View Full Forums : Report: Republicans are hypocrites


Klath
06-23-2010, 06:40 AM
Report: Bay Area counties give so rural counties can receive (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15340236)

By Denis C. Theriault
dtheriault@mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/20/2010 08:14:38 PM PDT
Updated: 06/21/2010 11:21:59 AM PDT

SACRAMENTO — A new report on who supplies — and who spends — California's public dollars shows an interesting disparity between the givers and the takers:

Counties that provide most of the state's revenue streams like income and sales taxes reliably elect Democrats, who traditionally want to take more of your money. And counties whose Republican representatives argue most vociferously for social services cuts draw, per capita, the most state aid.

[More... (http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_15340236)]

Tudamorf
06-23-2010, 03:00 PM
In other news, the sun rose today in the Bay Area... :biggrin:

Panamah
06-23-2010, 06:26 PM
Right, like Montanans who are so fiercely anti-government but take a 1.50 for every 1.00 they pay in federal taxes.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies_Choose_to_Fail_or_Succeed

Fyyr
06-24-2010, 03:16 PM
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/64b510f4c0.jpg

Interesting that this implies that Vikings and American Indians changed their climate.

I suppose that for those who believe that ancient Babylonians and Egyptians turned their fertile lands into deserts, it would make sense and is rational.

For the rest of us, it is only more evidence that climates do change naturally, and naturally can cause problems for civilizations.




When I was a child, I had one of these.
http://ny-image1.etsy.com/il_fullxfull.94414137.jpg

It is a wonderful toy and learning tool. I knew at even a very young age, that even though the square peg and the round peg were in the same bin, that the square peg did not go through the round hole. Maybe you desertification folks should have had parents who gave you one when you were 3. Just because the the round blocks and the square blocks end up in the same spot, did not mean that they went through the same hole.



And to make it a bit more highbrow...

Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor#cite_note-0)) is the principle that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). The popular interpretation of this principle is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Fyyr
06-24-2010, 03:21 PM
In other news, the sun rose today in the Bay Area... :biggrin:
Liberals love taxing the rich, and giving to the poor.

No hypocrisy here.
The funny thing is, that here in California it is Democrats who are the rich ones, and the Republicans are the poor.

Turns the Liberal stereotype upside down a bit.
Though that is still not hypocritical.

Tudamorf
06-24-2010, 04:51 PM
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/64b510f4c0.jpg

Interesting that this implies that Vikings and American Indians changed their climate.

I suppose that for those who believe that ancient Babylonians and Egyptians turned their fertile lands into deserts, it would make sense and is rational.

For the rest of us, it is only more evidence that climates do change naturally, and naturally can cause problems for civilizations.What does this have to do with this thread?

You have obviously never Collapse, since by your post you have no clue what Diamond's theory or evidence is. It's actually perfectly rational if you READ IT instead of speculating as to what it might be.

And desertification and climate change are two completely different things. Humans have been creating deserts by ruining soil for centuries, and they knew about it, and saw it first hand, thousands of years ago.

So please stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly flaunting your ignorance.

Tudamorf
06-24-2010, 04:53 PM
Liberals love taxing the rich, and giving to the poor.

No hypocrisy here.The hypocrisy is on the side of the "Republicans," who are both the most vocal opponents of, and the biggest users of and smallest contributors to, socialism.

Klath
06-25-2010, 04:58 AM
The funny thing is, that here in California it is Democrats who are the rich ones, and the Republicans are the poor.

The same dynamic occurs at the national level as well.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2165/2994934040_ca5b05d221.jpg

Take a look at the top 30 richest counties in the US and you'll find that most of them are liberal.

Fyyr
06-25-2010, 05:39 AM
What does this have to do with this thread?

You have obviously never Collapse, since by your post you have no clue what Diamond's theory or evidence is. It's actually perfectly rational if you READ IT instead of speculating as to what it might be.

And desertification and climate change are two completely different things. Humans have been creating deserts by ruining soil for centuries, and they knew about it, and saw it first hand, thousands of years ago.

So please stop embarrassing yourself by repeatedly flaunting your ignorance.

Pan brought the topic into the thread. Not me.

If you truly believe that Vikings and American Indians caused climate change which killed their civilizations, I can't help you.

No more than I can help if you think that ancient Babylonians and Egyptians created the deserts their decendants inhabit now.

Do you believe in magic too? Ooga booga, Me big juju shaman,,Me change the rain.


Superstitious fools, the whole lot of you.

Fyyr
06-25-2010, 05:45 AM
The hypocrisy is on the side of the "Republicans," who are both the most vocal opponents of, and the biggest users of and smallest contributors to, socialism.

What is your point?

The counties which produce nothing of any tangible nature, like tourism and movies. But make the most money.

Have to give their Liberal money to poor counties which make,,,,,Like food.

The valley makes food, corn, strawberries, cherries, tomatoes, um, food, that kind of stuff.

You have a problem with that?

You are insane.

What does San Francisco make?

Tourism. Japanese people coming to look at your city, take pictures, and spend money there looking at San Francisco.

Rice A Roni, the San Francisco Treat. gimme a break.

Klath
06-25-2010, 08:11 AM
The counties which produce nothing of any tangible nature, like tourism and movies. But make the most money.

Have to give their Liberal money to poor counties which make,,,,,Like food.

The valley makes food, corn, strawberries, cherries, tomatoes, um, food, that kind of stuff.

You have a problem with that?

Did you read the article? It's the conservatives in the valley who have a problem with it.

What does San Francisco make?

Stuff that the free market says is worth a lot more than what comes out of the valley. Food from the valley is important but the people who produce it are easily replaced. As a libertarian you surely must understand this, right?

Rice A Roni, the San Francisco Treat. gimme a break.

Crystal Meth, the Lodi Treat.

Tudamorf
06-25-2010, 02:26 PM
If you truly believe that Vikings and American Indians caused climate change which killed their civilizations, I can't help you.And if you're too lazy to even read a theory before commenting on its validity, I can't help you.

It must be fun poking holes at your made up straw man theories, since you do it so often.

Tudamorf
06-25-2010, 02:30 PM
What is your point?My point is that "Republicans" cry and scream about "socialism", while simultaneously being the largest willing beneficiaries of it. Biting the hand that feeds them.

That is hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy, don't you know what that means? If not, look up Sarah Palin, the personification of the term hypocrisy. Alternatively, look up the typical libertarian.

Panamah
06-27-2010, 11:50 AM
Deforesting does cause climate change. It alters rainfall patterns and causes any rain you get to evaporate from the soil immediately. It also causes erosion which makes the good, healthy soil wash away into streams, which then silt up and that kills off fish populations.

One of the most striking examples is Hispaniola, which is divided into Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The DR was not deforested and Haiti was. Guess which half of the island is practically desert?

But here are some papers on the effects of deforestation on rainfall: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=effects+of+deforestation+on+rainfall&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Also, in the case of Greenland, and some of the other examples, the Climate Change wasn't necessarily caused by man. It happens that Greenland was settled by the Norse at a time when it was warmer and the sea ice was clear between Greenland and parts of Europe. The Norse stubbornly clung to their European ways and raised animals that browsed on very scarce fodder, that also encouraged erosion and eventually less and less land was available for growing hay. They over-populated during the good times, never learned how to live off the abundant sea-life, and when bad times hit they starved to death.

The story that is repeated over and over in these tails of collapse is that people use up everything they need to survive or alter the environment in some way that they can't sustain themselves. Like the example of the Easter Islanders chopping down every single tree on their island. Oh yeah, that and just over-populating during good climates such that they starve when things go bad. Then it gets kind of yucky, people resort to wars fighting over resources, and even cannibalism.

He looks at an interesting analysis of the "Ethnic Cleansing" in Rwanda. He believes it wasn't truly ethnic cleansing, it was a redistribution of land. It started out with ethnic tensions which were encouraged by the government, but when you have a village that is nearly 100% of the same tribe having the same high death rates during the conflict as everyone else, it prompted a deeper look.

Tudamorf
06-27-2010, 03:07 PM
Don't waste your time explaining facts and theories to Fyyr. The minute he hears the phrase "climate change" he automatically assumes it's Al Gore on steroids and goes into his usual broken record routine. You can write a auto-posting script to replace Fyyr on this issue that triggers on the phrase.

Panamah
06-27-2010, 04:31 PM
Don't waste your time explaining facts and theories to Fyyr. The minute he hears the phrase "climate change" he automatically assumes it's Al Gore on steroids and goes into his usual broken record routine. You can write a auto-posting script to replace Fyyr on this issue that triggers on the phrase.
Oh don't worry, I've long since stopped thinking Fyyr is capable of learning anything new. But the book is so fascinating, I'm always hoping to find someone else will read it and want to discuss it.

Tudamorf
06-27-2010, 04:50 PM
Oh don't worry, I've long since stopped thinking Fyyr is capable of learning anything new. But the book is so fascinating, I'm always hoping to find someone else will read it and want to discuss it.The conclusions in Collapse are so logical and well-supported by evidence, that I can't imagine how someone could not agree with him.

For those who haven't read it, the basic theme is that societies that take care of their environment and live sustainably prosper whereas ones that don't, tend to reach a breaking point and fall apart. Even before you read 400+ pages of evidence, common sense should tell you this is true. But he also spells out the evidence in painstaking, occasionally even absurd detail, just to make sure.

All of his essays/books on these subjects are well worth reading, as he's a smart guy, knowledgeable on a broad range of subjects, intellectually honest, and a good writer. I enjoy reading his ideas even when he's wrong.

Fyyr
06-30-2010, 09:02 PM
Oh don't worry, I've long since stopped thinking Fyyr is capable of learning anything new. But the book is so fascinating, I'm always hoping to find someone else will read it and want to discuss it.
.boton
You really believe that stone age people, American Indians, were able to change the weather and climate?

And that I have to learn that is true?

I am sure the book is fascinating. Fiction usually is.
I should write a book about how the Neanderthals and Homo erectus caused the Ice Age. Looks like plenty of people will buy it. Maybe even Piltdown Man caused the Global Warming after the last Ice Age.

What do you call a piece of candy with a stick in it?
.botoff
.eom

Fyyr
06-30-2010, 09:49 PM
He looks at an interesting analysis of the "Ethnic Cleansing" in Rwanda. He believes it wasn't truly ethnic cleansing, it was a redistribution of land. It started out with ethnic tensions which were encouraged by the government, but when you have a village that is nearly 100% of the same tribe having the same high death rates during the conflict as everyone else, it prompted a deeper look.

I don't get what you are saying.

Ethnic cleansing has been historically about taking something from someone else, land usually. Women, horses, cattle, etc are commonly stolen during ethnic cleansing and genocide.

If you are a Blue Person, and I am a Purple Person living next to each other. And I don't like the Blue People because I am just like that. And I kill your Blue Person husband and kids, then kidnap and rape you(so you have half Purple Person babies), take all of your possessions and land.

Are you going to tell me that I did this only to take your land, and that the other motives don't matter or factored primarily in my actions?

Whatever you call it, this tactic has been used for all of human history to increase populations of one tribe or nation, over a different tribe or nation. And always has been over resources and women. Even with the differences between them are very slight(or not apparent to outsiders).

Just because Diamond and many other Westerners can not tell the ethnic differences between the Hutus and the Tutsis, does not mean that they could not. That there ethnic differences were fabrication, does not mean that they did not see themselves as different.

Some human beings have the ability to pick out and discern ethnic traits in people than others. You, or Diamond, may look at many of my Filipino co workers and just see Asian people, some may even recognize them as Filipino. Some people are able to see the more subtle morphological differences and see which ones who had more grandmothers raped by Spanish in their ancestry, or grandmothers who were raped by the Japanese, or even those with more native islander in their family tree. And I assure you that most Filipinos can tell ancenstry and from what part of the PI other Filipinos come from, based on language, morphology, skin color, and dialect. Even if you can't.

If all human beings were turned grey overnight to avoid racial conflict, like the George Orr did in The Lathe of Heaven, we would still be able to detect subtle differences, not many real, many more perceived, and more than that completely made up; between each of us.

Tudamorf has repeatedly wrote on this forum that the Rwanda Genocide was not genocide. He now appears to have an intellectual in his corner of holocaust deniers. Maybe someone else can clarify better.

Fyyr
06-30-2010, 09:55 PM
I just learned two new terms in the last month.

Red Bone and Yellow Bone.

I think I had heard of it, but never knew what it meant. Have only heard black people use the term.
People will make up differences between themselves to describe themselves, even when they are the same people.

Tudamorf
06-30-2010, 10:10 PM
Fyyr, if you only spent half the time reading as you do posting, you'd realize how stupid your last two posts were.

Because what you're saying has nothing to do with what Jared Diamond says.

He knows full well what the differences are between those two socioeconomic classes in Rwanda, and describes at length the history of how they lived together pre- and post-conquest. You're the only one who's ignorant here.

And he is absolutely correct when he says it wasn't "genocide" or ethnic cleansing, and when he describes the real reasons the civil war broke out.

And it has nothing -- zero -- to do with Nazis in Germany. The situations aren't even remotely similar.

Too bad you forgot your childhood lessons about trying to fit the square peg into the round hole, they would serve you well here.

Tudamorf
07-01-2010, 12:37 AM
Tudamorf has repeatedly wrote on this forum that the Rwanda Genocide was not genocide. He now appears to have an intellectual in his corner of holocaust deniers. Maybe someone else can clarify better.It wasn't a "holocaust." It was a civil war. Well, barely even a war considering how short it was. It was more like a severe case of civil unrest, which has occurred repeatedly in that area through the decades, for pretty much the same reasons.

And Bill Clinton and all of the other leaders of the rich nations did the right thing by not intervening. It had to happen. And unless and until they and we get our breeding and resource use under control, it will happen. Again and again, repeated throughout the future.

Fyyr
07-01-2010, 09:32 AM
Tudamorf, your words of a true holocaust denier.

/shrug

Tudamorf
07-01-2010, 01:43 PM
http://thedruidsgrove.org/eq/forums/showpost.php?p=242916&postcount=28Fear of becoming a Nazzi. Or guilt about having traits the Nazzis had.

At the expense of common sense and rationality.

It makes it easier to think rationally, Tudamorf, when you are not always feeling guilty for things that other people did.You should heed your own warning.

Fyyr
07-02-2010, 09:58 PM
A million people slaughtered with machetes in 6 weeks.
With the UN preventing those being slaughtered from arming and defending themselves.

I just don't see how you rationalize that this was a civil war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

It just really does not fit the definition or other examples of civil wars.

What you do have is a behavioral sink. I am sure everyone is familiar with the over population rat studies of the 50s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink

Which I believe, now, is the reason why you deny the Rwanda genocide.
The country was overpopulated, and the slaughter, I suppose in your mind, was justified to get the population closer to its actual carrying capacity. You have cited this quatrain before. That there are too many people killing trees, that they are overpopulated, and need to be killed off by the multitude so that trees can live. Plausible, I suppose.

At first I thought you were denying it because you did not think that the Hutus and the Tutsis were actual distinct ethnic groups. You are very unclear as to why you believe that this was not ethnic cleansing. Thinking that maybe we had a definitional issue. I suppose your last few posts are your concessions that they are and were two different ethnic groups, I will take it as that.

I dunno, you have not explained why you think it was not genocide or ethnic cleansing.

Tudamorf
07-03-2010, 12:36 AM
I dunno, you have not explained why you think it was not genocide or ethnic cleansing.Genocide literally means, killing a race. It is a conflict motivated by the instinctive desire to eliminate people of a certain heritage, not practical concerns.

A civil war is an intra-national conflict motivated by more practical concerns, such as who should control, or how resources should be divided.

The Rwanda conflict -- well, the latest one at least, in the early 90s -- was not genocide. It was not motivated by racial hatred. It had no relationship whatsoever to Nazi Germany. Hutu were not Nazis, and Tutsi were not Jews. The comparison is laughable. The Tutsi forces ended the conflict shortly after it began, and the current, sitting president is a member of that group. The two groups also live, side by side, in peace, as they did before the conflict.

It was simply a civil war. Everyone was simply too poor, too hungry to support themselves, and it reached a tipping point where the smallest excuse, such as the assassination that technically started the conflict, was enough to get people fighting.

That's what happens when you breed too many people in an area without enough resources to support them. Every time. It will happen on a global scale, a true holocaust (which means burning whole, or complete destruction), if humans continue to breed at the rate they are while continuing to consume resources at the rate they are.

That is not an opinion, it is a historical fact. Nature has the last laugh.

Tudamorf
07-03-2010, 12:40 AM
A million people slaughtered with machetes in 6 weeks.
With the UN preventing those being slaughtered from arming and defending themselves.What are you talking about? Tutsi forces ended the war 3 months after it began.

The UN and all the rich countries simply stood by and let the fight play itself out, which is exactly what they should have done.

Fyyr
07-03-2010, 04:57 AM
It was not motivated by racial hatred.

You and I have nothing further to discuss on this topic.

Klath
07-03-2010, 02:51 PM
You really believe that stone age people, American Indians, were able to change the weather and climate?

Study: Humans altered climate 10,000 years ago (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38064137/ns/technology_and_science-science/)

Fyyr
07-03-2010, 06:46 PM
So, then you do believe it, Klath?

And you believe this 'experiment' and its proponents 'conclusions'?


It is not only plausible to you, but you believe it to be true?

Tudamorf
07-03-2010, 11:59 PM
So, then you do believe it, Klath?

And you believe this 'experiment' and its proponents 'conclusions'?What do you believe causes climate change?

Fyyr
07-04-2010, 07:16 AM
Um, the real things that cause it.

Changes in the output of the solar radiation of the Sun.
Changes in the orbit of the Earth revolving around the Sun.
Deviations in the axis of the Earth about its axis.

Look, I am not such a fool to think that humans are not causing changes in the Earths atmospheric temperature. I think we are.

But I will give you a computer model which any one of you can test.
Most of the readers here have computers, some have really powerful ones.
Do an experiment. Turn off all your air conditioning, all your heating. Any time of the year.
I bet that you, that the room with your computer is hotter than the rest of your rooms in your house.

I am not saying that modern humans are not warming their climate.
I just don't think that it is because of CO2.
I don't really think that the Global Warming scientist think that it is either.
I think that is their Lipitor. Their ruse on the rest of you. I think that most of them really know what the cause of increased temperature is. I really do.

Scientists have used the Greenhouse model, a glass box on the ground.
They have used Venus, a planet which has NO plants, and is much closer to the Sun, and is thus far, and therefore much hotter, as a model for human caused Climate Change(global warming) for our planet Earth.

I just don't buy it.
We burn more stuff. We have lights, and furnaces, and cars, and air conditioners, and computers...All of those things give off heat. Even the total body mass of living humans(not counting their CO2 output), are giving off heat.

I just don't buy the model is all, it is a flawed model.

And coming up with more models based on GIGO, does not make any sense to me.
So come on. The Earth was already warming which caused the Mammoths and Sabertooth tigers to die out. Even IF, if, cave men did hunt Mammoths, they were already dying out because of NATURAL CLIMATE changes. They did not hunt sabertooth tigers to extinction, they were going out too. Just as Mammoths were.

Cavemen, 10,000 years ago hunted Sabertooth tigers to extinction. Right?

First you tell me that Stone Age American Indians caused climate change,,,,now you are saying the Cave Men changed the climate so much that Mammoths and Sabertooth tigers died out.?????

Occam's Razor. Completely implausible.
When we already know that changes in the the axis of the Earth, changes in the orbit of the Earth, and changes in the Sun's output causes Climate Change. We know that this happens. We can't change it, nor can anyone make any money off it it.

Its like the Hurricane people saying that hurricanes now are indicative of climate change. I posted years ago, the 20 and 40 year cycles of Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes and tropical storms.

It's a big Fn'ing sham. You guys are like Jehovah Witnesses.
End of the world, next year. See the signs, they are everywhere.

I think you are all fools.

Fyyr
07-04-2010, 07:23 AM
The Earth gets warmer and it gets cooler on a regular, and semiregular basis.

Naturally.

Placing the blame for that on cavemen, and Stone Age people.
Is FCKING NUTS.

Cave men killing Mammoths, which changed our climate, is just fn nuts.
They were already going to die out.
Just like the Sabertooths.
It was just their time to die. Because the Earth's climate changes on its own.

Bands of cavemen chasing after Mammoths, and Sabertooth tigers, causing climate change, that caused their extinction??? 10,000 years ago. Cavemen changed the climate?

You have got to be fn kidding me.

There is a bridge, it is red, but we call it goldened, I have the paper, I will sell it for 32 million dollars. I can take you out to it, just so you can see it before you buy. I have the paper.

Panamah
07-04-2010, 10:27 AM
It is surprising how you never hear mentioned the cause that Diamond mentions in Collapse about the Rwandan war. Of course, the way it started was by the government inciting things but it probably wasn't the true cause.

It just pisses me off that we don't supply these countries with appropriate birth control.

Erianaiel
07-04-2010, 12:39 PM
It is surprising how you never hear mentioned the cause that Diamond mentions in Collapse about the Rwandan war. Of course, the way it started was by the government inciting things but it probably wasn't the true cause.

It just pisses me off that we don't supply these countries with appropriate birth control.

We did. And then the religious right fanatics took over the government and put a stop to that.


Eri
(as if women in many of those countries have any control over when, how and with whom they have sex. The idea that they can force men to use condoms is laughable. Not even the threat of aids could make those men abandon some incredibly risky (for them and even more so for women) practices. Instead they rather trust in magic, rape of underage children and showers ...)

Panamah
07-04-2010, 12:57 PM
I think maybe it'd be more appropriate to use IUD's, BC implants or shots, tubal ligations to those who have finished bearing children. With poor transportation and poor access, and rape so prevalent, it seems like single use BC or even the pill is a lousy solution.

Erianaiel
07-04-2010, 01:15 PM
Um, the real things that cause it.

Changes in the output of the solar radiation of the Sun.
Changes in the orbit of the Earth revolving around the Sun.
Deviations in the axis of the Earth about its axis.

Look, I am not such a fool to think that humans are not causing changes in the Earths atmospheric temperature. I think we are.

But I will give you a computer model which any one of you can test.
Most of the readers here have computers, some have really powerful ones.
Do an experiment. Turn off all your air conditioning, all your heating. Any time of the year.
I bet that you, that the room with your computer is hotter than the rest of your rooms in your house.


On a global scale the heat generated by burning fossile fuels is not even noticeable compared to the amount of heat we receive from the sun during that same period of time. A single hurricane contains more energy (i.e. heat) than the entire USA burns annually. Far more energy.

What makes the earth hotter is either a significant increase of the amount of radiation received from the sun. Latest measurements suggest that contrary to earlier predictions this is actually decreasing rather than rising to a new maximum. The other is how much of that radiation gets converted to heat in the lowest kilometer of the earth's atmosphere. If you create a lot of clouds in the upper atmosphere then much of that light gets reflected away and never heats the earth. It will quickly get colder. If you make the ground darker you trap more radiation and the earth will get hotter.
If you create a situation where the atmosphere is transparent to long wavelengths but opaque to short wavelengths you have a situation where the earth will warm up simply because most radiation we receive has long wavelengths but hot surfaces emit short length infrared light. This is the mechanism behind the greenhouse gas that you dismiss so lightly. Not the glass box that gave it its name. It is called greenhouse -gas- effect for a reason. Basically CO2 and NH4 (plus a host of others) are gasses that are less transparent to infrared lights. The more of them you have in the atmosphere the more of the infrared light emitted by the heated earth gets trapped in the lower atmosphere instead of escaping back into space.
This may be inconvenient to accept but there is no credible science that contradicts this (it is easily verified in even highschool experiments). The uncertainties come from the secondary effects some of which reinforce the effect of CO2 on atmospheric temperature and others which reduce it (e.g. more heat means more evaporation and thus more clouds, which reduces the amount of radiation that can get trapped as heat on the earth's surface.)


I am not saying that modern humans are not warming their climate.
I just don't think that it is because of CO2.


Yes, well, your believe is not grounded in scientific evidence unfortunately.


I don't really think that the Global Warming scientist think that it is either.
I think that is their Lipitor. Their ruse on the rest of you. I think that most of them really know what the cause of increased temperature is. I really do.


And now you sound like Swiftfox, positing a global conspiracy of tens of thousands of scientists, just so you do not have to believe in the conclusions they have come to.


Scientists have used the Greenhouse model, a glass box on the ground.
They have used Venus, a planet which has NO plants, and is much closer to the Sun, and is thus far, and therefore much hotter, as a model for human caused Climate Change(global warming) for our planet Earth.


Actually, they use venus because its surface temperature is MUCH higher than can be predicted from the amount of radiation it receives from the sun, even at its closer distance.
They also use the earth because its surface temperature is MUCH higher than can be predicted from the amount of radiation it receives. For use the surface temperature should be well below freezing (and the first couple of kilometers of water actually should have been ice). Something -is- warming up the earth and you can bet it is not the volcanos.


So come on. The Earth was already warming which caused the Mammoths and Sabertooth tigers to die out. Even IF, if, cave men did hunt Mammoths, they were already dying out because of NATURAL CLIMATE changes. They did not hunt sabertooth tigers to extinction, they were going out too. Just as Mammoths were.

Cavemen, 10,000 years ago hunted Sabertooth tigers to extinction. Right?

First you tell me that Stone Age American Indians caused climate change,,,,now you are saying the Cave Men changed the climate so much that Mammoths and Sabertooth tigers died out.?????

Occam's Razor. Completely implausible.
When we already know that changes in the the axis of the Earth, changes in the orbit of the Earth, and changes in the Sun's output causes Climate Change. We know that this happens. We can't change it, nor can anyone make any money off it it.


I agree that prehistoric humans could not have caused a global climate change. They could have caused a local one. Cutting down all the trees around the mediteranean did cause a desert to form and it did shift rainfall patterns and it did cause the average temperature in the region to increase.
Many ancient civilisations have collapsed because of the uncontrolled destruction of the natural environment by them destroyed their own means to support themselves. But no, they did not cause a global climate change. It took about two billion people roughly a century to start a trend towards that.


Its like the Hurricane people saying that hurricanes now are indicative of climate change. I posted years ago, the 20 and 40 year cycles of Atlantic and Gulf hurricanes and tropical storms.


If variations are big then it is difficult to see the small changes that indicate a long term shift in the averages. Worrying about a rise of 0.2 degrees celsius in the average global annual temperature seems silly when the difference from day to day, night to day and summer to winter can be 10 to 20 degrees. Until you realise that the few degrees that the scientists are worrying about are what makes the difference between an ice age and our current climate. Nobody really has a frame of reference what a similar change in the other direction means, but extreme desertification is a likely prospect. Worst case would see only a few km of coastal areas comfortably inhabitable (so wave goodbye to the midwest and all the food it produces, and apply that to the entire world).

Maybe all this talk about climate changes turns out to be false alarm. But considering how severe the consequences are if it is not, it seems prudent to prepare for the worst and do something about the most likely culprit. Burning less fossile fuels is a necessity anyway within two or three decades (when we run out of the stuff) and trying to remove some of the excess from the atmosphere could be considered a good idea even when the scientists turn out to be wrong (we never suffered when it was a lot less than it is today, before we starting burning mass quantities of coal and oil).

If we start doing something now we may just end up living in countries that are still feasible when the inevitable day arrives that we run out of oil, and we just might avoid living in a world that resembles abu dhabi (only most of it would be even hotter).


Eri

Erianaiel
07-04-2010, 01:18 PM
I think maybe it'd be more appropriate to use IUD's, BC implants or shots, tubal ligations to those who have finished bearing children. With poor transportation and poor access, and rape so prevalent, it seems like single use BC or even the pill is a lousy solution.

Indeed, which is why the most effective form of birth control in large parts of Africa, sadly, was abortion. The only thing that women had complete control over.
It really is a sad state of affairs that this was the case, and it speaks volumes about our inability to create a fair society.


Eri

Tudamorf
07-04-2010, 01:23 PM
The Earth gets warmer and it gets cooler on a regular, and semiregular basis.

Naturally.Is "naturally" your way of saying "I don't know"?

Assuming we can read thermometers, a change in climate must mean that there is some force behind it.

You have mentioned three: changes in the output of the solar radiation of the Sun, changes in the orbit of the Earth revolving around the Sun, and deviations in the axis of the Earth about its axis.

What about climate changes that cannot be explained by those three factors? Like say, the past 50 years. How do you explain those?

Tudamorf
07-04-2010, 01:28 PM
It just pisses me off that we don't supply these countries with appropriate birth control.While simultaneously supplying them with more food so that they can breed even more and make their situation even worse.

But that's what happens when you have Christians in charge.

Panamah
07-05-2010, 11:45 AM
Indeed, which is why the most effective form of birth control in large parts of Africa, sadly, was abortion. The only thing that women had complete control over.
It really is a sad state of affairs that this was the case, and it speaks volumes about our inability to create a fair society.Eri
In Collapse, he talked a lot about population control that a lot of native peoples used. Infanticide was very common, as was using hot rocks on the belly, I guess to raise the temperature internally high enough to cause an abortion.

But Africa has become very Muslim and very Catholic and I bet they're discouraging abortion as well as birth control. It is a double whammy, they don't want you to limit the number of children you have regardless of whether you can feed them or not.

Panamah
07-06-2010, 12:01 PM
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/549caea1-9615-4a2d-8a9c-e6757d3d5277.jpg

Tudamorf
07-06-2010, 02:55 PM
Yeah, we should be encouraging more people to do something by paying them to do nothing.

Fyyr
07-06-2010, 10:50 PM
Is "naturally" your way of saying "I don't know"?



No, naturally means things we have no control over it.
And can't make money off it.


Just like high cholesterol is only responsible for 8% of heart attacks, it is the only thing that we have control over. So it is the main push, because it is the only place money can be made. All docs know that it's 8%, all scientists know too. But most nurses don't know it, and fewer laypersons.

I wonder how that translates to the CO2, greenhouse, and Venus scientists.

Tudamorf
07-06-2010, 11:10 PM
No, naturally means things we have no control over it.And those things are?

Erianaiel
07-07-2010, 03:20 AM
http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/549caea1-9615-4a2d-8a9c-e6757d3d5277.jpg

I guess that is a creative way to vote yes without being seen voting yet.


Eri

Fyyr
07-07-2010, 06:05 AM
And those things are?
I said.

There are fluctuations in the output of the Sun.
Deviations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
And there are deviations in the rotation of the Earth about it's axis, and deviations of that axis.

All of those things cause changes in the climate of the Earth.
Everyone knows that. Um, like duh, everyone knows those things. Right?

I mean really, cavemen hunting Mastadons and Sabertooth Tigers to extinction, so that grassland turned into Birch forests that changed the climate. So that humans really caused climate change in Siberia...
O Really? Come one.

Would you honestly today chase after a Sabertooth Tiger(something that really really wants to eat you), if they were alive today, with a Remington 7mm Rifle with Leopold scope? Let alone a pointy stick, with a piece of obsidian stuck on the end? Gimme a break.

But its MSNBC, of course. So go figure. It must be true.

I love Carl Sagan for most things...But this greenhouse Venus thing...
I am not a buyer. Never was. Because the Earth is not like a greenhouse. And it's not like Venus. And any GIGO computer model based on those two models is just wrong. GIGO, garbage in, garbage out. Wrong.

The Earth is not like a glass box on the ground, or like Venus. It just is not.
To use it as a model is just wrong. To use them as a basis of computer models is just wrong. The premise is wrong.

It was stated in a previous post, that MY computer model is flawed.
Why is it flawed?
I have a computer in my room.
It generates heat.
The room is hotter than any other room in the house.

I can see it, feel it, experience it. It is warmer.
Why is that model less of a model than a glass box model when it comes to global warming? CO2 global warming needs a two model stretch. That CO2 acts like a greenhouse, and that on Earth its going to react the same as on Venus which is

Venus orbits 107 million km from the Sun

Earth orbits the Sun at a distance of 150 million km.

It is closer. Its going to be hotter.
It has no water. And no life.
Its going to be hotter. Its not hotter there because it has a CO2 atmosphere, it is hotter there because it is Venus and its closer to the Sun.

It is hotter because it is closer, and it only has an atmosphere made of CO2. It has no life to consume CO2.

It is not like Earth, in any respect. But it is the model for CO2 global warming models.

Fyyr
07-07-2010, 06:09 AM
There are huge changes in temperature of the Earth just by rotation.
There are huge changes in temperature of the Earth just by revolution.

There are huge changes in both rotation and revolution of the Earth about the Sun.
Everyone knows that. Which explains any deviations of the changes of the deviations. Which is the real cause of any changes in climate.


Not cavemen hunting Mastadons.
That is just fn stupid.


What's next the Mercury model?
Mercury'
"Mercury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28planet%29) has a very tenuous and highly variable atmosphere (surface bound exosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exosphere)) containing hydrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen), helium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium), oxygen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), sodium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium), calcium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcium), potassium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium) and water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor), with a combined pressure level of about 10−14 bar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bar_%28unit%29) (1 nPa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal_%28unit%29)).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury%27s_atmosphere#cite_note-NASAMWB-3) "

Mercury is like 1200 degrees. As opposed to 400 for Venus.

Let's just get on it now, and make all of the stuff in Mercury's atmosphere illegal now.



Venus is hotter because it is closer to the sun.
A greenhouse is not like the Earth.
Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, all of the plants on the Earth EAT CO2.
Including every single alga cell in the ocean.

Tudamorf
07-07-2010, 01:47 PM
I said.

There are fluctuations in the output of the Sun.
Deviations in the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.
And there are deviations in the rotation of the Earth about it's axis, and deviations of that axis.

All of those things cause changes in the climate of the Earth.But those are easily measurable, predictable things. We can compute solar activity precisely, and we know exactly how our planet turns and wobbles around its axis.

So what if there is climate change that CAN'T be explained by the factors that you just mentioned? Like, all the factors you mentioned say it should be getting colder but in fact it's getting hotter.

What causes it then?

Tudamorf
07-07-2010, 02:22 PM
Mercury is like 1200 degrees. As opposed to 400 for Venus.Mercury goes down to about -180 C in the shade. Because it has no atmosphere to retain any heat. And it goes up to about 420 C in direct sun.

The temperature on the surface of Venus is about 460 C. Hotter than Mercury. Venus is twice as far away from the sun as Mercury is.

Dark spots within our moon's craters have been recently measured as averaging -238 C, slightly colder than the average temperature we measure from Pluto. They may be the coldest places we know in the solar system. The moon has no atmosphere. It's also closer to the sun than Pluto is (nearly 40 times closer).

Now stop making up stuff and answer my question. If your three factors can't explain global warming, how else do YOU explain it?

Klath
07-08-2010, 06:13 PM
Venus is hotter because it is closer to the sun.
A greenhouse is not like the Earth.
Even if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, all of the plants on the Earth EAT CO2.
Including every single alga cell in the ocean.

Not this crap again. You've made it clear in numerous past threads that you don't really understand what a greenhouse gas is or why they are a concern. Seriously, Fyyr, you should be the poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect.

Panamah
07-08-2010, 08:03 PM
Not this crap again. You've made it clear in numerous past threads that you don't really understand what a greenhouse gas is or why they are a concern. Seriously, Fyyr, you should be the poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect.
Hmm... had to go look that one up. It's pretty good. :lol: Isn't this what makes us all believe we're better than average drivers? (Which, by the way, I totally am! :xblueman: )

Fyyr
07-09-2010, 12:57 AM
Not this crap again. You've made it clear in numerous past threads that you don't really understand what a greenhouse gas is or why they are a concern. Seriously, Fyyr, you should be the poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect.
Venus is hotter than the Earth because it is closer to the sun.
There is no carbon based life on Venus.
Earth is not like a glass box on the ground.
Earth is not like Venus or a greenhouse.

Using a glass box on the ground and Venus as a model for the Earth is fn stupid.

The greenhouse and Venus models are the complete and whole basis and foundation for the CO2 anthropogenic cause of global warming. It is a flawed model from the very premise.

For a model to work, it must be LIKE what you are modeling it against.
The Earth, and its climate and atmosphere, is NOT LIKE your models.


Do you have other scientific studies which do not rely on these two flawed models, I will certainly entertain your hypothesis?

Or, if you can show me how Venus is LIKE Earth, or a greenhouse is LIKE Earth, to the point where they are representative models, I will entertain your hypothesis? Tell me why you think these models ARE LIKE the Earth convincingly.

It is not a cognitive issue, it is an affective issue.
The fact that you can't tell the difference in that diagnoses of that, lends me to doubt your credibility in diagnoses. Unless, you merely wanted to insult.




Something does not become more true simply as more and more people believe it to be true.

Tudamorf
07-09-2010, 01:56 AM
Venus is hotter than the Earth because it is closer to the sun.Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though it's twice as far from the sun?

Klath
07-09-2010, 07:36 AM
Hmm... had to go look that one up. It's pretty good. :lol: Isn't this what makes us all believe we're better than average drivers? (Which, by the way, I totally am! :xblueman: )
Aye, it's the same thing that makes Teabaggers think they've got all the answers.

I do a fair amount of driving and, in general, California drivers are some of the most skilled I've seen. When I go to SIGGRAPH in LA I usually stay in Pasadena and take 110 to get downtown to the convention center. The flow of traffic is often close to 80mph and there are frequent entrances and exits with very short acceleration/deceleration zones. Despite this, there are remarkably few accidents. If you were to throw the average Seattle driver into this mix they'd sh!t themselves. Seattle drivers like to slow down to a crawl no matter what the driving hazard is. I remember sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic for 3/4 of an hour and when I finally got to the obstruction it turned out to be a loaf of bread. A loaf of farking bread!

Fyyr
07-09-2010, 08:15 AM
Why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though it's twice as far from the sun?

What are the new numbers Tudamorf?

The old Carl Sagan Greenhouse/Venus numbers were 400 for Venus and 1200 for Mercury. I mean, he is the one who popularized this whole theory, his numbers were good science, right? (from Cosmos).

There seems to be some discrepancy as to exactly what the temp of Mercury is now..
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/OlesyaNisanov.shtml


So Tudamorf, how hot does Mercury get?
You say it that Venus gets hotter than Mercury, you are going to have to prove that...

Panamah
07-09-2010, 10:20 AM
A loaf of farking bread!
Spring effect! Might have been an overturned truck 45 minutes ago, that backed up traffic earlier. The spring takes awhile to unwind.

LA scares me too and I live in So. CA.

Palarran
07-09-2010, 03:08 PM
Imprecision is not discrepancy.

What's more interesting is that not only is the surface temperature of Venus slightly hotter than the peak temperature for Mercury, but it is more or less the same throughout Venus's surface, regardless of latitude or time of day.

Tudamorf
07-09-2010, 06:33 PM
What are the new numbers Tudamorf?They're not new. They're just the real numbers, as opposed to the ones you made up in your bible.

Venus has been studied for years (including probes sent by the Soviets in the 1960s), but the most recent, and detailed, study of Venus has been with the ESA's Venus Express probe (http://www.venus.wisc.edu/mission_spacecraft.html). You can find a complete infrared map of the southern hemisphere here (http://www.esa.int/images/2008je003118-p11_enh_H.jpg). It was taken a year ago, and shows temperature varying from 422 to 442 C). You can find all of the Venus Express data here (http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=39432).

Mercury has no atmosphere, so you can easily measure the temperature just by looking at it. NASA has a quick stats page here (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/mercuryfact.html). NASA's messenger probe is studying it now (although I don't think they're bothering with temperature studies) and the ESA has a probe planned for the near future.

Simply stated, the assumptions in your bible are WRONG. Venus is much hotter on average than Mercury is, BECAUSE IT HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. This is true even though Venus is twice away from the Sun as Mercury is (and therefore receives only 1/4 of the amount of radiant heat from the Sun, in case your knowledge of physics is as poor/non-existent as your knowledge of astronomy is).

Now answer the question, if your three factors can't explain global warming, what does?

Fyyr
07-10-2010, 02:25 PM
Now answer the question, if your three factors can't explain global warming, what does?



nm