As the World Rots

Bush doesn't like children not even his own "He's going to kill me" Jenna Bush on the the Ellen show. Veto children's health care bill twice and so on. Maybe God told him to make sure no one survives after him. Or he simply is the Anti Christ Nostradamus talked about. Or he thinks that Waco will be at the beach and his property value will sky rocket.

Short term and greedy thinking. There is also a major "anti-global" sentiment in the US now. There is a terrible fear in the US that being citizens of the world takes away our identity as Americans. Lots of soft thinking going on in this country.

We should have done what the Europeans did - sign Kyoto and then ignore it, and dramatically increase our CO2 production (Europe's CO2 went up more than US CO2 since Kyoto was signed).

But the whole thing is a waste of time - global warming is unfixable due to the conservation -> lower prices for oil -> more oil burned elsewhere cycle. We should be spending time trying to figure out how to live in the coming warmer world, not trying to stop global warming.

What hope is there for anything sensible and constructive in Bali when the head of the US delegation is Paula Dobriansky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??!?!???!?!?....

The lunatics are running the asylum.

"If rape is inevitable, you might as well sit back and enjoy it"

Sincerely,

Bobby Knight

Yeah I heard they were totally pissed that the U.S. refused to lower their own carbon cap to accommodate all the private jets that were flying in there.


Yes, please do something. I suggest we all follow Gore's example. I am looking forward to Bush providing me with a large home, heated pool, private jet and carbon offsets to justify it all.


Those darn Europeans! I've heard that they did such a great job following Kyoto. Clearly the U.S. needs to get a president in there who can lie better about the good intentions and goals that we will fail to keep.


Is it possible to get to the future economy without considering the current economy? Please point me to this magical wormhole you have found whereby we get to the future without going through the present.


There will not be a future. Time will stop right after we this conference. The entire universe in fact will stop existing.


Can you be sure of that? How can you be sure it will be more pleasant to live on? I think Gore's home is more pleasant than my own and surely we can't all have his home and save the planet. I suggest you give me your home and live in a cardboard box. In the interest of endorsing platitudes we will call your existence, cleaner, healthier and more pleasant.


Perhaps if we sacrifice a goat on the stone alter, the gods will not make the weather bad for us. Instead they will give us good crops and mild weather. Perhaps the magic rocks will make our lives better as well.


How dare you suggest even having offspring. If you have had them already clearly you should crush their heads with a stone. One it will make the gods happy and they will bring fair weather as a result. Secondly mother earth demands blood and atonement for our past sins. I volunteer your children for that as well. Finally since the earth cannot accommodate all these future grand kids clearly you should not be allowed to breed.


Then I think anyone who declares themselves truly committed to the health of the planet and the preservation of humanity ought to sell off all material goods and give the proceeds to clean energy causes. They should take a vow of poverty, while pledging their lives and efforts towards the global cause. Finally they should also sterilize themselves. In your particular case I think you should cut off your penis and feed it to wild dogs. However for everyone else we need something less graphic since they are less committed than you to the cause.

You need to hurry, the planet only has a couple years left to act!

Nick

Probably something like this...



Can anyone spot e1618978?

Yeah, good thing there is no real debate on if climate change is real or not.

Also, at least the UN is doing something about it.

You are sounding more hysterical by the day. He vetoed "the children's health insurance bill" precisely once, not because he didn't support SCHIP, but because the upper income limit was about $85,000, which was far too high.

I do think the emergent position of the global warming denialists is going to be something like e#s take: continue to deny until things have gotten sufficiently bad to make that untenable, then switch to claiming that there is nothing that can be done and start looking for an opportunity to cash in on the results.

Trouble being that global climate change isn't some permutation in the economy that screws the many but provides investment opportunities for the savvy few; the fall out is entirely unpredictable and likely to be pretty chaotic, with no guarantees that even the steeliest self-made opportunity society warrior won't get hammered.

And by "hammered" I don't mean "sees a sharp decline in his portfolio", I mean "has no access to potable water" or "is personally effect by food shortages due to massive crop failures" or "lives in a world made far more volatile and prone to war by mass migrations of the desperate." Like when all those nice Republicans in the exploding sun belt states start going thirsty.

I wonder how far "personal responsibility" goes when the damn government can't deliver on tap water?

Wait will the single mothers that have to drill their own well water have gills or not?

Don't confuse me because I want to cash in on this correctly. Am I buying shovels or swim gear?

Nick

A really cool catamaran...



Commence eternal flame war...

After a couple years of making this argument about global warming, still no good counter argument. Global warming is unstopable unless one of the following things happen:

1. Somebody kills 80+% of the human population
2. Somebody invents an alternative energy source cheaper than oil, which will scale fast
3. A world government is formed to control energy usage

Any global warming fixes that involve conservation of oil will lower the price of oil and increase demand in other places, we are burning 100% of the oil (well, minus the oil used for making plastic or asphalt), which is being pumped at 100% of capacity.

All this posturing around Kyoto is just politicians trying to gain advantage for the industries in their home countries, using the naivete of voting populations as a weapon.

We have upcoming extinction events to worry about (loss of the gulf stream, deoxegination of the oceans, release of ocean methane, etc), and we need to figure out how we are going to react to changes in weather patterns. This is where the energy should be spent - not on kyoto and its ilk, and I doubt that drought will be an issue, we are going to get a lot more rain in most places.

As polar ice melts sea levels will rise, which puts low lying coastal areas at increasing risk for flooding. As you may have heard, sea water isn't that great a solution for lack of potable water.

Meanwhile, areas that currently receive modest rainfall are likely to become much drier, moving water scarce communities into the water deprived category. Water scarcity in the American Southwest is already a problem, prolonged drought in the region is likely to cause serious disruption.

So, in your case, probably some kind of flood insurance scam.

My electricity bill is minus $ 72.-, I have solar panels.
I own 32 wind generators making an average of $ 120,000 ( a bit more lately) per year just by existing. I love it when the wind blows.

There is a webpage that list climate data for the various prehistoric epochs (which I found for an earlier argument with hardeharr here, but can't find now) - the only ones that were both warmer and dryer were ones with a supercontinent (which was arid in the center, because rainfall did not make it that far). We are going to be much wetter the warmer we get.

It make sense, more evaporation from a larger wetter ocean, and more evaporation from foliage has to produce rainfall somewhere.

Unfortunately more sea surface also means more chance that it rains right back into the sea. That is why climate predicting computers take up entire buildings and use 10,000 processors and are still to slow to really take it all into consideration.

[sarcasm]Mandating and enforcing a significant reduction of CO2 emissions might help us on the path toward that goal.[/sarcasm]

I'm not clear on what you've said here. Are you saying that you receive about $120,000 per year for these windmills just because they exist regardless of whether they produce anything?

But geologists don't need computers to see past rainfall, and past rainfall was always wetter when warmer with our current continent configuration. Find a past epoch with separated continents, warmer temperatures, and more arid conditions - I already looked all 40 of them (or whatever), there isn't one. It always gets wetter on land when the world gets warmer.


With what world government? Europe blew past their Kyoto agreements long ago, there is no "enforcement agency". In any case, rising population pressure makes any CO2 reductions pretty much impossible.

I get all that. I agree with you. I was being sarcastic. Sorry, should have used the [sarcasm] tag.

Sorry, I was a little slow - global warming will also kill a bunch of people most likely, so it is a problem that solves itself!

Possibly. In the mean time we're ramping up to starve the world by dumping our food supply into our cars.

Good job! You are killing the planet 17% slower than you were last year! However since the entire western lifestyle has been implicated with killing the planet and you still live it, you are still a murderer.


Darn you Artman, I just finished painting the hockey mask silver, had just completed my purchase of a posture collar through the www.artmansloveshack.com website, and had just finished using chainsaw to cut the roof off my pickup.

Now you tell me I need a catamaran?

Think of the single mothers and their drilling needs!


Look we've all seen the Gore movie and even better some of us READ and know that his extreme estimates are nice story telling. Do you think I should get some flood insurance? I'm only about 2000 ft above sea level. Perhaps I should see where the new high tide line will be and buy there. Should I buy from the single moms digging wells or driving in catamarans? I'm sure I'll look spiffy in my hockey mask, posture collar and pick up with no roof.


Clearly these climate computers use up loads of electricity and have very large carbon footprints. Since we have the "one true answer" we should turn them off and start sacrificing goats.

Nick

And, even if this were not a probable scam, it would not help global warming one bit.

Aha! "Lord" Monckton!

Ain't it strange how the global warming deniers bitch and moan about 'Algore', but remain silent about "Lord" Monckton, a British eccentric pseudo-aristocratic corporate hack from the Thatcher era who denied the existence of heterosexual AIDS, and recommended that all HIV+ve people should be rounded up and quarantined... and he has no scientific qualifications to boot, let alone a track record in specialist climatological studies.

At best, it's useful as a sort of composting. Instead of turning your organic materials into fertile dirt you can turn them into heat for your house. Both are incredibly useful for sustaining life, but won't reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Still, American ingenuity at work. Something scarce these days.

I read that Japan was having trouble meeting their goals despite all the work and a committed population.

Finally, we see what global warming is really about: Redistribution of wealth.

As I've said before, global warming is the Left's uber-issue. Not only is it an excuse to Blame America First™, but now we can have a massive new tax (primarily paid by the evil United States and likely exempting China, the world's growing pollution whore). We can use that tax to take money from the Evil, Rich United States and give it to underdeveloped countries. Of course, those countries will be exempt from the new tax because their economies are "developing."

Global warming can be blamed for everything. Acid rain? Global warming. Lack of food for the poor? Global warming. Illegal immigration? Well if we hadn't WARMED THE PLANET, growing cycles wouldn't have changed and we wouldn't have needed all that cheap farm labor.

But wait! If you order now, there's more! We can also use global warming as an excuse to stop those disgusting meat eaters! Livestock causes--pardon me--an ASSLOAD of global warming. Hey...I have an idea...we can have all animal rights causes fall under global warming too!" Cosmetic testing? Global warming! Free health care? Global warming causes pollution related ailments!

Of course, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves. You know, especially since the planet hasn't warmed since 1998 and that 1934 was actually the warmest year in the last 100 years.

One more thing: No one that uses the term "Global Warming Deniers" can ever, ever again talk about how conservatives are so much better at "framing issues." Ever.

If we reduce CO2 the rest of the world will produce more CO2 to compensate. It is not childish to realize this. It is childish to demand action that will have no effect, instead of doing the things that need to be done (prepare for the unstoppable climate change).

In itself? Nothing. But potentially a lot of things, because it matters how its done. First, I'm not convinced that we need to reduce carbon emissions at all. But assuming for a moment that we do, how? Right now I hear a lot about punishing The Big, Evil United States and exempting developing economies. The solution to global warming, if it exists, can't involve harming our economy while forcibly redestributing our wealth to other nations that are big polluters themselves.


Yes, yes. The childish and selfish bad boy US. We know. The US won't "jump on board" because the solutions are unfair--solutions to a problem that may not exist and probably can't be solved anyway.


Yes, the big wasteful US. Let's get 'em, boys! Those rich bastards. But then again....they do contribute more to foreign aid than any other nation on the planet. Hmmm.

By the way I thought it might be a good tome to mention this :

" Gore makes Nashville home more 'green' "

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/....ap/index.html

" The former vice president has installed solar panels, a rainwater-collection system and geothermal heating. He also replaced all incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs -- even on his Christmas tree.

"Short of tearing it down and staring anew, I don't know how it could have been rated any higher," said Kim Shinn of the U.S. Green Building Council, which gave the house its second-highest rating for sustainable design.

Gore's improvements cut the home's summer electrical consumption by 11 percent compared with a year ago, according to utility records reviewed by The Associated Press. Most Nashville homes used 20 percent to 30 percent more electricity during the same period because of a record heat wave. "

His house and what he does in his personal life has been mentioned several times on this forum when talking about his push for GW awreness.

The house is 80 years old so this is pretty remarkable.

" If we reduce CO2 the rest of the world will produce more CO2 to compensate. "

Huh?

This isn't a race to keep a CO2 emission constant.

So you base this on what?

Is your Gorebasm over now? Perhaps this will bring you down to Earth.





Gore's exceptionally inefficient old private jet.


Good thing Gore offsets his usage:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54528