Oh, everything's just dandy ... by rue

Temperature drives CO2? News to me; any particular reference you care to provide, or should I just google it?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 6:40 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

AntiMason

(I just realized that your shortened handle is AntiM - aka Auntie Em from the Wizard of Oz - but that was pretty random, so anyway ...)

"Rue im curious, what do you personally see happening 10 to 20 years out? i see that you support the man-made warming theory, so what do you believe should be done to prevent, or minimize the effects?"

In 10-20 years we'll see more of the same, but worse.

The problems are multiple, from overfishing the oceans to polluting the environment with persistent chemicals, so global warming will be another problem on the list of problems to contend with. (Fortunately at that time I'll be old and on my way to kicking, so I won't be personally affected, but sadly my family will.) At the same time the US will be on the downswing in global power and influence. In the fierce global competition for resources US citizens will be relatively poor.

As to global warming itself, my FEAR is that there is no efficient negative feedback for what we humans have unleashed (see below), and so heating up will cause the earth to continue to heat up more until, ultimately, it ends up like Venus. But that's purely speculative and not a projection (or prediction).

But this is if we, as a country and as a species, don't do anything differently.

As a country, the US should be making energy efficiency its very first goal. Not only is this a good way to reduce greenhouse gases, it's economically and militarily smart. In a world of diminishing EASY oil, cutting energy wastefulness would reduce oil imports and help secure the US from energy extortion.
The simplest way is to raise CAFE standards and eliminate exemptions, to eliminate 'always on' appliances (like fast-on TVs), and to eliminate the standard light-bulb.
Another answer is to require that electrity generators use a certain percentage of renewable resources like wind or solar power.
Fossil fuel is carbon that hasn't seen the light of day for millions of years. Using fossil fuel changes the total amount of carbon at the earth's surface. So another part of the answer is to not use fossil fuel.
As I was flying over the country the other day, I saw thousands and thousands of square miles of sunshine shining down on rocks - for free. The US could be harvesting the energy of the sun. Especially for people living in the warm sunny areas, with PV roofs the energy of the sun could be used to cool their houses - a great match of peak demand and peak availability.
I'm not a personal fan of using hydrogen as a gas. Industrially you have to pressurize it to tens of thousands of psi in order to get enough energy in a small area. At that pressure it's dangerous and wasteful - it literally seeps through steel.
But converters that take plant-derived methanol or ethanol and efficiently (~ 98%) convert it to hydrogen for fuel cells (~ 98% efficient ) are, IMHO, a great way to make use of solar-derived energy in a form compatible with existing infrastructure. We already have the facilities to deal with liquid fuels.
And as scientists have pointed out many times, we already have the technology to solve the problem. What's missing is the political will, which, frankly, is tied to the influence of the petroleum business on US politics.

IF the US invests in these technologies, it will find itself in a good position in 10 - 20 years. It could be (nearly) energy independent, and a vendor of these technologies to the rest of the world. And energy efficient businesses are profitable businesses.
So while the US may not be able to solve the entire problem, it can solve its contribution (about 25%) AND boost its own economy vis-a-vis the world.

**********************************************************

As to whether or not global warming is natural or human-caused -
(pardon if I don't find links for these, they should be relatively easy to find but they are a compilation of things I've read over the years so they're not currently bookmarked):
There is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been in 420 million years. This is new territory. Because of that, whatever warming / cooling cycles the earth has gone through before on its own are nothing like what the earth is doing now. Since the sun isn't the cause (increase of solar output is miniscule) there really is no other factor to explain the heating except the extremely high CO2 levels.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:10 AM

'and to eliminate the standard light-bulb.'
though I'd feel much better if there were someplace to recycle those florescent lightbulbs which have mercury in them.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:57 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, it would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those of more than 800,000 cars annually.

CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 5 milligrams, which is roughly equivalent to an amount that would cover the tip of a ball-point pen. ...

Mercury currently is an essential component of CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. Many manufacturers have taken significant steps to reduce mercury used in their fluorescent lighting products. In fact, the average amount of mercury in a CFL is anticipated to drop by the end of 2007, thanks to technology advances and a commitment from the members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association."

If every home in America ... 100 million homes and 100 million bulbs x 5mg each ... If I did the calculation right, it's 1102 pounds. (This isn't an annual emission - assuming that the bulbs live up to their claimed 10 year life-span it would be 110 pounds annualized.)

MOST mercury comes from power generation. "Approximately 75 tons of mercury is in coal used to generate electricity in the United States and about two-thirds of this mercury is emitted to the air, resulting in about 50 tons being emitted annually."

So the environmental benefits of compact fluorescent light bulbs outweigh the environmental cost.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 8:59 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As a country, the US should be making energy efficiency its very first goal. Not only is this a good way to reduce greenhouse gases, it's economically and militarily smart. In a world of diminishing EASY oil, cutting energy wastefulness would reduce oil imports and help secure the US from energy extortion.
The simplest way is to raise CAFE standards and eliminate exemptions, to eliminate 'always on' appliances (like fast-on TVs), and to eliminate the standard light-bulb.
Another answer is to require that electrity generators use a certain percentage of renewable resources like wind or solar power.
Fossil fuel is carbon that hasn't seen the light of day for millions of years. Using fossil fuel changes the total amount of carbon at the earth's surface. So another part of the answer is to not use fossil fuel.
As I was flying over the country the other day, I saw thousands and thousands of square miles of sunshine shining down on rocks - for free. The US could be harvesting the energy of the sun. Especially for people living in the warm sunny areas, with PV roofs the energy of the sun could be used to cool their houses - a great match of peak demand and peak availability.
I'm not a personal fan of using hydrogen as a gas. Industrially you have to pressurize it to tens of thousands of psi in order to get enough energy in a small area. At that pressure it's dangerous and wasteful - it literally seeps through steel.
But converters that take plant-derived methanol or ethanol and efficiently (~ 98%) convert it to hydrogen for fuel cells (~ 98% efficient ) are, IMHO, a great way to make use of solar-derived energy in a form compatible with existing infrastructure. We already have the facilities to deal with liquid fuels.
And as scientists have pointed out many times, we already have the technology to solve the problem. What's missing is the political will, which, frankly, is tied to the influence of the petroleum business on US politics.

IF the US invests in these technologies, it will find itself in a good position in 10 - 20 years. It could be (nearly) energy independent, and a vendor of these technologies to the rest of the world. And energy efficient businesses are profitable businesses.
So while the US may not be able to solve the entire problem, it can solve its contribution (about 25%) AND boost its own economy vis-a-vis the world.

Rue:

Wow! I actually find myself in total agreement with you on some things! These are all wonderful suggestions that we should absolutely be working on, especially the ones concering conservation and efficiency. With the emergence of economic powers like India and China, who use fossil fuels exclusively for the most part, we will see increased demand for these resources. As the waning economic power, the US will not have the economic muscle it once had when competing for these resources. If we were to ween ourselves from these power sources and find alternate fuels or increased efficiency we would have nothing to worry about. It bothers me greatly that we as a country have become so wasteful! In the past, americans have had a reputation for being thrifty and resourceful, but we have become gluttonous and wasteful in recent decades.

-----------------
"There is not such a cradle of democracy upon the earth as the Free Public Library, this republic of letters, where neither rank, office, nor wealth receives the slightest consideration."
---Andrew Carnegie

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 9:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Razza,

It seems pretty common sense to me. I guess we're on the same page with that.

Added: But when I think about it, there is more than just economics, security and the environment in my thinking. It has to do with words like wasteful, lazy, over-stuffed, arrogant - which have to do with national character. We'd be better people if we changed our ways.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:27 PM

Thanks, that's a most excellent posting Rue, especially with the mercury follow up. I'll replace most of the rest of my fixtures with this reassurance.

In NY state we have deregulated electricity, and you can sign up for whatever you want. I've dropped NYSEG and signed up for a 100% renewable power supplier. It's about 2cents / KW more (though the delta seems to decrease each year), and they demonstrate 100% reference to wind power, solar, etc. in power supplied. Now, give me a car like the Chevy Volt (sorry, prototypes only available at this time), and I'd be a very happy camper.

Besides the CO2 emissions, it should be kept in mind that oil is very useful for plastics and many other purposes. It makes a great deal of sense from a longer term perspective to save oil for such purposes.

====
Please vote for Firefly: http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

BBC poll is still open, vote! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6517155.stm

Consider $5/year to support FFF: http://s1.amazon.com/exec/varzea/pay/T39WWCGS4JYCV4

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 12:37 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
Thanks, that's a most excellent posting Rue, especially with the mercury follow up. I'll replace most of the rest of my fixtures with this reassurance.

Or you could replace your light bulbs with LEDs and solve both problems.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 1:42 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

" http://www.productdose.com/article.php?article_id=1142

"... highest output bulb (LED) produces 90 lumens. A 75 watt incandescent puts out 1055 lumens."

LEDs aren't quite there in terms of regular household use. Their light is directional and so has to be diffused, and they have to be clustered to produce enough light for normal use. It looks like they may be ready in a few years.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 1, 2007 2:13 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Interesting segment on NPR's Science Friday today about carbon sequestration. Seems A group at Columbia University has found a scalable method of removing Carbon from the atmosphere. A unit as big as a door and a meter deep could scrub 20 tons of carbon per year. a quarter of a million larger units (I think it was like 20 by 40 meters), would take care of all non-point source carbon emmisions. Still problems with storage, but an interesting concept.

Here's a link including the audio archive.

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2007/Jun/hour1_060107.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:09 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Carbon sequestration is one of the principle ways we will deal with the issue of carbon dioxide buildup. This is yet another example of why the Kyoto Accord is a mistake. Humans have always survived on this planet by their ingenuity, and today we have long sense past the natural carrying capacity of this planet, in my opinion. To force our economies to absorb carbon emission will have effectively zero impact on carbon concentrations in the atmosphere, but will dramatically ruin our capacity for research and development into technology that can fix the problem.

I use LEDs in my house, regularly. I would consider that regular household use. LEDs are what they are, and there are plenty of applications for them in the house. And they also last forever, for all intents and purposes. I’ve never had one burn out. I remember when I was growing up we used to replace the light over the stove all the time. I use an LED over the stove, and it will probably never burn out before I sell the house and it doesn’t contain Hg vapor that could contaminate food if it happened to break. I use them in all my lamps. They’re equivalent to about a 30-40 Watt bulb, but that’s all would use in those lamps anyways. At night a 40 Watt bulb casts a lot of light.

I use compact florescent bulbs in my light fixtures because they need to light a large area, and I use incandescent lights in the spot light on the balcony, because they need to cast a very bright light.

I haven’t replaced a light bulb in 3 years.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:18 AM

I was thinking that LED might be useful in those "just want some light to not trip over myself applications", and yes, very good idea about over the stove.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 2, 2007 8:44 AM

KHYRON

Wow, this thread has moved from the standard bickering between the two sides to something much more useful. Great stuff!

Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 3, 2007 9:14 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey Finn,

Where do you get your LEDs ?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 3, 2007 1:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

The CFLs are working really nice at Casa Geezer. As incandescents croak, CFLs replace them. Only problem I've found is that they don't come up to full brightness immediately, and I can't find a 3-way CFL to fit in my antique torchere with the large Mogul size socket. All the work spaces have had good old flourescent tubes for years.

Need to look into LEDs to replace the nightlight, although the current 8 watt bulb doesn't seem to be browning out the East Coast.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 3, 2007 2:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

(One) study http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0700609104v1 , published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year’s massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

(While) the study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China ... developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world’s people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study http://nsidc.org/news/press/20070430_StroeveGRL.html by the University of California’s National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 4, 2007 8:10 AM

REAVERMAN

Well, as the song goes:

"Whoa oh oh, whoa oh, oh oh, fuck the world, fuck 'em all." (Song: "One Trillion Dollars" by Anti-Flag)

[img]

[/img]

"I refuse to submit,
To the god you say is kind.
I know what's right, and it is time,
It's time to fight, and free our minds!

Our spirits were forged in snow and ice,
To bend like steel forged over fire.
We were not made to bend like reed,
Or to turn the other cheek!"

- from the song "Thousand Years of Opression" by Amon Amarth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:04 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

US torpedoes German hopes for G8 climate deal

HEILIGENDAMM, Germany (AFP) - The United States dashed German hopes Wednesday for a binding pact on slashing carbon emissions which was the centrepiece of Chancellor Angela Merkel's preparations for the Group of Eight summit.

Angela Merkel should have let Bush give her another back-rub to seal the deal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070606/pl_afp/g8summitclimate_0706061933
04; _ylt=AqpU7p5CSZ.rpuArs_SdkzDMWM0F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 10:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

On 'To the Point' on NPR today, they were discussing climate change and the developing world. one of the panelists, Fatih Birol, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency noted that climate change is way down on the list of priorities for the developing nations, including China and India. They're more interested in getting disease under control, providing clean water, feeding their populations, etc. Considering that "...within twenty-five years, {China's} total carbon dioxide emissions could be double the output of the world's richest nations..." relying on reduction in global carbon emmissions to limit global warming may be re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Maybe time for Plan B?
http://www.kcrw.com/news/programs/tp/tp070607slowing_global_warmi

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 7, 2007 3:18 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let's see - in 25 years China will have 2x the output ... so it behooves the richest nations not to do anything now so the number can be even bigger?

Or how about this - in 25 years China will have 2x the output ... on non-existant oil? on 'clean-burning' coal that they can burn as much as they want without choking on it?

That's the problem with projections like that.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 2:25 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's see - in 25 years China will have 2x the output ... so it behooves the richest nations not to do anything now so the number can be even bigger?

Or how about this - in 25 years China will have 2x the output ... on non-existant oil? on 'clean-burning' coal that they can burn as much as they want without choking on it?

The real point is that the developing world doesn't care much about greenhouse gas right now. They care about electricity, and steel, and clean water, and hospitals, and making money. If they got coal - and China and Nigeria, for example, have lots - they'll burn it, 'cause coal power plants are cheap and easy to build. People are gonna burn wood (or dung, or charcoal) for cooking because it's all they got, and solar cookers or other gadgets are either beyond their means or aren't very efficient in day-to-day life.

If greenhouse gasses cause global warming, then global warming is coming. At some point the costs of preventing it will exceed the costs of preparing for it. folks need to start planning for that.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:01 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Amazing ! We agree on a few things.

A few notes of interest. China has at this point forbidden logging on its land though it's not above buying illegally logged lumber from Indonesia, SE Asia etc. China is on a crash course to fix up SOME of their air pollution problems from coal-burning due to hosting the Olympics. But the problems are chokingly obvious in many places where coal is commonly burned. Unless it's willing to put up with the kind of killer smog London once had, except extending over all of its urban areas due to the lower grade of coal, China will have to use a different technology soon.

Simple clean-burning and cheap briquettes have already been invented for use in India that replace both fuel and stove. Corn cobs are a similar fuel answer for Ghana. What's missing is investment by powerhouse economies like the developed nations to make these readily available.

Finally, China has an effective one-child policy. For the rest of the world, simply supporting condom distribution would go a long way to reducing the human population load on the planet.

When scientists say that the technologies exist TODAY to solve the problem they weren't just referring developed nations. For a relatively small amount of money the developed world could implement these technologies in the developing world. Problem solved.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 8, 2007 6:17 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
If greenhouse gasses cause global warming, then global warming is coming. At some point the costs of preventing it will exceed the costs of preparing for it. folks need to start planning for that.

Alright, my curiosity has gotten the better of me. Who out there has any plans or preparations made for the consequences of global warming? We hear people who make plans to slow down global warming but Republicans say they're just alarmists. Who is supposed to be planning the preparations?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:28 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, this one's for you

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just, Study Shows

Yes, yessssss, yessssssssss, it'll all work out in the end. Nothing's wrong here. Go back to sleep ... sleeeeep ... sleeeeeeep ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

If greenhouse gasses cause global warming, then global warming is coming. At some point the costs of preventing it will exceed the costs of preparing for it. folks need to start planning for that.

Well, Bush IS preparing us ALL for it; he's attempting to accelerate us to Armageddon.
Wipe out mankind, and let God sort 'em out. Why else all the world antagonism?

"Now it's time to relieve you, the little people, of the burden of your failed and useless lives." Bush said that- or was it Joker? Pfft. Same thing anyway.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

"...the more people endorsed anti-egalitarian beliefs, the less guilt and moral outrage they felt."

Describes MANY. TOO many.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 5:15 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Yes, yessssss, yessssssssss, it'll all work out in the end. Nothing's wrong here. Go back to sleep ... sleeeeep ... sleeeeeeep ...

My God Rue!!!This explains the existance of Republicans, Right Wing Christians, and Fox News.
You know how when you're trying to make a point to a Republican and you're saying 1+1=2, then they say 1+1 can't equal 2 because the first 1 has terrorist ties, and when you ask what those ties are they'll say the second 1 is a CIA operative, and those ties can't be revealed for security purposes, and then they call you a terrorist lover because everybody who believes that 1+1=2 is emboldening the enemy......that's the same thing! The propensity for believing the improbable because it will lead them back to that opiate like state of diminished moral outrage. After that they can go watch FOX for reinforcement. Thanks Rue, I dislike them less somehow now.

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:13 AM

KANEMAN

"The findings appear in the March issue of the journal Psychological Science,"

Read that twice....Psychology please....sleeep....sleeeeeeeeeeeeep..........

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 7:40 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Who you callin a Ruminator!!!? No way my friend, Kane...I'm on too much Lithium to be depressed!
This just proves that you can find any evedence you want on the internet, to support whatever delusion you want to relax in. My new rule of thumb is that "All of us are right only half the time, and the half of the time we're right, we're only right half of that time" It's very eastern and strains the mind a bit doesn't it!

It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 2:47 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, this one's for you. I especially reposted it 'cause I didn't want you to miss it. When I read it I instantly thought of you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just, Study Shows

Yes, yessssss, yessssssssss, it'll all work out in the end. Nothing's wrong here. Go back to sleep ... sleeeeep ... sleeeeeeep ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, June 13, 2007 3:34 PM

KANEMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, this one's for you. I especially reposted it 'cause I didn't want you to miss it. When I read it I instantly thought of you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just, Study Shows

Yes, yessssss, yessssssssss, it'll all work out in the end. Nothing's wrong here. Go back to sleep ... sleeeeep ... sleeeeeeep ...

"The findings appear in the March issue of the journal Psychological Science,"

Read that twice....Psychology please....sleeep....sleeeeeeeeeeeeep..........

I repost for you. You nutbag grabber.........Psychology? Let me guess it's a "SCIENCE"

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/14/technology/14basics.html

Indeed, the Department of Energy estimates that in the average home, 40 percent of all electricity used to power home electronics is consumed while the products are turned off.

*****************

Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, June 14, 2007 12:28 PM

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/5505/

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, this one's for you. I especially reposted it 'cause I didn't want you to miss it - and some nameless offensive poster doesn't seem to want it at the bottom. . When I read it I instantly thought of you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just, Study Shows

Yes, yessssss, yessssssssss, it'll all work out in the end. Nothing's wrong here. Go back to sleep ... sleeeeep ... sleeeeeeep ...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 5:29 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 5:33 AM

http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/press-release/5505/
I knew there was good in him! The Republicans have not driven it from him fully.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gets a mixed report card on environmental issues in an analysis from the Sierra Club. “Schwarzenegger is certainly greener than his gubernatorial Republican predecessors in many ways,” the groups concludes, “but has quite a way to go to catch up to his immediate predecessor, Gray Davis.”

http://www.sierraclubcalifornia.org/documents/ArnoldTwoYearFullReport_
002.pdf

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:16 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) repeatedly touts the environment as his top priority — he even changed his official campaign color to green.

Yet Schwarzenegger recently announced his opposition to the Clean Alternative Energy Initiative, a landmark ballot measure that would finance alternative energy research and development by imposing a tax on oil companies. (The initiative is backed by dozens of California green groups, and would boost the state’s economy according to UC Berkeley’s Goldman School of Public Policy.)

The governor’s opposition might have something to do with the nearly $2 million in campaign contributions from oil companies he’s received since 2002. Chevron gave a total of $600,000 to his campaign and paid for his trip to the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York City. Chevron also reportedly enjoyed “considerable influence” over the content of the Governor’s major reform proposals in 2004, which included significant benefits for the oil industry.

And which oil company is the #1 donor to the group opposing the clean energy initiative? Chevron, which has given a whopping $3,740,000, more than three times the amount of the next 14 donors combined.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, this one's for you. I especially reposted it 'cause I didn't want you to miss it - and some nameless offensive poster doesn't seem to want it at the bottom. . When I read it I instantly thought of you.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228123213.htm

Diminished Sense Of Moral Outrage Key To Holding View That World Is Fair And Just, Study Shows

Rue, it doesn't matter in your worldview if I have a sense of Moral Outrage or not. If I'm not morally outraged about exactly the same things you are morally outraged about, then to you I can only be "the other" and your enemy.

And if, after all this time, you think that I consider the world "fair and just", you really haven't been paying attention at all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 6:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

Yet Schwarzenegger recently announced his opposition to the Clean Alternative Energy Initiative,

Much anger in him, like his Bush....

Yodaisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 7:09 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"it doesn't matter in your worldview if I have a sense of Moral Outrage or not"

Sure it does. But since you've never displayed one -

US supporting dictators in Central and South America ? Never happened.
Bush lied to get the US into Iraq ? Not a problem, happens all the time.
Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist.
Loss of freedoms ? Give it a hundred years or so, it'll all work out.
Ultra-rich and many many poor ? That's the beauty of capitalism.

And so on.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 10:08 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"it doesn't matter in your worldview if I have a sense of Moral Outrage or not"

Sure it does. But since you've never displayed one -

US supporting dictators in Central and South America ? Never happened.
Bush lied to get the US into Iraq ? Not a problem, happens all the time.
Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist.
Loss of freedoms ? Give it a hundred years or so, it'll all work out.
Ultra-rich and many many poor ? That's the beauty of capitalism.

And so on.

Thanks for proving my point. You never notice what anyone who doesn't agree with you actually says. You just default to the pre-conceptions of your Manichean world-view.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 11:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Y'know Geezer, having been thru many discussions with you, I thought Rue's post was a fair summary of your viewpoint.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 11:39 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Well knock me over with a feather.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 2:45 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Can I ?? Really ? When ? And if you get up can I do it again ? This is going to be fun !

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, June 15, 2007 4:10 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Y'know Geezer, having been thru many discussions with you, I thought Rue's post was a fair summary of your viewpoint.
.

Really? Let's see.

"US supporting dictators in Central and South America ? Never happened."

Doubt I ever said that since I'm sure it did happen. We supported the dictators and Russia and Cuba supported the 'People's Liberation Movements'. Isn't war by proxy fun?

"Bush lied to get the US into Iraq ? Not a problem, happens all the time."

Again and again. You got proof Bush lied? Then impeach him. Fine with me.

"Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist."

This one really steams me, since I've always come down against bigotry here. Some individuals I don't care for, but bigotry? Not here.

"Loss of freedoms ? Give it a hundred years or so, it'll all work out."

The closest I've ever gotten to this is to note that we have to let the checks and balances of government work, and that sometimes takes an election cycle or two. Hey, if you'd prefer revolution, go right ahead.

"Ultra-rich and many many poor ? That's the beauty of capitalism."

Actually, I just debate the 'Ultra-rich vs. many, many, many, many, many poor' concept, and note that the poor in capitalist-representative government societies are generally better off than the poor in socialist-communist dictatorships.

But the whole problem is still that you and Rue slip anyone who disagrees with you at all into those preconcieved roles which Rue described above, whether that's their actual opinion or not. You don't listen to what anyone says, beyond that point at which they stop parroting what you want to hear.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 4:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
"US supporting dictators in Central and South America ? Never happened."

Doubt I ever said that since I'm sure it did happen. We supported the dictators and Russia and Cuba supported the 'People's Liberation Movements'.

So a more accurate representation of your position would be But killing all those folks was worth it, for THEM

Quote:
"Bush lied to get the US into Iraq ? Not a problem, happens all the time."

Again and again. You got proof Bush lied? Then impeach him. Fine with me.

As you yourself have pointed out many times, the political process is slow and imperfect. Lack of impeachment does not mean lack of proof. So OOC, the whole aluminum-tube-Niger-yellowcake was... what?

Quote:
"Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist."

This one really steams me, since I've always come down against bigotry here. Some individuals I don't care for, but bigotry? Not here.

The only thing I've seen you get riled about is sexism. Perhaps you've gotten riled about unequal opporunity too, and I just haven't seen it. Again, OOC, what is your take on affirmative action?

Quote:
"Loss of freedoms ? Give it a hundred years or so, it'll all work out."

The closest I've ever gotten to this is to note that we have to let the checks and balances of government work, and that sometimes takes an election cycle or two.

Yeah, that's what the Roman Senators said too.

It IS possible to "break" a form of government- even a democracy. It's been done lots of times, internally when nations are under stess and even by us. In fact, our government has LOTS of experience... waaaay too much experience... breaking democracies, as you yourself have agreed. The trick is to recognize when something truly dangerous is going on. Right now, I'd say it's dangerous because the means to "fix" elections and control the media on a national scale is in place through advanced technology.

Quote:
"Ultra-rich and many many poor ? That's the beauty of capitalism."

Actually, I just debate the 'Ultra-rich vs. many, many, many, many, many poor' concept, and note that the poor in capitalist-representative government societies are generally better off than the poor in socialist-communist dictatorships.

This is where we truly disagree. The poor under Russian communism were way better off than the poor in Russia today, where life expectancy has actually dropped by 10 years. The poor in Nicaruagua were far better off under Ortega than they were under Somoza before Ortega, and Chamorro afterwards, just as the poor in Cuba are far better off than the poor anyplace else in South and Central America. (And that's not taking into the account the effect of USA blockades agsinst both nations.) But this is an area of dsiagreement that would take many threads to resolve, if ever.

Quote:
But the whole problem is still that you and Rue slip anyone who disagrees with you at all into those preconcieved roles which Rue described above, whether that's their actual opinion or not. You don't listen to what anyone says, beyond that point at which they stop parroting what you want to hear.

What I'm hearing is that you're doing exactly what you accuse us of doing. I disagree with many people on this board about one issue or another. I have distinct opinions about each person here, including you. There's nothing "pre-conceived" about my opinion of you. It is very personally tailored. But to be very opne and unmistakeable: What do you THINK my opinion is of you? And OOC- what is your opinion of me?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 6:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So a more accurate representation of your position would be But killing all those folks was worth it, for THEM

Aha. Once again, since I don't agree with you 100% on this issue, your knee-jerk reaction is that I must think "...killing all those folks was worth it...".

Quote:
As you yourself have pointed out many times, the political process is slow and imperfect. Lack of impeachment does not mean lack of proof. So OOC, the whole aluminum-tube-Niger-yellowcake was... what?

Yep. the process is slow and imperfect. Stalin's process was much quicker. That what you want?

Quote:
The only thing I've seen you get riled about is sexism.

So Rue's ""Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist." isn't quite as accurate as you thought?

Quote:
Right now, I'd say it's dangerous because the means to "fix" elections and control the media on a national scale is in place through advanced technology.

Just want to note that there have always been means to "fix" elections and control media.

Quote:
This is where we truly disagree. The poor under Russian communism were way better off than the poor in Russia today, where life expectancy has actually dropped by 10 years.

You really consider Russia a capitalist-democracy?

Quote:
But this is an area of disagreement that would take many threads to resolve, if ever.

Probably true.

Quote:
And OOC- what is your opinion of me?

I think that you would be a lot more likely to force people to do things they didn't want 'for their own good' than I would.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 16, 2007 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So a more accurate representation of your position would be But killing all those folks was worth it, for THEM=Signy
Aha. Once again, since I don't agree with you 100% on this issue, your knee-jerk reaction is that I must think "...killing all those folks was worth it...".=Geezer

Not a knee-jerk reaction. That is what you've said, altho in not in those words. Your stance, as I recall, is that if we "let communism take over" then we are dooming a lot of people to a miserable, unfree existance. So in the whole global geopolitical sense of things, it was worth it for "them". Am I wrong in expressing your view? If so, tell me how.

Quote:
As you yourself have pointed out many times, the political process is slow and imperfect. Lack of impeachment does not mean lack of proof. So OOC, the whole aluminum-tube-Niger-yellowcake was... what?=SIGNY

Yep. the process is slow and imperfect. Stalin's process was much quicker. That what you want? =GEEZER

You present a false choice. What about the American Revolution way? Also, I noticed that you did not address my other question.

Quote:
The only thing I've seen you get riled about is sexism. =SIGNY

So Rue's ""Racism, sexism, unequal opportunity ? Doesn't exist." isn't quite as accurate as you thought? =GEEZER

So speaking of people attributing thoughts, how accurate DID I think that statement was? Hint: I NEVER thought it was totally accurate, so "not as accurate as you thought" doesn't apply. How do you feel about Affirmative Action BTW?

Quote:
Right now, I'd say it's dangerous because the means to "fix" elections and control the media on a national scale is in place through advanced technology.

Just want to note that there have always been means to "fix" elections and control media.

You missed an important point, I think.
Quote:
This is where we truly disagree. The poor under Russian communism were way better off than the poor in Russia today, where life expectancy has actually dropped by 10 years.
You really consider Russia a capitalist-democracy?
Private ownership of the means of production and free elections for about 15 years. Yup. Unless there are other restrictions you think belong on capitalist-democracies that I don't know about? Also, what about Nicaragua and Cuba as examples? Seems you slid past those.

Quote:
I think that you would be a lot more likely to force people to do things they didn't want 'for their own good' than I would.

Apparently you have me confused with somebody else.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2007 6:53 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070308084514.htm

Mercury Contamination Of Fish Warrants Worldwide Public Warning

"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 17, 2007 7:12 AM