoning will be all there is, which is often short-sighted and there is the risk we end up with Manchester liberalism all over again and the consequences of that.

[hermyhermit]

but it does mean that I believe it is a force that must be harnessed by society/government to work for the betterment of all.

You are from Sweden of course you think that government should have a hand in a free market economy.

Your socialized system of government/services/welfare and its loyal proles (yourself included) would have it no other way.

Bad old Capitalism! Let the Gentle Hand of Government, show you the Right Path(tm).

And your neutrality in all things martial, stand up and be proud! I mean you sold iron to Hitler (which I hear is useful in making war related things), but that was a long time ago I'm sure you'd take a stand now! :roll:

Don't get me started... I do like your meatballs though. Very tasty.

[Anders Hallin]

Lutes, buy a car, or at least get some real food. You're making a nice little point but even if you're right, everybody else is driving Escalades through the Burger King drivethrough. If you're wrong(and you are), you are depriving yourself for no reason at all.
Well, I think one of the main reasons would be that at least you're not the one doing wrong (or as much wrong as other people). It would be acting according to your morals, which is a major reason for a lot of behaviour.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

but it does mean that I believe it is a force that must be harnessed by society/government to work for the betterment of all.

You are from Sweden of course you think that government should have a hand in a free market economy.
So, in other words, "you're from the US, of course you think there should be no restrictions on the economy" is an equally valid argument?


Your socialized system of government/services/welfare and its loyal proles (yourself included) would have it no other way.

Bad old Capitalism! Let the Gentle Hand of Government, show you the Right Path(tm).

Well, it works. (http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2002/en/indicator/indicator.cfm?File=cty_f_SWE.html)



And your neutrality in all things martial, stand up and be proud! I mean you sold iron to Hitler (which I hear is useful in making war related things), but that was a long time ago I'm sure you'd take a stand now! :roll:

Well, seeing as how Sweden's neighbours were overrun pretty quickly, cooperation might not have been the worst idea. I'm glad my grandfather, among others, had a free country to escape to.

Edit: Quote.

[Anders Hallin]

You are from Sweden of course you think that government should have a hand in a free market economy.
We are a country of individuals, just like I assume the US is.
I could point you in the direction of Per Ahlmark, if you want proof that it takes all kinds.
Why I have certain opinions is really quite irrelevant, and in fact seems like you're trying to draw attention away from the issue, something that would suggest that you don't know how to respond.


And your neutrality in all things martial, stand up and be proud! I mean you sold iron to Hitler (which I hear is useful in making war related things), but that was a long time ago I'm sure you'd take a stand now! :roll:
Wow, the "Sweden didn't fight against Germany"-angle, I certainly haven't heard that one before! Oh dear me, I was completely unaware of the fact that Sweden in some ways collaborated with the Germans, I can now see that any opinion offered by a Swede is rendered completely pointless by this fact!
THANK YOU for enlightening me in such a way. You must indeed be an individual of some magnitude to have come up with such an original rebuttal!
My hat is off to you, good sir!

[Aeroplane]

Ah, solial elitism, the old religion. Currency, the basis for capitalism, is
not an artificial construct. It is an agreed upon standard for trading goods and services. Money stands for something. It represents things. It is an abstract concept, not an artificial one.

Elitism? When did it become elitist to defend those who are exploited by the rich and powerful?


People cannot be responsible, therefore, someone must step in and control them. Someone like you perhaps? If avarice and power are man's nature and inherently bad, then whom do you place in power if all are corrupt? If greed and lust didn't exist, there wouldn't be capitalism. There wouldn't be technology, there wouldn't be people.

So, those who are driven by greed and lust are good, because they are capitalists. Those who mention that people tend to exploit each other, and should be prevented from doing so are really just driven by a desire to control others. This is an odd line of reasoning. I agree that altruism has been used to mask a desire to control others, but surely you don't think that nobody has been driven by avarice to do the same? Obviously, people are driven by different aspects of their nature to varying degrees. There are those who are primarily motivated by self-interest, and there are those who are not. If one's greed (or any other aspect of one's nature) leads one to infringe upon the rights of another, then this is something that is legitimately regulated by a government that is elected by and accountable to all the people. It is not something that should be regulated by any individual.


Capitalism is not religion. It is the only legitamate form of democracy. You hold the power to choose which companies live or die with the dollars you hold in your greedy little hand. There are always two sides to an equation. Those that offer, those that accept. This basic form of trading, value for value, has been around longer than the spoken word. It is not a model. It is a concept of the human mind.

The fact that you have such a low opinion of human beings, that they are purposefully injurious, weak, greedy, and must be controlled is a more offensive statement than any polemic display of mine.

I didn't get the impression that you were the type to be so easily offended. The fact is that human beings are purposefully injurious, weak and greedy. I'm certain you know this, there are examples throughout human history. Of course, we are also noble, just and strong. Often, there are examples of all of these things in a single individual. Capitalism and democracy are successful models because they allow us the opportunity to act on all that is good in our nature. However, it is naive to base a society on the assumption that we will never act on that which is bad. That's why we need some checks. This isn't a low opinion of human beings, it's a realistic assessment.

[JeffL]

I'm tempted to jump into the whole discussion about capitalism but I'll leave that to the others. I do want to make another comment in relation to what someone said about past theories of the earth vs. sun centric galaxies. Comments that may sound odd coming from someone who spent 9 years of college studying science and 20 years afterwards working in the field.

Every society considers themselves the most advanced in the history of the world. Well, at the time we probably are. Including now. As a result we usually think we, as humans, are a lot smarter than we really are. Our most advanced scientific theories aren't treated as the best guess best on our current understanding of what we can observe - they are often treated by the rest of society (including scientists) as absolute truth. And anyone who dares challenge the current best scientific theories is laughed at. Or killed, depending on the time and place.

The one thing that is certain is that 100 years from now we will look back and laugh at what we were sure was "truth". One of the most advanced theories on the earth back about 500 B.C. was that the earth was slightly curved and rode on the back of 4 enourmous elephants who walked about some type of universal ground. It explained so much - why the positions of the stars moved, earthquakes were the results of one of the elephants tripping or sneezing, etc. We laugh now - but at the time it was "truth." And it fit the observations. The same for the earth being the center of the universe, blood-letting, etc. In my own life, I remember the "truth" being taught that the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest particles, indivisible, etc. It wasn't a theory. We know that's not true now. A lot of what I was taught in grad school we now know isn't true. The only thing that is certain is that much of what we think we have recently figured out will be found to be not true in the future. And that as smart as we think we are, as advanced as we are today, we'll look back and roll our eyes at many of our theories that we took for truth.

We treat scientists as if they are our smartest people, and I suppose it's threatening to us to think that maybe they aren't all-knowing - what does that say about us as a society?

One last comment - the same caveat I gave about lumping all "scientists" into one homogeneous group and saying "well, scientists say this and that", that we should remember that scientists are just people with a wide range of backgrounds, beliefs, experiences, etc. that influence who they are and what they believe - that same caveat goes to generalizing all environmentalists, democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, Christians, atheists, company presidents, etc. It sure is easy for the sake of arguments. But it is the lazy man's way of thinking. I live close to Ann Arbor and I deal with profs at the U of M a lot - and there are a lot of profs there who are "environmentalists" who believe that the answer to everything is to disband all public property and go to a socialists society. But I'm an environmentalist too - I love fly fishing in the great unspoiled rivers of north Michigan and recently put in with some folks opposing some gas drilling in these woods. But don't lump me in with those folks at the U of Mich.

Enough philisophic ramblings - scientists aren't supposed to do philosophy. ;)

[bmulligan]

Elitism? When did it become elitist to defend those who are exploited by the rich and powerful?


When you assume they are defenseless and are incapable of defending themselves. Or that they are incapable of choice for their own best interest.


There are those who are primarily motivated by self-interest, and there are those who are not. If one's greed (or any other aspect of one's nature) leads one to infringe upon the rights of another, then this is something that is legitimately regulated by a government that is elected by and accountable to all the people.

YES!!! finally something we agree upon. This is the only reason government should exist, to protect the rights of the individual. It's the reaon our founding documents were written. But, they are not subject to the whims of the majority. They are the commandments which are supposed to be protected by our courts, against the whims of our legislature.


Capitalism and democracy are successful models because they allow us the opportunity to act on all that is good in our nature.

They occur as a result of our good nature and the freedom to associate and enter into contracts(i.e.,trade). Any malfeasance of men can be countered by refusing to enter into agreements with such people.

Governmental democracy, however, is not something to be revered. It will show the evil tendencies of a majority. This is exactly why we do not have a democracy here. The checks are our constitution, not more legislative decree.

[Aeroplane]

Elitism? When did it become elitist to defend those who are exploited by the rich and powerful?


When you assume they are defenseless and are incapable of defending themselves. Or that they are incapable of choice for their own best interest.

It's not that I assume people are incapable of defending themselves, it's that I recognize that there will always be an imbalance of power, and those with less can be exploited by those with more. I don't think that this means we should seek to abolish imbalances of power, since this is both impractical and unnecessary. However, we should seek to mitigate some of the negative effects of such an imbalance.



There are those who are primarily motivated by self-interest, and there are those who are not. If one's greed (or any other aspect of one's nature) leads one to infringe upon the rights of another, then this is something that is legitimately regulated by a government that is elected by and accountable to all the people.

YES!!! finally something we agree upon. This is the only reason government should exist, to protect the rights of the individual. It's the reaon our founding documents were written. But, they are not subject to the whims of the majority. They are the commandments which are supposed to be protected by our courts, against the whims of our legislature.

I'm afraid we may be starting to talk past each other. I am not arguing for government by the whim of the majority. I am a staunch advocate of individual liberty. But, it is possible for one's individual liberties to be infringed upon, even in a purely free market. The only checks to free market capitalism that I endorse are those that are necessary to prevent these abuses. For example, I support legislature that prevents monopolies. Free markets thrive on competition. However, one of the goals of every company in a free market is to eliminate its competition. These two characteristics of free markets are at odds, and need to be balanced out. Since consumers suffer in the absence of competition, laws that prevent its elimination are justifiable in my eyes. Obviously, that also implies that I do not favor governmental takeover of industries, since that also removes the competitve motivation that so favors the consumer.

Environmental issues are tricky. Clearly, we have a right to clean water and breatheable air. To deprive me of these is to infringe upon my most basic right to life, so I believe that these may be protected from the whims of the market by legislation. I'm not so sure about endangered species legislation and the like, however. I don't really think that I have a right to biological diversity, but if an area is stripped of its biological diversity to a degree to which it becomes uninhabitable, then we have a problem, especially if that area is already populated.

Additionally, the judiciary is not the only branch of government that was established to provide checks. All three, including the legislature, check each other. I agree that our legal code is now overspecified, but that doesn't imply that it can not be used to preserve indivdual liberty against the whims of the majority. Many laws, in fact, do just that. The ones that don't require serious examination, something to which they are unfortunately not subjected.

Also, along the lines of jeff's point about scientific theories, the US Constitution is not the greatest possible model of human government. It is the best we have found, I would argue, but surely it can be improved upon. This country's founders understood that, which is why it may be amended.



Capitalism and democracy are successful models because they allow us the opportunity to act on all that is good in our nature.

They occur as a result of our good nature and the freedom to associate and enter into contracts(i.e.,trade). Any malfeasance of men can be countered by refusing to enter into agreements with such people.

As long as there are alternatives, and as long as the people are sufficiently well educated to recognize that they a contract is not in their best interest. The former condition can be corrected in large part by preventing monopolies. The latter, as much as possible, should not be corrected by restricting capitalism, but by improving education. But, if an uneducated people are more easily convinced to purchase goods that they do not need, isn't improvement in education discouraged by the profit motive? Clearly, the free market alone would not address this situation adequately.

[Anders Hallin]

Environmental issues are tricky. Clearly, we have a right to clean water and breatheable air.
Well, considering GATS, obviously not that clearly..

[bmulligan]

The only checks to free market capitalism that I endorse are those that are necessary to prevent these abuses. For example, I support legislature that prevents monopolies. Free markets thrive on competition. However, one of the goals of every company in a free market is to eliminate its competition. These two characteristics of free markets are at odds, and need to be balanced out.

I agree, but they need to be balanced by the market which will seek its own equilibrium, just like the 'environment'. Monoplies are created by those very government controls that give advantages to one over another. Competition drives the market, it should not be controlled.


...the US Constitution is not the greatest possible model of human government. It is the best we have found, I would argue, but surely it can be improved upon. This country's founders understood that, which is why it may be amended.


Of course it's not perfect, nothing is. Our founders regarded any government as a necessary evil. A potential monster that must be controlled, in this case by our constitution, and the checks outlined within it. The entire document is worded purposefully as a restriction on the government, not to infringe on the freedom of the people.


But, if an uneducated people are more easily convinced to purchase goods that they do not need, isn't improvement in education discouraged by the profit motive? Clearly, the free market alone would not address this situation adequately.

Who is to judge what need is except the recipient himself? Who is to judge the right level of education? I think a free market would most assuredly answer this question. A free market of education for starters. Does a government run educational program have incentive to create free thinkers who could potentially remove them from power? Quite the opposite. Perhaps as a people we deserve the government created by the abdication of our individual responsibilities.

[Aeroplane]

I agree, but they need to be balanced by the market which will seek its own equilibrium, just like the 'environment'. Monoplies are created by those very government controls that give advantages to one over another. Competition drives the market, it should not be controlled.

Markets have been demonstrated not to find their own equilibrium. There is some degree of interference necessary to ensure that individual liberty is not infringed upon by the free market. You should recognize this, as you were speaking out earlier against governing according to the whim of the majority. Is there any more clear expression of the whim of the majority than the free market? Many of the same arguments that can be applied against pure democracy as a form of government can be applied to laissez-faire capitalism as an economic model. Neither provides sufficient checks to prevent the majority from infringing upon the rights of the minority.



...the US Constitution is not the greatest possible model of human government. It is the best we have found, I would argue, but surely it can be improved upon. This country's founders understood that, which is why it may be amended.


Of course it's not perfect, nothing is. Our founders regarded any government as a necessary evil. A potential monster that must be controlled, in this case by our constitution, and the checks outlined within it. The entire document is worded purposefully as a restriction on the government, not to infringe on the freedom of the people.

But, governments do not exist solely to defend their citizens against themselves. If this were true, there would be no need for them to exist at all. They also exist to protect our individual liberties from other citizens who would infringe upon them. This has often happened in the name of free market capitalism, and when it has, governments have justly intervened. We are not solely dependant on the free market to seek redress for such grievances.


Who is to judge what need is except the recipient himself? Who is to judge the right level of education? I think a free market would most assuredly answer this question. A free market of education for starters. Does a government run educational program have incentive to create free thinkers who could potentially remove them from power? Quite the opposite. Perhaps as a people we deserve the government created by the abdication of our individual responsibilities.

But if companies lie or misinform people to generate demand, they can hamper our ability to judge impartially whether we need something or not. This is another activity that may be regulated by governments, and not simply left to the workings of the free market to rectify.

As to the question of education, of course a state-run education is less apt to promote independent political thought. A religious education is less apt to promote independent theological thought. A corporate education is less apt to promote independent economic thought. However, a society that provides each of these will be more likely to have independent thinkers in all three areas than one which provides only one. I think that the education of its citizens is something that the government should guarantee, but not necessarily provide.

Obviously, it is not mine to answer the question of how much education is enough. But someone must, and I would rather that the answer reflect the will of the people through their elected representatives than the will of corporations through the whims of the free market. Corporations already have a strong foothold in our educational system as it is. To think that consumerism would not become gospel in the educational system of a country that allowed the interests of the free market to trump all others is to ignore what is happening in America at this very moment. Sadly, our elected representatives do not always act on our behalf, but the answer to this is to elect representatives who better reflect our interests, not to turn their duties over to the free market.

[Jason McCullough]

Save us, Narrator!

[Aeroplane]

Save yourself, Captain Melodrama.

[bmulligan]

Is there any more clear expression of the whim of the majority than the free market?

I think I understand your comparison, but the market majority is constantly ebbing and flowing. A tyrrant could easily be rendered worthless tomorrow if his revenue is cut by the will of a new majority. All of this is done in 'real time' as we spend in the market, and not done by the politicians who grant favors to one interest over another. We, the people, become a direct arbiter of power instead of lawmakers granting power to those tyrrants with the most influence.


But, governments do not exist solely to defend their citizens against themselves. If this were true, there would be no need for them to exist at all. They also exist to protect our individual liberties from other citizens who would infringe upon them. This has often happened in the name of free market capitalism, and when it has, governments have justly intervened. We are not solely dependant on the free market to seek redress for such grievances.

Look, I'm not an anarchist. I do believe in the necessity of government, their first duty being to protect the rights of people. Here, I believe, we agree. But on education, I'm not sure I understand you.


I think that the education of its citizens is something that the government should guarantee, but not necessarily provide.


This is an impossibility. You cannot guarantee something if you are not willing to provide it, or provide for it. We should responsible for our own educations, just as we are responsible for our own food, our own shelter, transportation, medicine, and entertainment. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from want and need. I'm all for communities getting together and deciding how to educate their children, I'm not a believer in any State dictating how when and what to educate.


But if companies lie or misinform people to generate demand, they can hamper our ability to judge impartially whether we need something or not. This is another activity that may be regulated by governments, and not simply left to the workings of the free market to rectify.



Of course government should mediate in cases of fraud, that's its purpose. We still remain the ultimate judge of whether we have a need for something, not the government. Believe me, if enough people get defrauded, the market will rectify the situation by itself. And government can help us get compensated for our losses.


Sadly, our elected representatives do not always act on our behalf, but the answer to this is to elect representatives who better reflect our interests, not to turn their duties over to the free market.

What's even more sad is that we would hand over our duties of choice and responsibility to those representatives who have no incentive or authority to safeguard them.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Cleve, grown old and gray-haired, sat around with his large extended family before a roaring fire, the arctic wind howling aboveground outside their deep bunker. They had actually utilized the frozen bodies of dozens of consumer units to bend into a variety of useful furniture shapes upon which they reclined.

A young boy suddenly perks up, "What were they like in the old days, father? The people of the ice palaces we call the cities?"

Cleve scratched his chin thoughtfully. "They were complete jackasses. A lot of the time you'd speak in plain and simple straightforward english to them, they'd respond with a bizarre train of unfocused rambling that seemed to be gibberish." He produced an aging printout from the long defunct QT3 forum and passed it around. The children around the fire laughed at the weak, drifting and vague rubbish that consisted of a "discussion" triggered when Cleve had mentioned a worldwide alert about changing weather patterns. At no time was there any indication that any of the respondents had even comprehended the nature of his post.

It worked it's way around the circle until it reached Cleve again, upon which he crumpled it and tossed it into the fire. "A dead civilization and forgotten words," he added as the flames blackened it and finally consumed it with a tiny puff of steam.

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.


Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Aeroplane]

I think I understand your comparison, but the market majority is constantly ebbing and flowing. A tyrrant could easily be rendered worthless tomorrow if his revenue is cut by the will of a new majority. All of this is done in 'real time' as we spend in the market, and not done by the politicians who grant favors to one interest over another. We, the people, become a direct arbiter of power instead of lawmakers granting power to those tyrrants with the most influence.

My concern isn't so much with the rights of a shifting majority as it is with the rights of the minority. The minority does not have a claim to liberty only when they become part of the majority. Their rights are guaranteed at all times. I just don't see how an unchecked free market provides for this, regardless of which particular majority is dictating the way it operates at any given time.



I think that the education of its citizens is something that the government should guarantee, but not necessarily provide.


This is an impossibility. You cannot guarantee something if you are not willing to provide it, or provide for it. We should responsible for our own educations, just as we are responsible for our own food, our own shelter, transportation, medicine, and entertainment. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from want and need. I'm all for communities getting together and deciding how to educate their children, I'm not a believer in any State dictating how when and what to educate.

I must confess that I am still working this one out. Because an educated population is a necessity for a republic, I think that the government needs to guarantee at least that quality education is available. If it ceased to be, the government would have to step in, in order to defend itself from tyrrany if nothing else. However, it is problematic to determine how the government can guarantee the availability of something wihtout insinuating itself into it. That is where the vigilance of the people would come into play.



Sadly, our elected representatives do not always act on our behalf, but the answer to this is to elect representatives who better reflect our interests, not to turn their duties over to the free market.

What's even more sad is that we would hand over our duties of choice and responsibility to those representatives who have no incentive or authority to safeguard them.

Well, this is the whole foundation of republican government - sort of. The problem, as you point out, is that the incentive of our representatives to address the concerns of their people has been removed. They are much more apt to be driven by the incentives provided to them by big business and powerful lobbies. Clearly, a representative's chances of reelection are no longer tied as strongly as they should be to the degree to which he represents the interests of his constituents. This needs to be corrected, but I'm not convinced that further deregulation of business is the way to correct it.


[EDIT]
I doubt that this was intentional, but your screenname has had "Biddy Mulligan" (A great old Irish drinking song) going through my head all day. Not a bad thing at all :)

[hermyhermit]

Met_K, why don't you just take it to email and ask Cleve if you can fly out to Aussie for some man sex with him. It couldn't be more obvious if you possibly tried. The 19" guns are waiting...

[Jason Lutes]

It worked it's way around the circle until it reached Cleve again, upon which he crumpled it and tossed it into the fire. "A dead civilization and forgotten words," he added as the flames blackened it and finally consumed it with a tiny puff of steam.

Met_K, why don't you just take it to email and ask Cleve if you can fly out to Aussie for some man sex with him. It couldn't be more obvious if you possibly tried. The 19" guns are waiting...
http://www.pstbbs.com/rcmist/bt/Pix/TwoDogsBegging.jpg

[Tom Chick]

http://www.fiftiesweb.com/elvis/elvis-289.jpg

[bmulligan]

Tick, Lutes, and Special_K:

"Perhaps you need to read the rest of this thread to see how people can disagree with each other without behaving like jackasses? I'm not saying that's what you're doing, but I'm not saying that's not what you're doing either."

I'm basically not saying anything about what you've said, because I have nothing to say about crap like that. So I'll just go back into my underground Hall of Justice, fuck myself, and have a good cry. It's what all we right wing whackos do in our spare time, isn't it? LOOK OUT!! ICE AGE AT 12:00 !! DUCK!!!

[Matthew Gallant]

http://www.dogpages.org.uk/newfie11.jpg

[bmulligan]

Whew! That glacier barely missed me. Good thing I read Cleve's book: The Ice Age and Self Defense, the Blakemore Prophecies

[XPav]

http://www.ahajokes.com/cartoon/hotdog.jpg

[Mark Asher]

Of course government should mediate in cases of fraud, that's its purpose. We still remain the ultimate judge of whether we have a need for something, not the government. Believe me, if enough people get defrauded, the market will rectify the situation by itself. And government can help us get compensated for our losses.

It shouldn't reach the point where "enough people" have been fucked over before the market regulates. Government should step in right away to minimize the problem. Government should then enact rules that attempt to keep the problem from recurring. Government should be forward-looking and enact rules that try to prevent new problems from arising.

The free market rewards profit and punishes loss, things that often have nothing to do with ethical behavior. It's cheaper for a lumber company to clear-cut a forest. They'll make more profit. When is the marketplace going to punish that? After the forests are gone? It's too late then. You can't rely on the market to be "the ultimate judge" of what we need. The market is far too short-sighted. It's good at judging the value of a product, but lousy at understanding the impact of the cost of producing that product.

[Cleve Blakemore]

http://junkscience.com/july02/Kenny_Ice_Age.htm

Two things that were not obvious twenty years ago is that new ice ages occur within a matter of years and hours, not centuries ... and that these flip-flops are preceded by violent, worldwide storms of immense ferocity. It is possible that there were very, very advanced civilizations present on the Earth 10,000 years ago of which all traces were utterly eradicated by glaciers and storms.

[Mark Asher]

http://junkscience.com/july02/Kenny_Ice_Age.htm

Two things that were not obvious twenty years ago is that new ice ages occur within a matter of years and hours, not centuries ... and that these flip-flops are preceded by violent, worldwide storms of immense ferocity. It is possible that there were very, very advanced civilizations present on the Earth 10,000 years ago of which all traces were utterly eradicated by glaciers and storms.

C'mon, it's not hours. You're not out batting the ball around, go in for dinner, and come back out and say, "WTF, there's a glacier on second base!"

[Cleve Blakemore]

http://junkscience.com/july02/Kenny_Ice_Age.htm

Two things that were not obvious twenty years ago is that new ice ages occur within a matter of years and hours, not centuries ... and that these flip-flops are preceded by violent, worldwide storms of immense ferocity. It is possible that there were very, very advanced civilizations present on the Earth 10,000 years ago of which all traces were utterly eradicated by glaciers and storms.

C'mon, it's not hours. You're not out batting the ball around, go in for dinner, and come back out and say, "WTF, there's a glacier on second base!"

Glaciation does not occur in hours, but ten of thousands of years. The preceding storms between the interglacial periods and glacial periods would seem to be so sudden they literally catch animals in the open and freeze them solid before they can take shelter. It is the consolidation of moisture in snowfall and rain that leads to another ice age.

http://www.pvbr.com/Issue_1/global.htm

You might be batting the ball around, go in for dinner and see a Class 5 hurricane followed by ten thousand tornados with winds over 600 mph before you get to the dessert. By morning, your home could be under sixteen feet of snow.

There's hard science to support this idea of the "flip-flop." It's not idle conjecture by Cleve.

[freeman]

It is possible that there were very, very advanced civilizations present on the Earth 10,000 years ago of which all traces were utterly eradicated by glaciers and storms.

Could they Ultimate Fight?

[Met_K]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Chris Nahr]

In other news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3046984.stm), the unimaginably terrifying SARS epidemic that was all but guaranteed to trigger global apocalypse and wipe out all mankind has apparently ended... with a whopping 812 deaths total, out of roughly 6 billion.

Damn, that was too fast. Quick, where's the next disaster? We can't wait for Cleve's ice age, we need news NOW!

[Guido Jones]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Pjerrot]

Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming was the only thing holding the next ice age back? :o

Some believe global warming will bring the next ice age sooner - but noone really nows!
Personally I believe the sun brings the ice ages, but since we have difficulty enough understanding the connection with TODAYS weather, predicting the FUTURE are really just guesswork! :?

[Gary Whitta]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Idar Thorvaldsen]

In other news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3046984.stm), the unimaginably terrifying SARS epidemic that was all but guaranteed to trigger global apocalypse and wipe out all mankind has apparently ended... with a whopping 812 deaths total, out of roughly 6 billion.

Well, you can thank the WHO for that. Frankly, it's a little stupid to just laugh derisively at SARS. It most likely would have been a disaster, had it not been contained in the way it has.

Oh, and:

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Dave Markell]

In other news (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3046984.stm), the unimaginably terrifying SARS epidemic that was all but guaranteed to trigger global apocalypse and wipe out all mankind has apparently ended... with a whopping 812 deaths total, out of roughly 6 billion.

Well, you can thank the WHO for that. Frankly, it's a little stupid to just laugh derisively at SARS. It most likely would have been a disaster, had it not been contained in the way it has.

Yes, the WHO did a very nice job with SARS. That's something folks like Cleve never acknowledge, though. In their paranoid little worlds, any potentially big problem is certain to escalate uncontrollably. Why? Because everyone else is an idiotic monkey incapable of competence, so the world is doomed.

Oh, btw Cleve:


Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Dave Markell]

Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming was the only thing holding the next ice age back? :o

That's a very interesting point. I've read discussions about this in various scientific journals for about a decade. There's no way to conclusively prove it, of course--how do you do a controlled experiment with planetary climate???--but it may well be true. Earth is certain to experience another ice age fairly soon (in geologic terms, that is), unless unintentional human interevention in the biosphere overpowers the natural cycle. We could intentionally intervene too, if we find it to be necessary.

[XPav]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

Oh, and hows Grimoire doing?

[Cleve Blakemore]

Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming was the only thing holding the next ice age back? :o

That's a very interesting point. I've read discussions about this in various scientific journals for about a decade. There's no way to conclusively prove it, of course--how do you do a controlled experiment with planetary climate???--but it may well be true. Earth is certain to experience another ice age fairly soon (in geologic terms, that is), unless unintentional human interevention in the biosphere overpowers the natural cycle. We could intentionally intervene too, if we find it to be necessary.

Can you dorks read and write at a 2nd grade level? Did you read any of the articles at the links I posted?

It's the extended heat period that LEADS TO A MORE DRASTIC AND RADICAL WEATHER SHIFT AT THE POINT OF "CORRECTION." If it has been unseasonably warm and the C02 climbs close to 300 ppm in the atmosphere, the transition back toward glaciation will be just that more violent, sudden and savage.

At last check of the data, C02 has reached 362 ppm worldwide.

There is a COMING GLOBAL SUPERSTORM.

SOON. VERY SOON.

You're all going to end up chilled people-pops, for sure.

[Tom Chick]

http://www.jaytomlin.com/images/puppy.jpg

[Matthew Gallant]

http://www.northcoastdogs.com/images/inhome02.jpg

[Dave Markell]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

[Cleve Blakemore]

Anyway, fair warning. I hope many of you realize you may end up as contingency cannibal food larders so take heed.

[Brian Koontz]

We could intentionally intervene too, if we find it to be necessary.

Paging Alan Greenspan...

First the Economy, then Meteorology!

[Gary Whitta]

Got better things to do than waste time with you stock characters from central casting. Weren't you milling around in the background of Brazil by Terry Gilliam?

This is my last post to QT3, I'm too good for this board.

Oh, and:

http://www.kateconnick.com/mydogs/gran4.jpg

[Jason Lutes]

http://www.sphosting.com/spiritwolf/dogbiscuit.jpg

[runesword forger]

It is possible that there were very, very advanced civilizations present on the Earth 10,000 years ago of which all traces were utterly eradicated by glaciers and storms.

Could they Ultimate Fight?

In Atlantis, the big sport was hopscotch. Lotsa gambling on it, judging by the famous "mermaid" betting chips we've dredged up from the ocean floor.

In Lemuria, I think they were especially fond of spitting for distance.

[Pjerrot]

There is a COMING GLOBAL SUPERSTORM.

SOON. VERY SOON.

You're all going to end up chilled people-pops, for sure.


:lol: Ahhh - another victim of the scientic trap!
If B is proceeded by A, is it always proceeded by A?
But you can absolutely not conclude that A always leed to B.

Faulty logic reasoning DOES make good headlines though! :)

When Greenland was named, it was warmer than it is now.
A fact? Hard to prove or disapprove.
We drill through the ice on Greenland to get an idea about the changes in the clima - but first, there's not enough iceages to make accurate statistic. Secondly it's local weather - not global. Thirdly, global clima aren't locked into any rhytm - 11.500 years are an avarage. You should ask what the range are! What are the longest time between the ice ages?

No, don't worrie about that.
How many are killed by snakes, spiders, crocodiles and sharks in Australia each year?
I wouldn't want to live there!

[graller]

I can see the headline now - Reclusive Prophet of Usenet found dead in his bunker of a Brown Snake bite...The Croc Hunter is quoted as saying "Crikey his 19 inch arms were not enough to save him from those vicious fangs".

[Tom Chick]

http://www.collieworld.com/images/puppy.jpg

[Gary Whitta]

http://www.1800plushtoys.com/images/88815.jpg

[JeffL]

For those who would be interested in a decent article on energy alternatives and myths, from some folks who are pretty good, in a refereed publication:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/298/5595/981

[XPav]

You do not have access to this item

[Kyle Wilson]

You do not have access to this item

Fuck Science. Fortunately, it also seems to be available at http://en-env.llnl.gov/cccm/pdf/Hoffert_etal_Science2002.pdf.

[Gary Whitta]

http://kid.ti.chernigov.ua/pics/dog.jpg

[Chris Nahr]

What I really want to know: will my ZOGbux freeze into a solid lump when the next ice age comes? And if so, how will I get them apart again when I need to bribe the frost-proof cannibals that come to get me?

[Pjerrot]

You do not have access to this item

Fuck Science. Fortunately, it also seems to be available at http://en-env.llnl.gov/cccm/pdf/Hoffert_etal_Science2002.pdf.

"Stabilizing the carbon dioxide-induced component of climate change..."

hmmm..it reminds me of the saying 'change is bad!'
We really like the clima as is now, but change is a natural thing.
How do we prevent nature from doing that?
By understanding what makes it tick!

How do we do that?
By simplifying the problem!
Global warming MIGHT be good - or bad. But it's an added factor, and an unnatural component - get rid of it, or face the fact that predicting clima-changes are mostly guesswork.

Once that component are eliminated (yeah! right!), we face the problem of how to change the clima - and do it right!