Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAlready climate change--in the form of a changing pattern of global rainfall--seems to be affecting the planet in significant ways. Take the massive, almost decade-long drought in Australia's wheat-growing heartland, which has been a significant factor in sending flour prices, and so bread prices, soaring globally, leading to desperation and food riots across the planet.
A report from the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia makes clear that, despite recent heavy rains in the eastern Australian breadbasket, years of above normal rainfall would be needed "to remove the very long-term [water] deficits" in the region. The report then adds this ominous note: "The combination of record heat and widespread drought during the past five to 10 years over large parts of southern and eastern Australia is without historical precedent and is, at least partly, a result of climate change."
Think a bit about that phrase -- "without historical precedent." Except when it comes to technological invention, it hasn't been much part of our lives these last many centuries. Without historical precedent. Brace yourselves, it's about to become a commonplace in our vocabulary. The southeastern United States, for instance, was, for the last couple of years, locked in a drought -- which is finally easing -- "without historical precedent." In other words, there was nothing (repeat, nothing) in the historical record that provided a guide to what might happen next.
Now, it's true that the industrial revolution, which led to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at historically unprecedented rates, was also, in a sense, "without historical precedent"; but most natural events -- unlike, say, the present staggering ice melt in the Arctic -- have been precedented (if I can manufacture such a word). They have been part of the historical record. That era--the era of history--is now, however, threatening to give way to a period capable of outrunning history itself, of outrunning us.
Just as this week begins, scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii have released new information on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere--and it's at a record high of 387 parts per million (ppm), "up almost 40% since the industrial revolution and the highest for at least the last 650,000 years." 650,000 years. Think of that. The historical era is well less than 10,000 years old. According to a recent study by renown NASA climatologist Jim Hansen published in Science magazine, "if we wish to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed," we need to create the necessary conditions that will return us to 350 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere--and soon. Environmentalist Bill McKibben, who has started a new website called 350.org calls that 350 "the most important number on Earth."
The planet in its long existence may have experienced the extremes to come, but we haven't. The planet, unlike much life on it, may not--given millions or tens of millions of years to recover--be in danger, but we are.
When you really think about it, history is humanity. It's common enough to talk about some historical figure or failed experiment being swept into the "dustbin of history," but what if all history and that dustbin, too, go… well, where? What are we, really, without our records? Once we pass beyond them, beyond all the experience we've collected, written down, and archived since those first scratches went on clay tablets in the lands of the Tigris and Euphrates--now being stripped of their cultural patrimony -- at least two unanswerable questions arise. Once history has been left in the dust, where are we? -- and, who are we? If Hansen, McKibben, and other scientists are correct, can we stop just short of the cliff of the post-historical era?
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
<b>NATION</b>
We appreciate the bigger box ... really. Now can we have our HTML support back, and a real preview pane?
As to the thread, I envision the anti-science crowd stopping by to beat their drums of "nothing is wrong" or "you can't prove its our fault" or "it'll bankrupt us all" or"how about the few fringe scientists who say the planet is cooling". To these I say:
1) ignorance and self-delusion cannot change empirical observation
2) does this really matter in the bigger picture - if we can effect change on a global scale, let us at least try. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI&feature=related
3) and sea level rise that displaces 1/4 of the human race won't?
4) crazy is as crazy does ... sceince does listen to all parties, but acts (or attempts to) based on the majority. Its a little thing we like to call democracy.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/12/2008 @ 11:19am
LOC, nice pre-emptive strike. ;-)
Of course, it won't stop the inevitable flood of 'science deny-ers' but I LIKED it!
Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2008 @ 11:28am
Lil ..thanks
all: science for the masses
http://tinyurl.com/5k7r67
Can't wait for the near-inevitable "global warming is good for you" poster
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/12/2008 @ 11:32am
don't worry! everything gonna be all right! just keep on keeping on as we are.
grasshopper nation, fiddle away!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2008 @ 11:38am
Don't forget, John McCain has been co-opted into the Great Hippy Lie of Global Warming, along with the CEO of Exxon/Mobil.
ahhh, the power of the great librool conspirracy is working well.
Next meeting of the worlds scientists and leading Hippy Liars is next Tuesdays at Eddies BBQ in Burlington Kentucky. Hope you all can make it.
Posted by crabwalk at 05/12/2008 @ 11:51am
The only thing to stop global warming is to have less people. We should institute a one child per family law worldwide immediately!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008 @ 12:32pm
The only way to stop Global Warming is to have less people. The world should institute a one child per family law immediately!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008 @ 12:36pm
Can't wait for the near-inevitable "global warming is good for you" poster
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
.
And right on cue...
.
Why can we also postulate that it is because CO2 has increased in the stmosphere that the earth has been able to feed 6 billion people....instead of the maximum some earlier `environmentalists' postulated as 3 or 4 billion?
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
.
ROFLMAO!!!!
Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2008 @ 12:40pm
So, HAPPY, ABELL...
which "defender of capitalism against the socialist enviro-nuts" and "opponent of the false science of global warming" are you going to vote for in the Fall?
Ooops....wait...
there isn't one.
Posted by Mask at 05/12/2008 @ 12:51pm
Posted by HAPPY3
dude, oil is dumb. it must end. it is poison. it is almost gone. it is killing us. the sky is not happy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 1:32pm
The only thing to stop global warming is to have less people. We should institute a one child per family law worldwide immediately!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
The only way to stop Global Warming is to have less people. The world should institute a one child per family law immediately!
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
<b>DOUBLE POST KARMA STRIKES AGAIN!!!!!</B>
fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer. fewer.
are your children less?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 1:36pm
you're easy to please.....I like that in women!
Posted by HAPPY3
happy, ¡for the grace of god! sell that shovel.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 1:38pm
So, HAPPY, ABELL...
which "defender of capitalism against the socialist enviro-nuts" and "opponent of the false science of global warming" are you going to vote for in the Fall?
Ooops....wait...
there isn't one.
Posted by Mask
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008 @ 1:41pm
i sure hope these science guys are wrong about global climate fuck up.
they were wrong about y2k.
hmmmmm.
they were right about gravity.
enough to send rockets hurtling around the solar system to take some nifty pics of the moons of saturn.
gravity, y2k?
holy meltdown! we're in trouble.
turn off that light!
Monday, May 12, 2008 1:51:22 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 1:45pm
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.----Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008
Boy, that's rapidly becoming YOUR mantra, isn't it?
Oh, well, that's fine. Go off and be "right" and un-popular. More power to you.
Posted by Mask at 05/12/2008 @ 2:28pm
Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.
Posted by abell12ct at 05/12/2008
just because something upsets you and runs counter to your stupid, evil, reality denying ideology doesn't mean its wrong...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/12/2008 @ 2:47pm
i hope this is all wrong.
hope......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/12/200
Happy what WOULD it take for you to acknowledge the damage we do to the planet? Would the sky have to catch fire before you would start suggesting we fix things? Or is it only because you can't make a profit off of it that you don't want to try to fix the problem? If there are enough credible scientists saying that this is a problem why don't we fix it just in case? I don't know avoiding human extinction to me is worth a slight shift in my way of life. Why are you SO against this? Is it because it's popular in the Republican party?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 5:11pm
"Would the sky have to catch fire before you would start suggesting we fix things?"
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008
C3, two things come to mind for me...volcano or asteroid. Neither of which can be fixed.
But here's something that will make your day more green:
From: the Australian
"Active Volcano Under Ice"
Leigh Dayton, Science writer | January 22, 2008
AN active volcano has been found under Antarctica's rapidly melting western ice sheet.
Although it has not erupted for more than 2000 years, heat from the geologically active Hudson Mountains Subglacial Volcano helps explain why nearby Pine Island Glacier shrinks by more than a kilometre every year, British scientists claim.
The discovery follows reports last week that Antarctica's ice cap is melting faster than previously believed.
According to those findings, the greatest loss was from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Antarctic Peninsula. Together, they lost nearly 200billion tonnes of ice in 2006 alone.
Glaciologists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge claim the discovery of the first known subglacial volcanic eruption promises to improve predictions of future sea-level rise caused by the melting of the WAIS.
"We believe this was the biggest eruption in Antarctica during the last 10,000 years," Dr Corr said. "It blew a substantial hole in the ice sheet and generated a plume of ash and gas that rose around 12km."
The team identified a large layer of volcanic ash in the ice.
Additional evidence for the eruption came from ice cores collected across the continent.
Writing in Nature Geoscience, Dr Corr and Dr Vaughan suggested the increased heat from the eruption, which they dated to 325BC, led to melting of the surrounding and overlying ice which, in turn, increased the flow rate of nearby glaciers.
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008 @ 5:53pm
Man made global warming is such a load of crap. The climate has been changing since there's been an Earth. To think that our influence amounts to a hill of beans is ridiculous. How could it possibly be proven that the climate would be any different today if dinosaurs still roamed the earth? It can't be proven.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 6:02pm
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
Actually any intelligent person knows it can be. You look at things like ice cores and tree rings to determine global weather patterns over the last couple thousand years. You then take those patterns and find when man started to effect the environment. You look at the typical environment pre-industrial revolution then you look at the change post-industrial revolution.
I'm no enviro-nut but jesus come on science isn't that hard to understand. Your statement is like saying that before ships the earth MUST be flat because we can't prove any different. Or cancer MUST be incurable because we haven't cured it. If the world was left for people with that mentality we would never move forward we would all just stagnate.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 6:27pm
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008
Look I don't deny that I think the world is having a natural global change just like the polarity of the earth is naturally changing. I think we do have an impact that speeds it up. There is a lot of evidence and a lot of credible people, whether conservatives like to dismiss them as loons doesn't matter they are still considered very credible in the scientific community, who say we are having an effect. The scale of the effect I think is the biggest point of contention for me.
My main argument against the conservative global-warming attack machine is, why not? Why not use greener forms of transportation and power? Why not drive cars that don't leave city sky's brown? Why not stop poisoning rivers like the Chinese have done to some of theirs near industrial areas? Why not find a way to have a more positive impact on the environment instead of raping it for everything it's worth? Why not?
Is a greener car going to destroy the world? Green fuel sources mean less war over resources and more energy independence. I would be for nuclear, if they had a way of getting rid of the waste. I propose shooting it into the sun but I don't know what the cost would be. I just feel like why not find a way to have less of an impact on this world? I enjoy the natural world a lot. I enjoy camping, kayaking, surfing, snowboarding. I have a respect for nature's beauty. I am not profit centered because I enjoy the world beyond money. I would like to be able to take my kids camping without having to look for a forest that hasn't been chopped down yet. I think one fault of so many conservatives is they are so profit driven they don't give a shit about the world at large. All they care about is finding that next oil pocket they don't care about destroying the forest it's sitting on or poisoning the river that factory is near. I just figure why not try to preserve the beauty of this planet a little longer for future generations? If we CAN have less of an impact on the environment then why not try to?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 6:36pm
I still don't buy into the hype. This global warming mania is a particularly threatening fad, infringing on way too many aspects of our lives. My God, think of how our lives are affected day in and day out by the incessant drum beat of "global warming" alarmists. At best this is a developing "science" that still has a lot of bugs to work out -- and that's being very generous on my part. It's one part "science" and four parts marketing.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 6:50pm
To think that our influence amounts to a hill of beans is ridiculous.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
.
Sure Person, who could possibly believe that the activities of man could have any effect whatsoever on the Earth. I mean we've only dumped, what, a mere 244 BILLION metric TONS or so of C02 lately into the atmosphere while simultaneously removing about 80% of the worlds forests which might have helped remove that C02.
I mean seriously, what could possibly go wrong?
.
"We are indeed experiencing the greatest wave of extinctions since the disappearance of the dinosaurs," said Ahmed Djoghlaf, head of the U.N. Convention on Biological Diversity. "Extinction rates are rising by a factor of up to 1,000 above natural rates. Every hour, three species disappear. Every day, up to 150 species are lost. Every year, between 18,000 and 55,000 species become extinct. The cause: human activities.", he said.
Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2008 @ 6:53pm
I don't agree with much of what President Reagan had to say, but the one thing that he did say that I agreed with is "Grow more trees". As we continue to defoliate the earth we ring our hands about the falling sky, and when it isn't nuclear winter it is global warming. I know there isn't much profit in reforestation but it is really the only solution. As long as china keeps burning coal, and no nuclear isn't the solution. how about more hydro? and gravity is free. As long as we continue to legalize gluttony we don't stand a chance. I would love that the solution be as simple as parking our cars, but who is going to ask the greedy to park their corporate jets?
Posted by julien38 at 05/12/2008 @ 6:53pm
<i>My main argument against the conservative global-warming attack machine is, why not? Why not use greener forms of transportation and power? Why not drive cars that don't leave city sky's brown? Why not stop poisoning rivers like the Chinese have done to some of theirs near industrial areas? Why not find a way to have a more positive impact on the environment instead of raping it for everything it's worth? Why not?</i>
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
This is all about what YOU want. You may not be profit driven (which I doubt is all together true) but you are certainly very fond of yourself. What about the people who <i>own</i> the land? Do they have a say in what happens to their land?
I'd say your taking it a little over the edge to suggest that we're running out of good places to pitch a tent. I live in NC where the mountains are green and plentiful. Chances are that national forests aren't going anywhere any time soon. Our grand children's grand children will still have the chance to hike the AT.
What's wrong with "green" cars, or "green" fuel? Nothing in and of itself. Anyone who wants a "green" car has every right to go out and buy one. The problem with ego-centric greenies like you is that it's not enough to leave it to free will. You are so certain of the supremacy of your viewpoint that your perfectly comfortable <i>forcing</i> it on everyone else. And that ain't cool by any measure.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 7:09pm
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
If you think we have no impact on the world think twice. We poison whole bodies of water. Because of us Lake Eerie caught fire. We exterminate whole species of animals. We can kill off a continents worth of people. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world over 33 times. Yet you believe we CAN'T have an impact on the environment? We create a weapon that can destroy this planet and probably 5 others in the solar system all at the same time. But we CAN'T have an effect on the environment. The nuclear weapon is the shining pinnacle of the the display of the effect man made machines can have on the environment. That is when we are making a consorted effort to destroy things. So why can't we just have an offhand effect on the world around us just based on the negative impacts of the things we make. Nothing can produce more energy than it consumes. Which means everything we make takes something from the environment to be made. Which means there is always a net loss. Which means naturally by deduction we are always having a negative effect. So why not find ways to lessen it?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 7:13pm
The problem with ego-centric greenies like you...
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
.
Actually, here's the real 'problem'...
...If those who are concerned about man-made global warming are wrong, everyone else is slightly inconvenieced by sharing their ride and maybe has to pay a bit more for fluorescent lights.
But if the 'screw-you-all-I'll-drive-my-Hummer-wherever-I-damned-well-please' science deniers are wrong...
...we all die.
Posted by Lillian at 05/12/2008 @ 7:17pm
Hey Person,
You sound like the old creepy voices from the past ranting and railing away about how asbestos was not harmful to humans; that acid rain was a ‘left-wing' conspiracy; smoking cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer; DDT was not wiping out bird species; the creation of the EPA and regulation of industrial pollution would bankrupt the economy; lead does not harm children, etc. (all of these positions were embraced and fought for by doctors, businessman, academics.) The older generations are still crammed with obsolete thinking curmudgeons who swear that humans cannot possibly harm the earth. Hopefully, you primitives with your petrified concepts will be swept aside soon. Why do you conservatives resist change so?
Posted by Oustbush at 05/12/2008 @ 7:17pm
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
I never said don't leave it to free-will as you so wrongly postulate. It is your ego and misguidedness that leads you to make wrong judgments of others. I don't want to force anything on anyone. However I want to stop people from taking away our options. I want to stop oil companies from killing initiatives that threaten their profits(the electric car). I want to stop this argument that we should NEVER switch to a greener way of doing things. The fact that we are even having an argument about whether we should have less of an impact on the environment is ridiculous to me. Shouldn't we strive to have less of an impact. For all those of you who kneel at the feet of your Lord, didn't he appoint us as stewards and protectors of the Earth not the destroyers? Why don't we use our big brains and our monumental creative ability to have a positive impact on the environment. I never said I wanted to take away peoples will to choose. Like I said I am not an enviro-nut I don't think the decision should be forced on anyone. However the decision to NOT have a positive impact HAS been forced on everyone. Oil companies destroying programs that would have a positive impact. Destroying good forms of public transportation. So you tell your folks to stop taking choices away from me.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 7:21pm
Man made global warming is such a load of crap.----Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
So who are you voting for in the Fall?
Posted by Mask at 05/12/2008 @ 7:35pm
Why do you conservatives resist change so?
Posted by Oustbush at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
There's too much to comment on, but this one's a doozie. I can speak for only myself, but I'm certainly not resistant to change. Change is necessary. The funny thing is that liberals are the ones who the most resistant to change. It seems counterintuitive, I know, but it's true in most cases. Maybe not so much with the green stuff, but I don't have time to get into that one right now. My main beef with liberals and the environment is how forceful they are about everything. It's their way or the highway.
But when it comes to education, social security, reformation of harmful or ineffective social programs...on and on, Liberals are foursquare against change. It's the Conservative who is the true pioneer for change these days, and it's the Liberal who generally stands in the way.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 8:06pm
#
Man made global warming is such a load of crap.----Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
So who are you voting for in the Fall?
Posted by Mask at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person #
I don't know. There aren't any good choices.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 8:08pm
JOMAMMA
don't you realize your airconditionedmeatingestingaircraftfyling butt
USES 40 TIMES THE RESOURCES OF ONE OF THEM RABBITLIKE BROWNIES.
you are a complete village all rolled up like a piggy in a blanket.
and yes,
the oil's almost gone.
why do you think mr. bush is slaughtering people?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 8:15pm
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
I see you chose to ignore my post shooting everything you so arrogantly assumed about my way of thinking.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 8:16pm
"Green fuel sources mean less war over resources and more energy independence."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008
Sorry C3, but I disagree with that assessment. Wars are fought over a variety of issues with the biggest culprits being corruption and oppression.
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008 @ 8:36pm
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008
Absolutely true. But most war strategists say wars of the future will often be fought for resources.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 8:39pm
Absolutely true. But most war strategists say wars of the future will often be fought for resources.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008
Tell you what, look for the biggest war to be fought over people...particularly over the female variety.
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008 @ 8:46pm
#
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
I see you chose to ignore my post shooting everything you so arrogantly assumed about my way of thinking.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 | ignore this person
Not so. I just didn't have time right then. I'll try to address them now.
1) "I don't want to force anything on anyone. " Well good for you. That definitely puts you in the minority of greens. It's nice to know you support my freedom to choose the car that's right for me, to chose the light bulbs I like, and any of the countless other personal decisions on which greens love to apply their controls.
2) "I want to stop oil companies from killing initiatives that threaten their profits(the electric car)." I'm sure you'll set me straight on this one, but what in the hell are you talking about? How can any oil company stop you or me from designing an electric car? Do you think for one skinny moment that Honda or Ford wouldn't be making them if there was money to be made selling them? Honda would say "screw you" to any oil company that tried to stop them from conducting business. But this isn't what your talking about, is it? What your talking about is government sponsored "research" into electric cars. Using public money, that is. And for this the oil companies have every right to lobby the government however they choose. They pay the government's bills much more than either you or I do. But there's no way an oil company can prohibit private enterprise.
3) "I want to stop this argument that we should NEVER switch to a greener way of doing things." Who's saying this? Not me. You can conduct your affairs any way you see fit. I advocate letting things happen "organically", if you will. If leading strictly "green" lifestyles suits enough people, "green" products will sell and "green" companies will prosper. Hell, they're not doing too bad as is. Just let it remain voluntary.
4) "For all those of you who kneel at the feet of your Lord, didn't he appoint us as stewards and protectors of the Earth not the destroyers?" I'm no theologian, but I don't recall this transfer of power in the Bible. The mixing of environmentalism and religion is distasteful to me, personally. I don't think the Bible addresses "carbon footprints." But Lord knows there's a million ways to interpret scripture.
5) "Oil companies destroying programs that would have a positive impact. Destroying good forms of public transportation. So you tell your folks to stop taking choices away from me." Seriously, man, you're loosing me with all this oil company conspiracy babble. Where do you pick this stuff up? Oil companies are standing in the way of public transportation? There's been a debate for years here in Raleigh about building a light rail system. It has been shot down because of the staggering cost and the unlikely hood that it would every pay for itself. Also, I think there were some practical problems related to routes and stops. So you're saying it wasn't Mayor Meeker who dropped the ball, but it was actually the oil companies who derailed the plans? Huh...now that's incredible. I, myself, didn't think it was a very good idea. That means the oil companies have gotten to me, too. Their in my head, those bastards.
Who do you suppose the oil companies are? When you speak about the "oil companies", what sort of image do you conjure in your head?
6) "So you tell your folks to stop taking choices away from me." You are one seriously confused individual.
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008 @ 9:31pm
Posted by ACook at 05/12/2008
I am not talking about past wars. I am talking about the future. Look at some of the Pentagon analysis of future warfare. Most of them agree resource wars are going to be what primarily gets fought.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 9:44pm
Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
Also person to your comment about me not being profit driven being untrue I will answer to it. First of all why would I lie on here? What do your opinions matter in the long run in my life? What reason do I have?
Second the reason I don't care about money is because most of the people I saw who had the most money growing up, were the most miserable people. Sure they had all the material possessions they wanted. But the parents tried to buy the love of their kids with money. The kids only ever focused on the material and thought they were better than everyone because they owned more things. Their parents constantly fought and only stayed married because it was what was proper. A lot of them were also doing cocaine by the time they were in high-school and many are still addicted. Money didn't bring them happiness.
The only monetary needs I have in life are these. I want to own a house with a big enough back yard to own a dog and I want the ability to travel for a couple weeks out of the year. So however much all of that costs is what I want. Other than that I have all the monetary things I want now. I have a car that's payed for and I get to buy myself some nice things every once in a while like a digital camera or the occasional DVD splurge. All the other things I want in life are non-monetary. So what do I need with 10 million dollars a year? I don't even understand people who want that type of money. If I was making 10 million dollars a year I would give all but 1 million away. I don't need six houses one is good enough for me.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/12/2008 @ 9:52pm
JM
As to Euro-stats see: http://tinyurl.com/5yq9bk and you'll find that the nation's of Europe are not only close to zero growth, but a number are in negative growth. (Stats taht include any immigrants already) But yes, it is the poorer nations (SE Asia, Africa) that see large numbers.
PERSON
See the video in my post at the top-o-the thread, as well you might want to go down 2 more to a small page of info links I cobbled together. Nothing too deep, but if you want discourse in this are, I'm your guy. I teach Earth & Env Science classes and have for years.
Many "non-science" types make the claim that "Climate has always changed" which is true enough. But then they ignore what is known about those times beyond. Time like the Cretaceous -Tertiary and Permian Triassic extinctions also had associated climate changes - but for much different reasons. Now however, we are releasing millions of years of stored carbon (fossil fuels as CO2) without much thought as to the changes in atmospheric composition. Changes that can and must affect the air's thermal characteristics.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/12/2008 @ 10:40pm
Person, listen to yourself post. You accuse greens of being totalitarian in their efforts to change the way people do buisness. Your right, greens try their damndest to be totalitarian in their efforts to get people to change. People do this when others they consider legitimate start using the politics of fear. I bet if all the right winger talk show hosts started saying that the election of McCain into the white house would end life on this planet as we know it, and came up with a reason, and backed it up with a veritable mountain of evidence, you'd try your damndest to not let McCain get into the white house.
Well, a similar situation has been presented to those willing to listen. a huge majority of scientists which study global warming (which most people have been taught to consider legitimate), has predicted that life on this planet as we know it will come to a crashing halt if we don't do something soon.
Not only this, but were also being promised what could easily become WWIII as China, Russia, and the US scramble for control of the last oil, natural gas, coal, and mineral reserves. But in this case, were not being promised this by anyone who could be remotely described as leftist, were being promised this by the Pentagon it's self. George W. Bush has been hinting at this war since Iraq started turning sour, waaaay back in 2003. Ideas about mining Antarctica, The North Pole, and even the moon are being floated around.
A solution to both these problems lies in green energy. So please, don't care about global warming all you want, but for the love of god, don't sentence us all to a 3 way cold war/naval arms race between china, russia, and the US. (that could easily turn hot, as resources continue to dwindle). The ironic part here, is that no side will win, they will simply stave off the inevitable, as the ability to produce oil for each side will eventually run out. Even if one side manages to defeat the other two in a convincing victory.
You see, green energy isn't just about global warming anymore, it's about preventing a global war. (don't forget in all this that Russia, China, and the US all have nukes, and at least Russia and the US have defined situations in which they will use them, which would y'know, end all life on the planet.) So yes, given all these reasons, we greens would love to change the way the entire planet does busisness. I happen to agree that attempting to stop the climate from changing massively, cooling down a situation that is promising to at the minimum throw the US, China, and Russia into an arms race doomed to ultimate failure, and attempting to stop Antarctica from melting, are causes worthy of changing our society in radical, untested, and irreversible ways.
Posted by shadow master at 05/12/2008 @ 11:10pm
northern nc
beauty.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 11:35pm
Posted by madlib
i'm more worried about the trees:
Asheville,NC -- Forest Service (FS) research has provided the first estimates on the impact the loss of eastern hemlock will have on the water dynamics of the southern Appalachian mountains. In the June 2007 issue of Ecological Applications, researchers Chelcy Ford and Jim Vose from the FS Southern Research Station (SRS) Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory present findings on eastern hemlock rates of transpiration (the amount of soil water taken up by trees) from a 2-year study in western North Carolina.
EASTERN HEMLOCK, A KEYSTONE SPECIES IN THE STREAMSIDE FORESTS IN THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN REGION, IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING WIDESPREAD DECLINE AND MORTALITY AND MAY BE DECIMATED BY THE HEMLOCK WOOLLY ADELGID (A TINY NONNATIVE INSECT) WITHIN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. As a native evergreen capable of maintaining year-round transpiration rates, eastern hemlock plays an important role in the ecology and hydrology of mountain ecosystems. Hemlocks provide critical habitat for birds and other animals; their shade helps maintain the cool water temperatures required by trout and other aquatic organisms in mountain streams.
http://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/news/115
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:00am
Posted by madlib
i'm more worried about the trees:
Emerald Ash Borer
THE EMERALD ASH BORER (AGRILUS PLANIPENNIS) IS A DESTRUCTIVE PEST OF ASH TREES THAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN INTRODUCED TO NORTH AMERICA FROM EASTERN ASIA. It was first detected in Canada and the United States in 2002, but the pest has likely been present for 4 to 5 years in both countries. Surveys conducted by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in 2003 indicate that the pest is confined to Essex County in Ontario (Windsor area). The beetle is also established in Michigan State in the U.S. It has not been detected in British Columbia.
http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/emerald.htm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:02am
Posted by madlib
i'm more worried about the trees:
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, WHICH IS PUSHING TEMPERATURES HIGHER, HAS ALTERED THE WESTERN PINE BEETLE'S NATURAL LIFE CYCLE. Now the insect threatens one of the world's largest forest systems: Canada's boreal forest, a 600-mile-wide band of pine woodlands that stretches from the Yukon in Alaska all the way to Newfoundland on the East Coast.
SOME SCIENTISTS THINK THE DAMAGE INFLICTED BY THESE VORACIOUS INSECTS ON THE BOREAL FOREST MIGHT ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE TO GREENHOUSE GAS LEVELS AND ULTIMATELY GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE. When the beetle's only food source, the pine tree, is destroyed, it ceases to trap carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and actually releases it back out.
http://scienceline.org/2008/05/09/env-olson-pinebeetle/
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:08am
Great Googa Mooga!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:09am
So, I generally tend to consider myself a conservative, but I have to admit being fairly impressed with a related Nation article, citing Jim Hanson of NASA. I trust he's a fairly reliable source, and I think his warnings should probably be taken seriously...
Posted by Thrawn at 05/13/2008 @ 12:11am
and I think his warnings should probably be taken seriously...
Posted by Thrawn
Great Googa Mooga!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:29am
Posted by Thrawn
conserve, conservative, conserve.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:30am
"So, I generally tend to consider myself a conservative, but I have to admit being fairly impressed with a related Nation article, citing Jim Hanson of NASA. I trust he's a fairly reliable source, and I think his warnings should probably be taken seriously..."
--Posted by Thrawn
Hallelujah.
One down, multiple millions more to go.
~I much appreciate the honest post, Thrawn. It gives us progressives a reason for hope --although you do appear to be in the distinct minority of "conservative" posters here.
What --they might reasonably be expected to answer-- are conservatives really attempting to conserve anyway?
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/13/2008 @ 12:39am
Posted by b_kool_66
i, too, appreciate that post from thrawn.
i will sleep .00000000001% better tonight.
well, maybe .0000000001% better -- north americans are worth more points.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008 1:00:44 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 12:55am
Good point, fz.
And a Great Googly Moogly to ya'.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/13/2008 @ 01:02am
One for the road.....
"But soon enough, time will tell
about the circus and the wishing well..."
--tinyurl.com/65qjhv
~About time for me to extinguish the "midnight lamp".
Posted by b_kool_66 at 05/13/2008 @ 01:12am
The funny thing is that when life came out of that primordial ooze or from the snap of the fingers of the Great Creator (whichever you believe) it has been infinitely creative. We are a huge series of random fortunate accidents. We are not the first species to affect the course of the planet (we didn't start out with an oxygenated atmosphere, blame photosynthesis for that) and our ecosphere has changed countless times over billions of years.
We are in the unique position of recogizing cause and effect, because of this we can keep our little rock a bit more palatable for just a bit longer. But I find it absolute arrogance that we think that our climate should NEVER change. We need to evolve as a species. I think that life will find a way to adjust to us, and eventually the Earth will find a way to get us to conform to it. I sometimes wonder if giving aid during a disaster is such a good idea, if you think it's the Earth re-adjusting its balance. Of course the compassionate side of me slaps that part around, but the thought does occur to me that we're messing with a natural order that's just gonna keep pushing back until there's more of a balance.
Posted by yutsano at 05/13/2008 @ 02:58am
Again, really not sure who PERSON or any of the GW denier types are arguing with?
Come 2009....Obama or McCain....it's going to be an accepted fact by the Administration in power and both have promised initiatives to work on it.
So what's the point in them trying to keep denying it....when nobody in power believes them???
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 08:53am
See what happens if you elect mccain...
Arizona: "Governor drops builders from tax plan"..homebuilders now do not have to build any new roads, putting all the expense on taxpayers....once again favoring big business over ordinary americans...raising everybody's taxes and leading to increases sprawl...
Arizona is the ONLY state in the entire nation which refuses to give subsidies to wind/solar, i.e. alternative energy, which would at least somewhat level the playing field...where oil/coal have centuries old subsidies, this new technology will not even be extended beyond a year by bozos bush/cheney...
you have to realize, draft scoping, environmental impact, public hearing, getting land, all takes several years, so mccain/bush other gopers know they are stopping any new alternative energy....public is ignorant and continues unneccesarily to pay high prices for their idiocy...in human lives overseas to high gas prices, food prices...how hard can bush/mccain/neocons squeeze all Americans...and all certain delusional politicans want to argue the meaning of "bitter"....if anybody is not bitter at this point, they are either not human....or too rich to care about the rest of us.....hrc is more wealthy than mccain and obama combined but says he is "elitist"...mccain already admits he knows nothing about the economy...vote for him, buyer beware...he has already been more honest than bush.....but is even more dangerous.....he will sell all of our infrastructure, financial institutions to foreigners, like bush has started doing right now....don't believe the hype, trust your conscience and vote intelligently....believe the "patriotic" propoganda at your own peril...remember hitler did the same thing....
Posted by jrs112 at 05/13/2008 @ 10:44am
bush is not conservative in any way...stop labeling everybody, I was conservative pre-bush until he destroyed our whole constitution and people's rights...it is in everybody's best interest in this election to come together and vote for change...remember, you are not really giving a gift to anybody having to clean up all of bush's disasters both foreign and domestic...in four years, you can just blame the democrats for not fixing all of our problems fast enough.....small states's rights are rapidly being eroded or overruled by federal govt. which is incompetent, apathetic, and does not want Americans to have any rights...I know, I empathize....I think we are all in the same boat together, I am not ageist, sexist, racist...I want to see my country be a role model again....
I am voting for Obama for President.....for change....for all of us......
Posted by jrs112 at 05/13/2008 @ 10:49am
and we could hold them...
go get 'em.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 1:23pm
JOMAMMA
of course mr. bush's adventure pales in comparison to some of history's bigger idiots.
oil = power = control.
why would you attack countries that go out of their way to sell you the messy ol' oil?
step into the future.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 1:26pm
At best this is a developing "science" that still has a lot of bugs to work out -- and that's being very generous on my part. Posted by Person at 05/12/2008
Person:
The science confirming humanity's role in the increase of CO2 emissions has been "in" since 1987. Allow me to summarize it once again...
All CO2 in the air is composed primarily of 3 isotopes of carbon: C12, C13 and C14. These isotopes exist in a nearly constant ratio to each other. The C13 and C14 are generated when exposed to sunlight, but naturally degrade back to C12 over time.
Plants photosynthesize this atmospheric carbon into sugars which are then eaten by animals. Therefore, all living plant and animal materials are composed of the same ratios of these 3 carbon isotopes. When an animal dies, it quits eating plants and no longer takes in fresh carbon. When a plant dies, it quits photosynthesizing and also quits taking in new carbon. Therefore, when something dies, all of the C13 and C14 in its tissue begins to degrade (over tens of thousands of years) into C12.
Fossil fuels derive from plants that died hundreds of thousands of years ago and ALL of the carbon has degraded to C12 by the present day. When you burn a fossil fuel, the CO2 generated contains ONLY the C12 isotope.
IF the human burning of fossil fuels were having a significant effect on the amount of atmospheric CO2, we would observe an increase in the amount of the C12 isotope in the atmosphere compared to the C13 and C14 isotopes. We have been observing this increase since 1987.
Volcanic activity has been offered as an explanation for this increase as the CO2 from within the earth would also be completely composed of the C12 isotope. However, the oxygen isotopes in the CO2 generated by volcanoes is composed entirely of the O16 isotope. Atmospheric oxygen consists of a combination of O16 and O18 isotopes. If volcanic activity accounts for the increase in old carbon that we are observing, we would also observe an increase in the old oxygen isotope as well. The fact is, we have not. We are combining old carbon with fresh oxygen.
The science has been "in" for over 2 decades and it well past time that we start acting on it.
Posted by bjkron at 05/13/2008 @ 2:49pm
Posted by bjkron at 05/13/2008
BJK, no point in wasting your time...or his.
PERSON and the GW deniers are on the outside looking in. Even McCain has admitted that GW is real and man-made, just more "free market" on his approach.
But the Deniers have nobody rooting for them anymore....'cept Limbaugh!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 3:08pm
No matter how much either side whines about global warming nothing is going to be done until people are suffering, until the environment is chasing us up the tree like a grizzly bear.
Then folks will get galvanized, only then will the partisan bickering come off the table. There is no politican smart enough, unifying enough to get us to agree to act on any threat, external, internal, whether from nature or man, not because we lack quality leaders, but because no leader could ever convince this pig-headed polarized electorate to agree about anything.
And will conservatives PLEASE stop coming on this site and bragging about being a conservative; that's like a sunni going into a shi'ite mosque and bragging about being a sunni. It's stupid. You're rude and reptilian and think you have it all figured out. We get it already. I know the busybody in you runs the show, but why aren't you content posting at right wing sites? Busybody the heck out of those places! They're built to take it. I am an atheist but I don't go to Christian sites and brag about my secularism, and I don't go to conservative sites and blow off about my liberalism. And were I to do that they would be far less tolerant of liberals than we are of conservatives. I know, just another of our many pathetic weaknesses conservatives can exploit.
Posted by realgonecat at 05/13/2008 @ 3:13pm
that's like a sunni going into a shi'ite mosque and bragging about being a sunni. ----Posted by realgonecat at 05/13/2008
No...it's not.
Despite the popular image you may have, Muslims don't just automatically hate each other for their sectarian views.
You're falling for a stereotype that some of those same conservatives you chastise fall into!
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008 @ 3:45pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 05/13/2008
Uhhh he has destroyed the Constitution. Well parts of it. You know Habeus Corpus, Privacy, Search and Seizure that kind of unimportant stuff.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 4:24pm
You're falling for a stereotype that some of those same conservatives you chastise fall into!
Posted by Mask at 05/13/2008
17,658,546 points for you!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 5:05pm
Uhhh he has destroyed the Constitution. Well parts of it. You know Habeus Corpus, Privacy, Search and Seizure that kind of unimportant stuff.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008
C3, the constitution is still in tact. Habeus Corpus and the 4th Amendment are alive and well. (Just not for foreign nationals living outside our borders)
Posted by ACook at 05/13/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by ACook at 05/13/2008
Eh and American citizens. I had a friend who his middle eastern but who has lived here all his life. He came home one day to find the FBI leaving as they had raided his house. Found nothing. Left with no explanation and never returned.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 8:49pm
Posted by ACook at 05/13/2008
He's not a foreign national by the way he was born and raised here.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 8:50pm
They prefer hysteria and mythology to science when it comes to the climate.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/13/2008 |
Hilarious coming from the preacher who quotes scripture to us all the damn time.
"Far more climatologists disagree with any conclusion about significant change due to man made causation. yet they chicken littles keep their relentless purusit to control even the global climate."
Didn't a lot of people agree the Earth was flat at one time too? Popularity of concept does not yield truth. Every concept was unpopular and insulted at some point.
"Green technology is good and will happen (just look at how Honda will begin selling the first hydrogen fuel cell cars this summer here). But the insistence that even the climate must be under govt control just speaks to the absolute need for the far left to control every aspect of our lives, how many children, our modes of transportation, and when we can move about, ending fireplaces (see San Francisco), controlling our dietary habits, etc. there is no end to how much the left wants to control."
Actually a lot of us don't want to force it on anyone. A lot of us want to stop the government from putting up roadblocks to stop it. The government doesn't allow green technology to become prevalent because they don't want to take profits out of the pockets of the oil companies who pay them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 8:53pm
"However given the arrogance of the far left, they will never acknowledge that mankind cannot influence rain or drought cycles."
It's the arrogance of the right to think that you can categorize EVERYONE into one small section or another and predict what everyone thinks. Most of the people I see on here who make the broadest generalizations are our local conserves. I know this statement in and of itself is hypocrisy but so would be you defending against it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 8:55pm
This new format sucks pretty bad. For some reason my response to Cccomfor1 is the very first post. What's up with that? Anyway, go to the top and read.
...Actually a lot of us don't want to force it on anyone. A lot of us want to stop the government from putting up roadblocks to stop it. The government doesn't allow green technology to become prevalent because they don't want to take profits out of the pockets of the oil companies who pay them.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 | ignore this person
Ccc, you have got to get a grip on yourself. What are you talking about, man? Conspiracy theories will eat at you. How is the government impeding "green" technology? How could they stop you or me from inventing some great new "green" invention? How could they stop people from buying our invention? And let's say government is beholden to "big oil", what about all the Democrats in government? They compose at least half of government. How could they possibly go along with this charade? And what about all this talk about seizing oil profits and constantly dragging oil executives to Capital Hill to testify? These don't seem like the actions of bedfellows.
The demonization of "Big Oil" is a ludicrous waste of time.
Posted by Person at 05/13/2008 @ 9:35pm
that mankind cannot influence rain or drought cycles.
Posted by lvliberty1
have you lost your mind?
are you familiar with a place called australia?
do you remember how your sprat deodorant put a big hole in the ozone layer?
we're doomed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 9:43pm
They prefer hysteria and mythology to science
Posted by lvliberty1
that's what it says in luke13.3, right?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 9:44pm
there is no end to how much the left wants to control.
Posted by lvliberty1
even your precious bodily fluids!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 9:53pm
The demonization of "Big Oil" is a ludicrous waste of time.
Posted by Person
that's right.
start at home.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/13/2008 @ 9:54pm
Posted by Person at 05/13/2008
I will respond to this rather humorous post. First off. Bush has a big responsibility for killing the electric car. He helped to propose a useless and go no where technology like the hydrogen car when we had a better and more readily available version which was the electric car. Proof that the government helps oil companies more is in the fact that the government gives massive subsidies and tax breaks to oil and coal companies but won't give any help to green initiatives like solar or wind and will output initiatives to slow their growth and increase their costs. Democrats in Washington are generally no better than Republicans in Washington they are much the same. They all owe money to oil and weapons manufacturers.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 10:01pm
Posted by Person at 05/13/200
Oh and also have you have ever watched the trials of oil companies. Those are the biggest sham trials ever. It's nothing but a circus over there. A magic show. To amaze the people without any real steps forward.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/13/2008 @ 10:02pm
Posted by Person at 05/13/200
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/13/2008
Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/13/2008
With respect to suppression of new/green technology (and associate thought)
Rent "Who Killed the Electric Car" http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
The regenerative hybrid was invented in 1979 by an Arkansas engineer. Why did it take 20 years to see one on the road from the auto companies? (The "recent" non-regen hybrid was actually prototyped in 1972 by Herman Wouk and killed by the EPA for no apparent reason.) [In fairness, the hybrid as a concept has been around for over a century and actually predates the Ford production line, as does the electric car]
http://www.hybridcars.com/history/the-great-hybrid-car-cover-up-of-74.ht ml
In all fairness, there are some incentive programs: http://www.bigfrogmountain.com/links.cfm but these pale in comparison to the tax breaks and other leniency granted to "big oil" http://tinyurl.com/4p7xlf
A fellow in the midwest recently patented a technology to make synfuels from trash (depolymerization of plastics and other organic matter and catalysis into aliphatic hydrocarbons (meaning synthetic oil from garbage) and another making ethanol from garbage and old tires. The former leads down a dead trail (but am working on it) the other has been "partnered" with GM http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20199/?nlid=925&a=f any bets on when we'll see anything out of it?
Why we could even go back to the Streetcar scandal of the 1930s which found Phillips, Standard Oil, and GM guilty of anti-trust violations.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_Streetcar_Scandal
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/14/2008 @ 12:07am
How the hell did my post wind up in the middle when I posted after LL?
Egads this blog engines bites
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/14/2008 @ 12:10am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/13/2008
Unless we find a way to amke hydrogen for free, the fuel cell is likely DOA - as it takes more energy to get the hydrogen from water (from burning coal) than you get from the hydrogen fuel cell.
2nd Law of Thermodynamics .. there's no free lunch
Toyota and GM have both dismissed fuel cells for the public: http://tinyurl.com/6gbtzo
Happy .. subsidization depends on whee you live. Still a fraction of the cost though.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/14/2008 @ 07:23am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/13/2008
Watch the documentary who killed the electric. It was NOT out of production before Bush became President.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/14/2008 @ 08:35am
Oh another interesting documentary is Hacking Democracy.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/14/2008 @ 08:36am
They prefer hysteria and mythology to science when it comes to the climate.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/13/2008
Oh, yeah....THAT's a keeper!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 05/14/2008 @ 08:57am
GUBBAMENT BAD! GUBBAMENT BAD!
yep...when bad people take over the gubbament, GUBBAMENT BAD!!!!
but its always better for the bad ol' gubbament to sit back and wait til its too late to act. ALWAYS!
hmmm...we've known for decades this day would come, in terms of energy. and had we been a bit wiser, the gubbament could have told the truth and helped start initiatives that by now would have paid big dividends...
but instead it did next to nothing beyond supporting an order that was doomed, enabling the wicked to prosper, and allowing self aggrandizing aynrandian cryptofascists to buy up enough media to keep the average schmuk ignorant, confused, and one step away from poverty!
naw - nothing that stupid ol gubbament can do...public transportation? subsidies and tax breaks for renewable energy development? nah - nuthin...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2008 @ 2:34pm
oils well that ends well.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2008 @ 3:49pm
WTF is up with the blog. Seems to put posts in random order sometimes....
I see (on another thread) we lost Ilovephysics .. couldn't stand the crapola format.
Posted by leftofcenter at 05/15/2008 @ 07:41am