[Al_U_Card]

The dinosaurs must die!

The changes to the eco(nomic)system have been gradual but severe. The final comet-strike of a financial meltdown has been the potential coup de grace. The new methods and means will rise to survive and diversify in the new conditions. All efforts to support and maintain the dinosaurial dynasty will only serve to deplete and destroy the potential creativity and functionality of that which is to follow. The only question to ask ourselves is "Are we dinosaurs or are we dynamos?"

Welcome to the new ®evolution.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:22 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 11:28 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 20 2008, 06:19 AM, said:

that's not what i'm saying at all... i'm trying to find out if anyone thinks that the earth has undergone these types of changes time and time again in the past, with or without humans, and will do so in the future, with or without humans

I realize as usual you are asking questions instead of committing to a statement. That does not make it any less obvious what the conclusion is that you hope the answerer reaches...

The argument that seems to be up if you want to respond is "it doesn't matter what the answer to your question is." Thoughts about the topic?

huh?

Let me clarify.

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

awm, on Nov 20 2008, 07:36 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Nov 20 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

If you think that the oil companies make "multi-billion dollar profits" as a consequence of high gas prices, you don't understand the economics of the oil industry.

Well, the oil prices were high until recently, and the oil companies have been turning in record profits. There is some question of what causes what here of course. ~~

on this record profits thing, am i correct that you mean in number of dollars (and not percent)?

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

Are you really going to make me find one of your posts calling out someone else on his ad hominem attacks and shove it in your face, or can we just agree that you are being a conceited hypocritical ahole for no reason at all and leave it at that?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Let me clarify.

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

It seems to me that your question about the past cyclical changes in the earth's climate "does not matter" because it has no logical connection to the question of how to deal with the man-made global warming crisis that we face today.

No doubt it's true that global warming "matters" to some folks more than others, in the sense that some folks are more concerned than others about what happens to future generations. But that is a different point entirely. And so is whether or not the past climate cycles of the earth "matter" to a particular person or not.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Nov 21 2008, 06:29 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

Are you really going to make me find one of your posts calling out someone else on his ad hominem attacks and shove it in your face, or can we just agree that you are being a conceited hypocritical ahole for no reason at all and leave it at that?

what are you talking about? if you see an ad hominem remark in that, point it out and i'll apologize

PassedOut, on Nov 21 2008, 06:45 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

jdonn, on Nov 20 2008, 06:31 PM, said:

Let me clarify.

The answer to the question you asked does not particularly matter. What do you think about that?

if you'd said that it doesn't particularly matter to you, i'd think you were right, but just being an obamba supporter doesn't necessarily mean that you know what matters to everyone - probably it does, but not necessarily

It seems to me that your question about the past cyclical changes in the earth's climate "does not matter" because it has no logical connection to the question of how to deal with the man-made global warming crisis that we face today.

No doubt it's true that global warming "matters" to some folks more than others, in the sense that some folks are more concerned than others about what happens to future generations. But that is a different point entirely.

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

Surely you are not contending that the billions of tons of heat-trapping gases that man releases into the atmosphere do not affect the earth's climate. Is it your point that we are doomed anyway, so we might as well accelerate the process by continuing as we are?

[luke warm]

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 22 2008, 03:35 PM, said:

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Analogously: Some day, we're all going to die, so go play in traffic...

I agree completely that there are macro level processes that we as a species probably don't impact all that much (as of yet). If some massive asteroid slams into the earth, all our carbon burning ain't gonna matter jack *****. In a similar vein, a massive number of volcanic eruptions could swamp the amount of carbon that gets emitted by humans.

However, this doesn't mean that our actions have no impact at the micro level...

Moreover, its entirely possible that a human actions could cause the planet to pass some kind of tipping point: There are a LOT of feedback loops build into the climate models. Its very difficult to predict what will happen if the carbon sinks in Siberia and Canada start to dump massive amounts of C02 into the atmosphere...

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 22 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Thanks for the clarification.

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year, I'm curious as to what mechanism you believe counteracts that to the point where "we don't affect the process" at all.

And why isn't that mechanism well-publicized to relieve the concerns of folks like me? (You could get the ball rolling yourself by explaining it here.)

As a conservative myself, I don't believe it moral to risk the futures of my children and grandchildren by relying upon an unsubstantiated mechanism.

[luke warm]

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

[PassedOut]

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

I did read the whole thread and observed that myself.

[jdonn]

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

That's a far more kind way to put it than I would have...

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 01:59 PM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2008, 01:43 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 06:18 PM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

as an aside, about a year and a half ago we had this thread on the issue and i showed where it is only proponents of manmade GW who admit to lying, and admit they *should* lie about the issue... why do you think that is?

I strongly recommend that you review the entire thread:

As if oft the case, Jimmy is substituting simplistic talking points for facts...

I did read the whole thread and observed that myself.

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda? if so, i guess i plead guilty... the link i gave was to the 1st page of the thread (i think) with the expectation that the whole thing would be read... why do you think they feel the need to use those tactics?

[PassedOut]

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda?

For example, it is quite simplistic to accuse Stephen Schneider of condoning "lying."

And it's quite simplistic to say that "one side [the environmentalist side] sees nothing wrong with lying," as if the oil companies on the other side wouldn't dream of lying to advance their agendas (just as the tobacco companies before them wouldn't dream of paying for "research" to obfuscate the truth).

One of the very first management lessons I learned when I moved from a technical career was to be sure to trumpet (aggressively and repeatedly) the main points and the actions required by those points. Often that required some conscious over-simplification on my part, but it was imperative to do that to obtain other management support for what needed to be done, and to move large groups in concert.

It's important to understand the underlying complexities in a situation, and to be ready to discuss them in detail - to buttress the main points. But, in most situations (particularly in meetings), it's wrong to bring up any exceptions and complexities at all, because so much time gets wasted.

That doesn't mean you should deny that complexities exist (and are more fun to talk about too), but you often ignore them when pushing your goals. It's most simplistic, in my opinion, to classify effective communication as "lying."

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Nov 24 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Wikipedia has a useful discussion about water vapor and global warming. (I took the liberty of underlining certain sections)

Quote

Water vapor is a naturally occurring greenhouse gas and accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, between 36% and 66%.[25] Water vapor concentrations fluctuate regionally, but human activity does not directly affect water vapor concentrations except at local scales (for example, near irrigated fields).

The Clausius-Clapeyron relation establishes that warmer air can hold more water vapor per unit volume. Current state-of-the-art climate models predict that increasing water vapor concentrations in warmer air will amplify the greenhouse effect created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases while maintaining nearly constant relative humidity. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by greenhouse gases such as CO2.

[han]

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

Wikipedia ..

Duh, liberal media!

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 06:17 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 05:21 PM, said:

what simplistic talking points did you observe? was it that one side sees nothing wrong with lying if it furthers its agenda?

For example, it is quite simplistic to accuse Stephen Schneider of condoning "lying."

And it's quite simplistic to say that "one side [the environmentalist side] sees nothing wrong with lying," as if the oil companies on the other side wouldn't dream of lying to advance their agendas (just as the tobacco companies before them wouldn't dream of paying for "research" to obfuscate the truth).

maybe you're right... but show me where the "other side" has not only done so but has condoned the action

hrothgar, on Nov 23 2008, 07:00 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 24 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Wikipedia has a useful discussion about water vapor and global warming. (I took the liberty of underlining certain sections)

the figure i see most is that water vapor comprises 95% of the greenhouse gases... in any case, when the concentrations are computed, water vapor is often left out - in this way co2 and others have artificially high concentrations

[PassedOut]

Jimmy, I'm trying hard to understand your position, but you are making it difficult for me.

QUOTE=PassedOut, on Nov 21 2008, 07:06 PM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 21 2008, 06:59 PM, said:

it "does not matter" in the sense that the earth will go through record cold or record heat, advancing or receding icecaps, regardless of what we do... let's say for the sake of argument that thru our actions we cause co2 in the atmosphere to drop by 5%... do you personally think that would mean that global warming wouldn't occur?

Surely you are not contending that the billions of tons of heat-trapping gases that man releases into the atmosphere do not affect the earth's climate. Is it your point that we are doomed anyway, so we might as well accelerate the process by continuing as we are?

PassedOut, on Nov 22 2008, 10:23 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 22 2008, 07:35 AM, said:

no, it's my point that we don't affect the process

Thanks for the clarification.

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year, I'm curious as to what mechanism you believe counteracts that to the point where "we don't affect the process" at all.

luke warm, on Nov 24 2008, 01:21 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Nov 23 2008, 10:36 AM, said:

luke warm, on Nov 23 2008, 10:18 AM, said:

first of all i need to know your view on water vapor as a greenhouse gas, and on whether or not it should be used in the "greenhouse effects" calculations... i think it's an important issue

Hmm. Why do you need my view before you can give your view?

because if you don't think water vapor has any bearing on how such things are computed, i doubt it matters much

Assuming that you do accept that human activities pour billions of tons of heat-trapping gasses into the atmosphere each year (and you haven't challenged that), you can contend that "we don't affect the process" only if you rely upon some other mechanism to cancel out the effects of those activities.

You could be relying upon a smaller amount of sunshine reaching the earth (perhaps because of other polutants) to be trapped as heat. That might counterbalance the effect of the heat-trapping gasses.

Or you could be relying upon some mechanism that releases heat that would otherwise be trapped. If you believe that water vapor does this, how does your proposed mechanism work?

In any case, if the mechanism you rely upon actually does the job, it does so regardless of what I believe about water vapor, or who lies, or anything else. So why not just tell me what it is?