The Norfolk Island Experiment
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Saturday, November 13, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8562
PAGE 1 of 2
Quote:
Every time they buy petrol, electricity or an air flight, they will have “carbon units” deducted from the fixed allowance on their card.
More units will be lost each time they buy fatty foods, or produce flown in from a long way away.
If, at the end of each year or so, they have carbon units left over, they can sell them. If they’ve blown their allocation, they must buy more.
But each year, the number of carbon units in this market will be cut, causing their price to soar - and thus the price of extra food, power and petrol to rise - because the idea is to cut greenhouse gases and make Norfolk Islanders trim, taut and terrifically moral.
Very interesting. Reminds me of Miranda.
-----
"FART: Frustrated Arizonans Rejecting Tea"
- sign at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bumpity bump
-----
"What would Optimus Prime do?"
- sign at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's strangely fascist. IMHO, the co2 scare is a scam. They're not killing them yet though. It's just misguided liberalism. It's an experiment to see if people get really annoyed and move.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What concerns me are the responses of authorities who support such programs:
Quote:
“Widespread public acceptance, while desirable, should not be a pre-condition for a personal carbon trading scheme; the need to reduce emissions is simply too urgent,” the MPs said, before being driven off to dinner.
(Or as our own Professor Clive Hamilton, author and former Greens candidate, puts it, global warming is so “horrible” that leaders must look to “canvassing of emergency responses such as the suspension of democratic processes”.)
Or read the transcript of an interview with the Australian authority in charge of the program:
et’s go to the transcript of my interview with Egger on MTR 1377 this week, to see how he answered.
Quote:
Me: What happens to those people who overdraw their carbon emissions ...
Egger: In the first year you are just warned ... (Later) if you overspend, you’ve got to buy the units that are cashed in ...
Me: If you put this in on the mainland and you were really strict about it - you really thought the world was warming very, very dangerously and someone exceeded their rations of these carbon units - one would presume that you would make food, for example, too expensive for them to buy.
Egger: That’s right ... so if you’ve got, for example, a very fatty unhealthy food that is imported from overseas which takes a lot of carbon to develop it, then the price would go up ...
Me: What happens to a very fat family, a very irresponsibly fat family, and they’ve blown their carbon budget to the scheissenhausen and you’ve made their food terribly expensive? What about the kids? They go to breakfast and they’ve got one baked bean?
Egger: In general you’ll find that in a very fat family they are low-income earners ... so those people would actually benefit from a scheme like this because the food that they buy, the energy that they use, they don’t use as much energy as the rich anyway ...
Me: But what happens? Their ration of carbon credits runs out and you’ve made food too expensive for them to buy. What happens to them?
Egger: Again, they get money back from doing the right thing.
Me: No, but they’ve done the wrong thing. That’s why they are fat and poor. They’ve done the wrong thing, they’ve run out of their carbon credits. What are you going to do to them then, when the food’s too expensive to buy?
Egger: There are going to be personal cases like this that need to be worked out and they need to be worked out in the tax system as well as in the carbon credits system.
The author of the article summarizes it best:
Quote:
...to improve resistant humans or build for them someone else’s idea of the perfect society.
These schemes so often are too perfect for the flawed humans they supposedly serve. ...Which is where some force is required; some democracy sacrificed.
Sure, Norfolk Islanders can move or decline to participate in the program I suppose. But there isn't a dent in CO2 unless there is widespread and mandatory participation in programs like this one. Maybe this is just the first step, testing the waters of how much rebellion there would be.
-----
"What would Optimus Prime do?"
- sign at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Recently in Britain the Tories introduced primary voting, so that the people could pick their party's candidate before voting for them. This is fairly large part of how they won.
Labour opposed the move because there was a strong resistance from its socialist caucus, whose leader said in an interview, "But if we went to a primary system where the voters chose the candidates, no socialist would ever win."
I don't have the transcript because I just told this by a british friend over the phone who had just listened to it.
You're probably right, it's a testing ground, and they probably are not testing the program, they are trying to prove to their fellow socialists that they can pull this off. So, they'd pick the community that would have the fewest problems with it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is as ridiculous as laying blame to 50cc two stroke scooter engines while lookin the other way for corporate empires - just business as usual, really.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are no fat poor people on Norfolk Island. It's a tax haven for the incredibly wealthy.
If that's how they want to live their lives, then so be it. Largely autonomous little island, self governing. Isn't that the libertarian model?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It's strangely fascist. IMHO, the co2 scare is a scam. They're not killing them yet though. It's just misguided liberalism. It's an experiment to see if people get really annoyed and move.
Odd. You've always maintained that people living sustainably was a "conservative" mentality. Now you find it fascist and liberal to do so, or to encourage others to do so?
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Andrew Bolt is a dolt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another view from the Sydney Morning Herald
Islanders lead world on personal carbon test scheme
Deborah Smith
October 27, 2010
www.The-Green-Guide.info/
NORFOLK ISLAND will introduce the world's first trial of a personal carbon trading scheme.
If successful, it could improve the health of the residents as well as reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Garry Egger, a professor of lifestyle medicine and applied health promotion at Southern Cross University, said that addressing climate change provided an opportunity to tackle the linked problem of obesity.
''If people are not using their cars, and using their own person power instead, it will also benefit their health.''
Professor Egger's team has been awarded a $390,000 Australian Research Council grant to conduct a three-year study of the effectiveness of the scheme, which will start next year.
Norfolk Island residents will be allocated the same number of carbon units on a credit card, which they will spend whenever they buy petrol and power.
If they are frugal with non-renewable energy consumption, and walk, cycle or drive an electric car, they will be able to trade in leftover carbon credits at the carbon bank for cash at the end of a set period.
Each year the quota of carbon units will be reduced, and the price of a high carbon emission lifestyle will rise.
Although it will be a voluntary scheme, the incentive to participate was obvious, Professor Egger said: ''People can make money out of it.''
In the second year, the researchers hope to add food to the scheme, ranking products on their health cost as well as their carbon cost.
Fatty foods imported from the mainland, for example, would require more carbon units to purchase than local fresh produce.
''Over the three years we will be looking to see if there is a reduction in diabetes and obesity,'' said Professor Egger, who developed the GutBusters weight loss program for men.
He said the island provided a unique testing ground because it is small, people live a similar lifestyle to most Australians, and the goods that come in and out by plane and ship can be monitored.
About 30,000 tourists and other visitors come to the island each year and they will also be given a carbon credit card on arrival to participate in the scheme, and find out more about their carbon usage.
The Norfolk Island government is a partner in the project and the Minister for Tourism, Industry and Development, Andre Nobbs, said he was delighted it had been given the go ahead. ''The population has strong ideals and beliefs about the environment,'' he said.
Tourists would see the scheme as a ''very proactive step'', he predicted.
Professor Egger said he was disappointed that the two banks on the island had declined to participate, but he expected the scheme would provide lots of other business opportunities.
He has been invited to speak to business people at the United Nations climate change conference in Mexico in December.
The Norfolk Island trial will determine whether the approach is acceptable to people or not. If so, it could eventually be scaled up to a country level, and then world level, he said.
It's a trial, it's being monitored for 3 years and it's voluntary. Oh yeah, so fascist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon
Surprisingly, the planet knows that. Actually, it was part of the point of what I just said: The socialists who had this idea can make it work on Norfolk Island, and then sell it as an idea that works. What works on Norfolk Island doesn't necessarily work in Sydney or Melbourne, which is why in the interview he says "if this spreads to the mainland."
That's not libertarian: It's social engineering.
Frem,
Yes, the co2 thing is nowhere near the threat that anyone thinks it is, but its source is overwhelmingly deforestation. The quantity of co2 produced and consumed every year by the Earth dwarfs our impact. By deforestation and desertification, we have reduced the planet's ability to consume co2. Levels will continue to climb for some time because of that. Thousands to millions of years. Right now, the change from 340 to 370ppm is not really signification, it's when it gets up to 3000-7000 that we're going to see some effect.
The number one thing we can do right now is stop deforestation and desertification. That should be where all of our efforts on co2 go to. If we can secure that, we can begin trying to reclaim land. But bear in mind, evolution does push for maximum efficiency. Even in a reforested area, we'll be luck to get 10% of the co2 consumption power of the first growth rainforest that was cut down.
Mike
Are you unable to see fascism? This is not encourage, it is force. And it does mean that the children will pay for the mistakes of their parents. Frankly, I think that's a pretty fascist idea.
If they really want to encourage better behavior with economic manipulation, there's a much simpler way to do it: Just tax the behavior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Dreamtrove, if people think that it's a good idea, then how is there a problem? It's a voluntary scheme, if you don't like it, don't get involved. If you do, then reap the rewards. How is that a difficult or puzzling idea for you? Or is it just that you personally don't agree.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If they really want to encourage better behavior with economic manipulation, there's a much simpler way to do it: Just tax the behavior.
Still a damn bad idea, and the whole prohibition via taxation gig makes a mockery of law and order, social compact, yadda yadda...
Subverting laws you don't like, or enforcing laws you can't pass cause you do NOT have the consent of the public, via the tax code is not only an act of tyranny, it's doomed to fail - commerce continues, and all it'll result in is more jackboots, more laws, yadda yadda...
And lets us not pretend you wouldn't have your own howling to have about THAT, if they did it.
Now, the deforestation thing, well, that leads to an interesting question itself, given that regardless of what someone who never even ASKED them might think of the property rights of folk who've lived there for a thousand years and more... do you think drawing lines on a map and calling it yours really means anything but that you have bigger weapons and armies than the guys who's turf you wanna take ?
For all the gloss of civilization, it is what it is, taking other peoples land and resources by force or threat of force.
And you know, two can play at that game - the idea of shipping a bunch of Ak-47s with detailed instructions comes to mind, it sure hell worked for the Mujas, didn't it ?
In fact, it worked so well that after they ran off the Soviets and WE decided we wanted their stuff, THEY decided those weapons worked quite well on other foreign invaders - of course the desperate irony in that the Russians are WITHOUT A DOUBT laughing up their sleeves and shipping them guns now thinkin "Oh and ain't payback SUCH a bitch!" is not whatever lost on me.
In a way, you might say teaching people to defend themselves just might be one of the primary keys to a sane society.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Hell, I've already howled on this board about the stupidest part of the whole sin tax idea: It gives the govt. a vested interest in the success of the behavior that it's ostensibly trying to curb.
On the other, it potentially can work, but it can backfire. Oh, screw it, I don't even want to post any of this to the board. Don't want to give anyone any ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Are you unable to see fascism? This is not encourage, it is force. And it does mean that the children will pay for the mistakes of their parents. Frankly, I think that's a pretty fascist idea.
I'm not "unable to see fascism"; I'm just unable to see it in a voluntary pilot program that people voluntarily participate in, or not.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, Mikey, there IS the point that when a Government issues a "voluntary" program, it almost inevitably does not remain that way.
In fact I kept a set of letters regarding some of my medical coverage and participation in a certain HMO - over the course of five months it went from "suggested" to "voluntary" to "mandatory"...
And was quickly followed by one of the events which gave me such a bad rep with doctors that they get me stoned on percocet before even trying to take my vitals (being in chronic pain, I don't necessarily bitch too much about this...).
Some nimrod refused to refer things to an ortho specialist and flatly told me it was cause of financial reasons - and made the mistake of telling me this AFTER he closed the door.
Which ended with him being slammed into the wall more than a foot off the ground with my hand around his neck (your arms get REAL strong when they do the work of legs, mind) and describing in explicit, medical detail what was about to HAPPEN to him - lets just say I got that referral, ok ?
But yeah, I know ALL about "voluntary", when the Government starts sayin it - so there is indeed cause for concern there.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Good point, Frem.
Oh, and I never did thank you for the link. I got it. And, I *got* it. :) Thanks for that - he's a smart-ass after my own heart!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You all really have some hell of a paranoia about governments. Governments, businesses, collectives, individuals...all have the potential to do bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is 100% bad.
I'd also like to point out once again that Norfolk Island is the kind of place that a lot of you hold up as ideal...a small collection of people who are largely self governing and self regulating.
Norfolk Island is the only non-mainland Australian territory to have achieved self-governance.
All seats are held by independent candidates. Norfolk Island has yet to embrace party politics.
Local ordinances and acts apply on the island, where most laws are based on the Australian legal system. Australian common law applies when not covered by either Australian or Norfolk Island law. Suffrage is universal at age eighteen.
if they want to implement some form of trial into making their beautiful island more sustainable, then I say more power to them. Just because that miserale alarmist Andrew Bolt finds yet another reason to bleat on about his contempt for any attempts at sustainability, doesn't make it a bad idea. In fact, can I go live there please.
Just another little interesting snippet, amongst the residents of Norfolk Island are the descendants of the mutineers of the Bounty and their Tahitian wives, moved from Pitcairn Island in the mid 19th C.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You all really have some hell of a paranoia about governments. Governments, businesses, collectives, individuals...all have the potential to do bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that everything they do is 100% bad.
But of all those things, govts, businesses, collectives, individuals, governments alone have a monopoly on force--they are the only ones with THE gun, as it were. Whatever they do, they do by force, with very little accountability for the use of force. This use of force makes govt more dangerous than any of the other entities.
Businesses are doubly dangerous if they rent the government's force to squash competitors or otherwise promote their practices. But it comes down to force.
It is nice and well that THIS experiment is voluntary. But again, what I am concerned about is the attitudes of those who support this experiment, that the freedom of individuals MUST be subservient to the public interests of the GW issue. This says to me that if the experiment succeeds, there is some likelihood that the next experiment will NOT be voluntary.
It makes us a smootch concerned, that's all.
-----
"What would Optimus Prime do?"
- sign at Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon
The question is not are you paranoid, but are you paranoid *enough*.
Frem, know what you mean, My HMO last year said that I was being restricted to 12 visits/year, which I couldn't do because I have monthly checkups meaning no optional visits to any doctor. I just got a letter saying the my number of visits was being "raised" from 12 to 10. Nice little orwellian doublespeak.
So, rationing of healthcare has already commenced.
Mike,
Also, it's worth noting that incrementalism is key to just about every NWO strategy. Someone here on the board detailed how the one child policy in china had changed over a 20 year period from a suggestion to a limitation on public assistance to eventually being full force law.
It's the same logic that makes people say NAFTA is one world govt. If everything you do, you do in incremental steps, they when you take one step in a direction, people are going to be analyzing the final destination of that journey, not just your one step.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That incrementalism idea can be disproved in so many situations. Not every government implemented/assisted policy leds to fascism, just like having universal healthcare does not lead to socilaism. Sometimes, there remains something imbetween that doesn't lead to extremism.
Extremism thrives on ignorance and fearmongering, in my view, far more that imcrementalism. Which one do you think appears more commonly in the US right now?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon, let me ask you something.
Should this program spread into widespread mandatory implementation over all Australia, would you oppose it or support it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
That incrementalism idea can be disproved in so many situations. Not every government implemented/assisted policy leds to fascism, just like having universal healthcare does not lead to socilaism. Sometimes, there remains something imbetween that doesn't lead to extremism.
Extremism thrives on ignorance and fearmongering, in my view, far more that imcrementalism. Which one do you think appears more commonly in the US right now?
Incrementalism. By far. You've been watching too much TV. I don't know if you've been to america lately, but I don't see a lot of extremism. I might not be around this weekend because me and my tea party jewish friends have a muslim wedding to go to and of course I'm not making this up, I'd have to be Pirate News to make something like that up. Okay, we have a few extremists, but it's not like someone lost a football match because the ref is a wanker and called it for the other team when he should have... Oh no! Everybody run!
Seriously, even a tea party rally is pretty sedate. The most extreme thing going on right now is chaos in Detroit, and that's not because of anyone's personal beliefs.
Some of these little socialist "experiments" can get pretty scary. There was one about ten years back in NY where they decided to start sterilizing the poor. They still take their children away, because poverty is considered child abuse...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What if people LIKE the idea and want to implement it? Does that make it totalitarianism?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh yes, people all over the world can only implement ideas approved by the American Christiam Right. If you don't agree, they will make war on you until you brace their ideas of freedom.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looked into this, while I think the idea not perhaps as viable as expressed, this is apparently a fairly small place, and the folk who LIVE there (who seem to be, as Magons said, fairly autonomous) either agree with the decision to try this, or find it tolerable enough not to make an issue of it - and more than anything else, it seems something of an attempt to see how they can reduce their own ecological impact ON WHERE THEY LIVE...
So, the underneath the seeming ridiculousness of it on the surface, it's not a that bad an idea, since the folk who live there mutually consented to this of their own free will and are basing it on one of the two simple concepts which define sensible action in this thing -
1. Don't trash your living space.
2. Waste not, want not.
I mean, if this were a tiny minority ramming it down the throat of an unwilling majority (which is sadly, Magons, about 95% of what american politics is, so forgive their perceptions if you will, it's all they really know...) I would consider it in a far different light than a general consensus of the community.
And in the end, it's THEIR community, and if that is how they wanna run it, what is this to me ?
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Sure, ideally, but what if it's not? I mean, if I wanted to test bad policy, I could pick some gated community upstate like Chautauqua that would be completely unaffected because everyone is wealthy. I could then say "See, New York State, it works" And then they could force it on the city.
Same happens in reverse. I frequently visit Obama's neighborhood, which is technically woodlawn, but really hyde park, it's right on the border. My parents used to live across the street and park their car in the Obama's garage (It wasn't the Obama's then) Anyway, the point is I know a lot of people in the neighborhood, which is a black neighborhood, but very far from poor.
To the people there, the cost of having to buy their own health insurance, or pay a fine of $750 a head is nothing. People there pay half a million for a town house, or a quarter million for a condo, and then a thousand a month assessment. The doorman was sending all 11 of his kids through college. So, point being, what seems like nothing to Obama would crush people around here, financially. The bill itself was tested in Massachusetts where it didn't have serious problems for the same reason.
So yes, in general, I agree, a community should have the collective liberty to assign its own rules however bizarre they may be to the outside, but CTTS has two points here:
1) Do the people on Norfolk Island like the policy? It doesn't sound like they voted for it.
2) Is it the testing ground for a cap and trade policy that could do far worse than devastate the mainland, economically.
Also, it's worth nothing that cap and trade is a derivatives scheme which is the basis for a mad power grab for one world currency, so you can bet that the globalists would heavily subsidize anyone's plan that would make it look feasible to the world.
The more I think about it, maybe we should see how much they're willing to pay 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What if people LIKE the idea and want to implement it? Does that make it totalitarianism?
No, IF the only people who have to live under it are the ones who like it.
If people who don't like it have to obey those who do, there is oppression involved.
If their choices are to love it or leave it, there is a bit more oppression.
If they are not allowed to leave, the more restriction there is to leaving, the oppressive the program becomes.
Totalitarianism describes a state of extreme oppression, where there is almost no wiggle room or route for "opting" out.
For a cap and trade program to truly work, you really need totalitarianism in the program. After all, if you can opt out, how effective can that be toward reducing CO2 production?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How come people are so into personal responsibility, just until they actually have to be personally responsible?
And why do people who value freedom so highly get so upset when other people make choices that impact nothing but their own lives and neighborhoods? (Or lifestyles or spouses or bodies.)
These people want to do this. Get off their backs and leave them alone.
As far as it becoming some kind of big fascist whole-country program: as long as it applied to corporations as well, and as long as the limits don't become unreasonably tight unreasonably quickly, I think it's a good idea. Like making people pay for water in CA, when they go past some limit. This shit is necessary, because we live in a closed system with limited resources.
And the last thing that confuses me: How is your right to be completely wasteful with energy more important than the next generation's right to have a planet that isn't trashed?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
These people want to do this. Get off their backs and leave them alone.
Nobody has criticized the Norfolk Islanders. Criticism was leveled at the experimenters, in particular, their attitudes about social engineering.
Quote:
This shit is necessary, because we live in a closed system with limited resources.
Yes, this type of attitude. It concerns some of us whenever someone says oppression is necessary.
Moreover, there is no cap and trade with water rationing, as far as I know. Cap and trade is like Catholic indulgences--it means ultimately, poor people suffer.
Quote:
How is your right to be completely wasteful with energy more important than the next generation's right to have a planet that isn't trashed?
The debate lies in the definitions of "wasteful" and "trashed." There is a legitimate debate there, regardless of attempts to quash it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
And the last thing that confuses me: How is your right to be completely wasteful with energy more important than the next generation's right to have a planet that isn't trashed?
Strange logic, isn't it!
I guess one of the difficult things is to balance the idea of personal liberty with protecting your environment. If some factory is pouring pollution into a waterway which is shared, it isn't going to work if you let the factory continue to do it just because consumers don't give a shit and they are making a profit. You need to have some way of preventing the factory from doing it. Legislation is one way, and I know a way hated by many here - not me personally in these cases. Incentives is another way, and it appears that is how the Norfolk Island scheme is run.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
These people want to do this. Get off their backs and leave them alone.
Nobody has criticized the Norfolk Islanders. Criticism was leveled at the experimenters, in particular, their attitudes about social engineering.
First, it sounds like the Norfolk Islanders *are* the experimenters, because they want to do it.
Second: I call foul on throwing around the phrase "social engineering", just like folks throw in the word "socialist" whenever they want cast something in a bad light.
Quote:Excuse me, who exactly is oppressing you?Quote:
This shit is necessary, because we live in a closed system with limited resources.
Yes, this type of attitude. It concerns some of us whenever someone says oppression is necessary.
So then you do believe that anything short of you being as absolutely wasteful as you want is oppression? You believe you are born with an inherent right to use up all the resources that this society makes available to you, and you have absolutely no responsibility for taking care of the society in return?
Interesting.
Quote:Sounds to me like poor people might make out better with this plan. They don't have the big wasteful houses and big wasteful SUVs. Wealth makes waste.
Moreover, there is no cap and trade with water rationing, as far as I know. Cap and trade is like Catholic indulgences--it means ultimately, poor people suffer.
And let me guess what you'll say: but the poor people can't just suddenly buy a Prius so they can meet the limits. Dude - why do you automatically assume that these "cap and trade" limits would IMMEDIATELY be imposed at levels where everyone would have to buy all new everything? Why can't you allow that these limits might in fact be brought into place in a *reasonable* way? Especially on such a small scale and in a voluntary study?
Perhaps because you hate the idea to start with, so you automatically assume all the worst about it, turning into something diabolical which it is not.
It's kind of like conservatives saying that gay marriage will immediately lead to men marrying horses.
Really?
Quote:You seem to be the one quashing any possible argument that this might not be a bad idea. If it looks at all like "social engineering", and if your imagination can turn into some future big bad evil, then it must be stopped now.Quote:
How is your right to be completely wasteful with energy more important than the next generation's right to have a planet that isn't trashed?
The debate lies in the definitions of "wasteful" and "trashed." There is a legitimate debate there, regardless of attempts to quash it.
How about considering that someday soon we may have no choice but to ration our energy use, and so experiments like this, carried out by willing participants, would a damned good idea? If that day ever comes, we need something to build on, some idea of what works fairly and what doesn't.
What you seem to be arguing, that we not allow anything remotely like this experiment to happen EVER, is the surest way to lead us into all that "socialist fascism" you're so afraid of. Now is exactly the time to put some effort into figuring what system of limited energy use works and what doesn't. We have the luxury of time and wiggle-room for mistakes, and as of now we can make it optional.
Or would you rather jump in blindly when oil's running low and costs $500 a barrel?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Legislation is one way, and I know a way hated by many here - not me personally in these cases. Incentives is another way, and it appears that is how the Norfolk Island scheme is run.
I like the idea of incentives, as I live in a neighborhood full of big fucking mansions. OK, Mr, Wall Street. You want to heat that sucker all winter, and drive your SUV that seats 12 into the city every day? You gotta buy energy credits from me with my little tiny apt and my 1 mile work commute.
Bad for poor people, my stinky left foot!
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
What you seem to be arguing, that we not allow anything remotely like this experiment to happen EVER, ...
No. I have never said anything remotely like that.
Then I just remembered you were the one who kept on misconstruing everything I said, with a certain measure of hostility no less, back when we were talking about Ruddiman's book.
Right. History of communication impasse. Cease communication.
Have a nice day.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, and you still don't seem to get that saying I'm supporting oppression when I don't agree with you is your own brand of hostility. Maybe it is just communication failure, but I got a whole lot of "this is evil oppression evil social engineering it must be stopped!" out your posts in this thread.
And don't even get me started on that silly Ruddiman thing! Good lord.
But again, it's a shame. I really do want to understand how it's such a bad idea to plan for future societal problems. But then, I probably wouldn't be able to understand.
Take care.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
If some factory is pouring pollution into a waterway which is shared, ....
But what if said "pollution" is something that is as common and ubiquitous as water vapor. Or CO2. Something every human and most animals produce every time they breathe?
There are 2 issues here.
1. How does one define "pollution" for the purposes of legislation? This question is NOT about pollution vs personal liberty, but WHAT pollution is, and how high the standards should be for the evidence before abrogating personal liberty. It is more complicated than branding the opposing position as selfish libertines who have no sense of social responsibility.
2. The thrust of this thread is not about opposing the voluntary Norfolk experiment, but voicing concern about the ATTITUDES of those who support suspensions of democracy for urgent social agendas--attitudes demonstrated in their quotations and interviews, NOT in the Norfolk experiment itself, OK? Those attitudes suggest that authorities are likely to want to expand this to an involuntary program. As I said, reminds me of Miranda, what with ATTITUDES of wanting to make people better against their will.
Oh BTW, you never answered my question, Magon. Would you support an involuntary, mandatory expansion of the Norfolk program over all of Australia?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTTS is spot on. This is not about a society deciding to be responsible, it's about a group of busybodies making an example by experimenting on them, for the purpose of later pushing the policy elsewhere. Nothing indicates that this idea originated on Norfolk Island and is approved by everyone there. in fact it seems all too obvious that neither is the case, and we certainly know exactly where the policy originated, this the tax is a mainstay of the IMF/World Bank poliy agenda for the next century: international taxation and one world currency.
And he/she is spot on about one other thing here: poor people will suffer.
As for the supposed issue of human co2 production, I can guarantee you this is a scientific non-issue. Our co2 increase, while far from disastrous, is almost entirely caused by our widespread deforestation and desertification, and anyone can due the math and prove this correct.
Also, frem, I get your point that there are two sides to every story, every society has it's own rights to set it's own rules, and equally important that no one should feel this is a pile on Magon fest, but I would draw your attention to the interview where, I assume, CTTS is interviewing and points out, and the policy maker confirms that yes, this policy would intentionally harm children for the mistakes of their parents. I think thats a fairly salient point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meh, if it's their island, and they're willing to play along, I honestly fail to see where we got anything to say about it.
Look, I know the reflexive backlash towards anything resembling restrictive/disagreeable/foolish/what-have-you "Rules" better prolly than any of you, since I seem to be the local Anarchists favorite little cat herder, and you have very little concept of how much a headache that can be.
But that seems to be crossin folks wires here a bit, cause the salient point is that if the community is in wholesale agreement with a policy, we should butt the hell out of it regardless of what our opinion on the matter is - save the whinging for whem someone tries to force it upon you.
Also, as they said, an experiment - one I don't think will work, and for sure you'll have one or more twerps who try and maybe even succeed in cheating the system, but why not wait to see the results before passing judgement ?
Mal4 raised the interesting point in that such a program may well backfire on the folks behind it if they do have nefarious intentions, by allowing those who make an attempt to live more sustainably, or are too damn poor to have much of an impact, could very well turn it round and use it to put the screws to the very folk perhaps using it to plan their own enrichment, what karmatic justice that might be, eh ?
Of course, we *know* such a program wouldn't work in the states cause of the inevitable loopholes and exemptions and bullshit which would creep in, the same way the tax code hits the poor brutally to feed the rich...
But that island appears to be a pretty closed community, and does no harm to *US* by toying with a policy they're as a group consenting to.
So I say watch and wait.
If naught else, learn where the weak points are in case someone someday DOES try to force the issue here.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
What if people LIKE the idea and want to implement it? Does that make it totalitarianism?
No, IF the only people who have to live under it are the ones who like it.
If people who don't like it have to obey those who do, there is oppression involved.
If their choices are to love it or leave it, there is a bit more oppression.
If they are not allowed to leave, the more restriction there is to leaving, the oppressive the program becomes.
Totalitarianism describes a state of extreme oppression, where there is almost no wiggle room or route for "opting" out.
For a cap and trade program to truly work, you really need totalitarianism in the program. After all, if you can opt out, how effective can that be toward reducing CO2 production?
This sounds very much like you view clean water, clean air, and any anti-pollution standards as "totalitarian" in nature.
After all, if *I* don't believe that dumping my used motor oil down the storm drain has a negative impact on the environment (and I can't say I've ever personally witnessed any such impact*), then who's to say that I shouldn't just dump all my used oil down the storm drain?
And if I want to burn chemical waste on my property and pollute the air, wouldn't it be totalitarian of my neighbors to try to stop me? What if I want to dump that waste in the reservoir?
Sure, you'll say those are different, because they have a direct impact on my neighbors and the community - but if the evidence about climate change is correct, then don't the actions of those who don't participate have a negative impact on those who ARE trying to reduce their impact on the environment?
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think in about 15 years the Norfolk experiment will look like pathetically little, way too late. And NOBODY will be able to "opt out" of the consequences of global climate change.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"And then they could force it on the city."
Who is this 'they'? The people of the gated community could force it on NYS? The people of Norfolk could force it on Australia?
It seems to me that for people who live in democracies (and the US, Australia, and other countries are still that, lazy and uninvolved or informed and diligent as the voters may be) 'they' are us - for better or worse.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
but if the evidence about climate change is correct,...
That's a big IF. The fact is, the evidence about climate change is debated and disputed.
I say we continue to investigate and research the evidence before resorting to legislation.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS: the only people "debating" the fact of global climate change are people with an overwhelming ideological bent. There are several basic irreducible observations which are known to physicists, meteorlogists and climatologists around the world:
1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide's capacity to transmit visible light and absorb infrared is a well-known, laboratory-proven fact of physics. The principle of quantitative infrared heating of carbon dioxide is even used to measure carbon dioxide... we have three such instruments in the lab called NDIRs. Feel free to look it up if you don't believe me. Unless you think that we'll jump into some sort of parallel universe where carbon dioxide suddenly changes its fundamental absorption characteristics, that is not about to change.
2) The amount of carbon dioxide has increased significantly since industrialization. We measure carbon dioxide fairly frequently (once a month at least) while we do other testing. The concentration of CO2 increased even in my career... I'm not talking hundreds of years, just a few decades. This measurement and observation has been reproduced objective scientists around the world for decades.
3) Put observations (1) and (2) together, and an increase in air temperature is inevitable. There may be mitigating conditions: the absorption of carbon dioxide into the oceans (which BTW is changing ocean pH measurably) or the lofting of more water into the air and increased cloud formation. Nonetheless, these two robust and repeatable observations, when combined by simple logic (If carbon dioxide in the air absorbs infrared and carbon dioxide increases, then temperature will increase) will create a calculable warming in the air column which contains the CO2.
4) The world is warming significantly. Ice fields and glaciers which have existed for millions of years... long before homo sapiens even evolved on the scene... are being dribbled away. Million-year-old methane is being released from tundras. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. Curiously, this just "happens" to coincide with the increase in carbon dioxide and in line with models.
Only hidebound ideologues ... and there are quite a few in the world ... would be able to cover their eyes and plug their ears so as not to see reality. If you look at human history, you will find that people are capable of great stupidity and will self-annihilate to preserve dysfunctional mental models: requiring blood sacrifices to bring the rain, building great pyramids to send the pharaoh into the afterlife, or sacrificing of people the world over in the worship of money.
"Individualism" or "liberty" are also mental models. If they prevent you from seeing what is literally right in front of your face... well, you may choose to be blind deaf and dumb to reality, but I don't.
Like my hubby says: A billion flies eat shit. I choose not to be one of them. What about you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
but if the evidence about climate change is correct,...
That's a big IF. The fact is, the evidence about climate change is debated and disputed.
I say we continue to investigate and research the evidence before resorting to legislation.
Granted. And I really didn't mean my response to you to sound harsh, but in re-reading it, it came across as much more assaultive than I intended. I was responding in general to the tone of several posters here, not just you; I just picked yours as the one I hit "Reply" to. Definitely not personal, by any means.
I can understand where you're coming from - I personally hate the homeowners' associations because of their totalitarian measures. But if I don't want to belong to one, I can simply not move into that area. It would really grind my gears to have such a situation foisted on me if I'd been living in the same house for 20 years or so, and THEN the (newer) residents in the area decided to vote in an HOA.
So yeah, there are definitely two sides to it, and I can see points on both.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
but if the evidence about climate change is correct,...
That's a big IF. The fact is, the evidence about climate change is debated and disputed.
I say we continue to investigate and research the evidence before resorting to legislation.
Granted. And I really didn't mean my response to you to sound harsh, but in re-reading it, it came across as much more assaultive than I intended. I was responding in general to the tone of several posters here, not just you; I just picked yours as the one I hit "Reply" to. Definitely not personal, by any means.
I can understand where you're coming from - I personally hate the homeowners' associations because of their totalitarian measures. But if I don't want to belong to one, I can simply not move into that area. It would really grind my gears to have such a situation foisted on me if I'd been living in the same house for 20 years or so, and THEN the (newer) residents in the area decided to vote in an HOA.
So yeah, there are definitely two sides to it, and I can see points on both.
The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.
AURaptor's Greatest Hits:
Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.
Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.
Bullshit, your brain is incapable of seeing two points. Your mind is a "simple" singularity. You are stuck on stupid, stupid.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig
Correlation doesn't prove causality.
1) The co2 production and consumption each year by the life forms of the earth dwarfs human production
2) Any increase in co2 levels will lead to an increase in co2 consumption by organisms in a stable ecosystem.
3) ergo, logically, it is our destruction of the ecosystem, not our production of the co2 which is causing the rise in co2.
4) Even given that, the rise in co2 alone is far from sufficient to account for the rise in global mean temperature.
5) The lost of the transpiration convection cycle and the associated wind current changes *do* give us enough data to account for the increase in temperature.
That said, I'm far more concerned with the destruction that is done by humans in their efforts to acquire fossil fuels than what they did with them once they have them.
I'm even more concerned with the lost of first growth forest cover, as reforestation, even when it works, will not restore biodiversity, and creates a carbon sink about 1/10th the size of the one it is attempting to replace.
On the issue of Cap and Trade, the other side has a point: If the neocons/neolibs are allowed to set up their own global taxation derviative scheme which is what this is, and where it came from, then the rest of this will be moot.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is an irreducible fact that CO2 absorbs heat (what SignyM refers to as infrared).
It is an irreducible fact that CO2 levels have gone up.
Given those facts, it is an inescapable logical conclusion that more heat will be absorbed by the atmosphere (rather than be radiated out into space), hence, the planet will warm up.
And indeed, by all direct and surrogate measures, CO2 has gone up considerably, and the planet has warmed.
Further, while natural CO2 production and absorption are large numbers, they are in balance - equilibrium - over geologic time, unless disturbed by an outside force. While large scale fossil fuel burning and CO2 creation started with the industrial revolution, large scale environmental destruction - the destruction of the Amazon and the forests of the Himalayas for example - only happened recently, within the last 3 decades at the most. But CO2 increases started before then. It's a mistake to assign a cause to an effect that precedes it!
BTW, solar radiation has been constant over the last 3 decades.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sig, you and I have rehashed this to death. I am hesitant to engage again, but I will say this.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: the only people "debating" the fact of global climate change are people with an overwhelming ideological bent.
No.
Perhaps there is a preponderance of conservatives and libertarians amongst the vocal skeptic community, just as there is a preponderance of liberals in the GW community. This bias in demographics doesn't not invalidate the arguments in either camp. You can't dismiss a debate entirely just because you assign some unfavorable characteristic to ALL the people on the other side of the argument.
1. Certainly, some people debate GW with ideological arguments. But there are plenty of scientists who debate GW without bringing in ideology. It would be disingenuous to assert that ALL the following people have an "overwhelming ideological bent." (To begin with, I have a hard time imagining that even YOU would have had the time to research the political ideologies of EVERY scientist dissenter.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstrea
m_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
2 Context matters, but ultimately, scientists evaluate evidence on their own merits. It doesn't matter what religion or party or race the scientist belongs to. That is the beauty of the objectivity in science. At least, that is how the objectivity in science is SUPPOSED to work, whenever science is not in bed with political policy.
3. Moreover, the "fact of global climate change" actually consists of several distinct hypotheses, with varying levels of agreement per hypothesis. It is not so black and white as "GW is a fact."
Remember the "science" in climate science. Scientists don't use words like "facts." They talk about observations, hypotheses, experiments, and theories--all of which are subject to debate. Otherwise, it is called "religion."
Quote:Under certain conditions, yes. Better to say, CO2 CAN BE a greenhouse gas.
1) Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
Quote:Even this has been debated. As Mal4Prez would point out, there are those who think it has increased significantly since agriculture. And there are those who think it has not increased at all(e.g. Ernst Beck). There are still those who think ice core proxies provide a false low for pre-industrialized levels. (e.g. http://warwickhughes.com/icecore/) There are those who challenge the Keeling curve; they do know that Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and CO2 is a volcanic gas right? ;)
2) The amount of carbon dioxide has increased significantly since industrialization.
The point is, there IS a debate, based on how one measures and defines the "amount of carbon dioxide."
Quote:
Put observations (1) and (2) together, and an increase in air temperature is inevitable.
Oversimplification. Conditions for (1) have to be met. Evidence for (2) has to be stronger.
Then there is the question of significance. CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere. If it increased from 0.039% to 0.042%, will that make a significant increase in global temperatures?
Quote:Parts of the world are warming significantly. Other parts, not so much. The methodologies used in climate modeling for summarizing warming on a global scale are also debated.
4) The world is warming significantly.
Here is the take-away: there exists a legitimate debate about GW in the scientific community.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
That said, I'm far more concerned with the destruction that is done by humans in their efforts to acquire fossil fuels than what they did with them once they have them.
I'm even more concerned with the lost of first growth forest cover, as reforestation, even when it works, will not restore biodiversity, and creates a carbon sink about 1/10th the size of the one it is attempting to replace.
I'm with you on this.
-----
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
-- Richard Feynman (Physicist, 1918-1988)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As long as we are discussing ideological 'camps': "... there is a preponderance of liberals in the GW community .. '
There is also a LARGE preponderance of climatologists in the GW community. Actual climatologists who actually study climate.
So, do you assume they must be liberals and thus dismiss their opinions? Or do you assume they know more than most and give their opinions some credit based on the weight of their expertise?
Oh, BTW, it is true CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Not than it can be, it might be, or it hasn't decided yet - it is. I know others have posted the absorption spectrum of CO2 - so I won't repeat that for you. (I also suspect that you are pretty good at denying facts you don't like, so I don't see the value of presenting them to you.) But CO2 is a strong absorber in the infrared region - the region we call heat. And that is the defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, do you assume they must be liberals and thus dismiss their opinions?
Read my lips: "This bias in demographics doesn't not invalidate the arguments in either camp."
Why would I dismiss someone's opinion just because he/she is a liberal? *I* am a liberal, in a manner of speaking. At least, I hold a lot of liberal views.
Quote:
Or do you assume they know more than most and give their opinions some credit based on the weight of their expertise?
I study the evidence. Any expert interpretation of data has to stand up to skepticism and challenges--NO MATTER who they are, no matter whether you like what they say or not. That is what scientific objectivity means.
Quote:If you define "greenhouse gas" as a "strong absorber in the infrared region," then yes, it is a greenhouse gas. When I say it CAN BE a greenhouse gas, I mean to say the gas does not necessarily exert a greenhouse effect.
It is the defining characteristic of a greenhouse gas.
-----
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
-- Richard Feynman (Physicist, 1918-1988)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
> IF < CO2 absorbs heat in proportion to its concentration > AND IF < its concentration has gone up > THEN < more heat is being absorbed. Since both IF statements are true, the THEN statement must be true.
In other words, CO2 IS having a greenhouse effect. In fact, it is having a greenhouse effect in exact ratio to its concentration. In 1960 the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm. Today it has gone up to about 385 ppm. That is a rise of 22%. Consequently, 22% more heat is being absorbed by CO2 now than in 1960. That is indisputable.
Perhaps you could define your issue more precisely.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No. Carbon dioxide IS a greenhouse can. The definition of greenhouse gas is one which transmits visible light but absorbs strongly in the infrared. Carbon dioxide does both. Therefore, it IS a greenhouse gas.
Under certain conditions, yes. Better to say, CO2 CAN BE a greenhouse gas.
Quote:It has increased since industrialization. That is incontrovertible, as shown by actual atmospheric measurements within historic times. Anyone who says that is debatable is running headlong into the wall of repeated observation. Now, it may be true that the concentration of CO2 has gone up since BEFORE industrialization, but that is not what I said.
Even this has been debated. As Mal4Prez would point out, there are those who think it has increased significantly since agriculture.
Quote:Carbon dioxide is defined as CO2. Measurement is actual measurement of atmospheric gases. What's the problem?
The point is, there IS a debate, based on how one measures and defines the "amount of carbon dioxide."
Quote:We use the absorption of IR by carbon dioxide as a basis of quantitative measurement. How can the evidence possibly need to be stronger? X amount of carbon dioxide yields Y increase in temperature of the gases which contain it. I refer you to Kiki's discussion of % increase. Anyone who chooses to debate this is ignorant, kidding themselves, or lying.
Oversimplification. Conditions for (1) have to be met. Evidence for (2) has to be stronger. Then there is the question of significance. CO2 is 0.039% of the atmosphere. If it increased from 0.039% to 0.042%, will that make a significant increase in global temperatures?
Quote:But nobody is debating THAT the earth is warming on the average. As you yourself said: some parts are warming, other parts "not so much" (but not getting cooler either) so ON AVERAGE the earth is warming.
Parts of the world are warming significantly. Other parts, not so much. The methodologies used in climate modeling for summarizing warming on a global scale are also debated.
Quote:No. You cherry-pick facts which line up with your world view, just like Rappy, sorry to say.
I study the evidence
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
> IF < CO2 absorbs heat in proportion to its concentration > AND IF < its concentration has gone up > THEN < more heat is being absorbed. Since both IF statements are true, the THEN statement must be true.
In other words, CO2 IS having a greenhouse effect. In fact, it is having a greenhouse effect in exact ratio to its concentration. In 1960 the CO2 concentration was about 315 ppm. Today it has gone up to about 385 ppm. That is a rise of 22%. Consequently, 22% more heat is being absorbed by CO2 now than in 1960. That is indisputable.
I think there must be some misunderstanding somewhere. I am not disputing this.
My point merely was to say, as in everything else, certain conditions must be met for certain definitions to be true. THAT is indisputable as well.
It happens that those conditions ARE met on earth right now, so, we have no real argument here.
I apologize for bringing up the issue of conditions. I didn't realize it would become so distracting.
Quote:
Perhaps you could define your issue more precisely.
My issue is simply this: GW is debatable.
If carbon dioxide concentration rises from 0.0315% to 0.0385% over 50 years, is it a statistically significant rise? And does this 22% more heat from CO2 make a significant difference in the global annual average surface temperature?
Different experts answer differently. So there is a debate.
If someone put a capsule into your food that had 99.9615% arsenic, and 0.0385% cyanide, which poison would you worry about more, cyanide or arsenic? Does the cyanide even matter? Would it make a significant contribution to your death? I think it is a legitimate question.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kiki
Not so, deforestation has been going on for a long time. I have disputed none of those facts, but this does not account for the cause.
We don't need to guess: We have a long historic record, and this has happened many times in earth's history, each time coinciding with a loss of forest cover for the earth.
But anyone can do the math.
I'm as interested in solving the problem as anyone, but solving the problem does require knowing what the problem is.
Humanity's main output of co2 lately is probably forest fires, but still I think an increase in co2 production would lead to a greener Earth. In fact, anyone can easily prove that this is so. This is clearly not what we see.
I'm not shooting in the dark here
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also:
A causes B also does not prove that A causes X amount of B, and in this case, I can assure you that it does not.
The co2 concentration went up form 340ppm to 370ppm over the last century
Global mean temp went up about 3 degrees.
A rise of 30ppm of co2 will definitely NOT cause this effect. We know this because we have at least 550 million years of accurate data on both global mean temp and atmospheric co2 levels.
Atmospheric co2 is consumed by an increase in vegetation consumption which causes is a buffer factor which is the reason why we see virtually no rise in global temp associated with most rises in co2 until it reaches a threshold way above current levels.
If global mean co2 hit 3000ppm we would have a problem. But if it goes to 600ppm or 700ppm that in and of *itself* would not cause a problem.
However, as I've tried to point out, there are other factors at work here.
The reduction of global vegetation effectively reduces that buffer, but more importantly for the short term effects, it wreaks havoc on convection and wind cycles.
Again, I'm really far more concerned with the environmental aspects of *extracting* fossil fuels. I would rate this second in my environmental concerns.
First would be the deforestation and desertification overall environmental degradation which is really causing this problem and so many more.
Third in that list would be the imposition of a global carbon tax by the very people who own the energy industry that the left is by proxy attacking here, and the end result of that will be a permanent international taxation structure which will ultimately feed an INCREASE in corporate rule of the planet, not a DECREASE.
I'm glad that people are so passionate about the issue, but please, use your heads.
I hope everyone remembers Al Gore's woefully scientifically inaccurate film which I hope we can all agree did more harm to the cause than good. We need informed and accurate data in well constructed models in order to know what is going on.
A can cause B does not mean that when you see B is is being caused by A esp. when you have not yet determined either the amount to which A causes B and more importantly that A is the only possible cause of B.
At any rate our friends in the oil industry have already solved the co2 output problem: Algae farm biofuels. Unfortunately this is not our only problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Carbon dioxide is defined as CO2. Measurement is actual measurement of atmospheric gases. What's the problem?
Um, scientific measurement is more complicated than that. Even within the same instrument, there are norms and errors to be taken into account. Globally, there are different methods/definitions to measure CO2 (ice core proxies vs physical methods vs. chemical methods), different instruments, different places, different elevations, different times etc. Then somehow, someone has to use a judgment call on how to average all that data from different sources into one summary figure. There is room for debate here.
For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement.
Science is self-correcting that way. In fact, there MUST be debate for science to work properly.
Quote:
But nobody is debating THAT the earth is warming on the average.
But people ARE debating it. For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=d71dfa89-384c-4ede-a759-55fb
7ffdcfc2
Now you can dismiss their arguments, but there IS a debate.
Quote:
As you yourself said: some parts are warming, other parts "not so much" (but not getting cooler either) so ON AVERAGE the earth is warming.
Um, "not so much" was a figurative allusion to our favorite TV show--not to be taken literally. It wasn't not meant to say parts of the planet are not getting cooler. They are, in different years.
For example, here:
I felt like I needed to clarify that.
As for the rest, I'll let it stand. I think I've made my point that the debate exists.
Edited to add:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&Conte
ntRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Haven't checked out the people they quoted, but I think the gist of it is, there are a lot of people debating this.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoa whoa whoa..
Can we, like, stop with the picking of nits and just stick to the general principle of "let's not trash our living space" ?
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?
And what's this algae farm thing, I wanna know more about that one!
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?
I think that is one thing everyone in this thread does agree on. :)
Now if anyone wants to talk about decreasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead levels--then we can debate where I would draw the line in public interests vs. personal liberty.
Re algae fuel, here's some basic info on it for your convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
But my hubby (who has colleagues researching this) says it requires a huge amount of surface area, too much to make it very practical, unfortunately. Dunno much about it, but that's what he says.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"certain conditions must be met for certain definitions to be true"
CO2 absorbs heat and there is more CO2 absorbing more heat, therefore, it is warming up the earth. Those are facts which aren't about to change. What part do you have a problem with? WHAT conditions, WHICH definitions can you point to that will change that?
"is it a statistically significant rise?" Yes - it is higher than it's been in nearly 800,000 years by all measurements, and higher than in the last 20 million years by some.
"And does this 22% more heat from CO2 make a significant difference in the global annual average surface temperature?" You misunderstand the physical concept. Different substances absorb at different wavelengths, effectively closing off heat radiating back into space at those wavelengths. The CO2 wavelength was one fairly open window in a bunch of closed ones. By increasing the CO2 concentration, we are closing one of the few windows that are open. If you are in a stifling house and you close your one open window even a little, the house will invariably get hotter.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Oh BTW, you never answered my question, Magon. Would you support an involuntary, mandatory expansion of the Norfolk program over all of Australia?
Sorry. Yes, if it was found to be effective. I agree a lot with what Mal4prez has been saying. So pretty much if you want my view on things, read his posts. I'd just be reiterating it, and probably not as eloquently.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?
I think that is one thing everyone in this thread does agree on. :)
Now if anyone wants to talk about decreasing nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and lead levels--then we can debate where I would draw the line in public interests vs. personal liberty.
Re algae fuel, here's some basic info on it for your convenience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel
But my hubby (who has colleagues researching this) says it requires a huge amount of surface area, too much to make it very practical, unfortunately. Dunno much about it, but that's what he says.
If you read a bit more about the Norfolk Island experient, you'll see that it is more than just buying carbon units, but trying to create a more sustainable local economy for that island. You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please. I find this one of the more puzzling aspects to the mindset of many Americans, that the idea of being able to live as one chooses only applies to Americans, and everyone else must choose to embrace your ideas on how things should be done. Doesn't that ever strike you as kind of weird?
The original article is by Andrew Bolt who is a right winged opinionist who cherry picks information to support his own agenda of disputing climate change and making alarmist observations on how the commies are basically out to get us all, often without much basis in the truth.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please.
Excuse me. I have not been critical of them in the least. I DARE you to produce a single quotation from me in this thread where I was critical of the Norfolk Islanders for participating in this experiment.
-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement."
Oh, one more thing, CTS - Mauna Loa (where the Keeling curve is measured) is NOT a continuously active volcano as you erroneously imply. The last eruption was, I think, in 1972. In addition, the measurements are taken upwind on air coming in from the ocean, not on air coming from the volcano. Finally, other isolated places record the same CO2 increases.
Despite your claim, there really is NO room for debate. Global CO2 IS rising.
I don't know where you get your arguments, but you need to stop accepting and propagating falsehoods simply on the basis that you agree with them.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Recently in Britain the Tories introduced primary voting, so that the people could pick their party's candidate before voting for them. This is fairly large part of how they won.
Labour opposed the move because there was a strong resistance from its socialist caucus, whose leader said in an interview, "But if we went to a primary system where the voters chose the candidates, no socialist would ever win."
I don't have the transcript because I just told this by a british friend over the phone who had just listened to it.
You're probably right, it's a testing ground, and they probably are not testing the program, they are trying to prove to their fellow socialists that they can pull this off. So, they'd pick the community that would have the fewest problems with it.
Wow, seems everything is some kind of sinister socialist agenda as far as you are concerned.
Britain has experimented with some form of primary system, but it is not yet widespread, so I doubt that it had anything to do with the Tories winning power. I think the Tories won because people were sick of Labour after 13? odd years of government and the disaster of the Iraq war and the GFC. usually people need a change after awhile.
The British system (along with the Canadian and Australian system) are all Westminster Parliamentary Democracies, they vary widely from the American system. Originally they were designed for a two party system, but nearly every westminster style parliament has become 'hung', paritally due to the disillusionment of people with major parties and the emergence of minor parties who hold the balance of power. In Britain as here (Australia) there has been a lot of talk about electoral reform because of these changes and also because of some inequities in the the power that each vote holds.
some of the reforms have looked at primary voting, but you need to realise that the Westminster system is very different. We don't elect a leader (a Prime Minister) in a separate vote. we vote for local candidates who may or may not belong to a party and the party who wins the most candidates holds power, and their leader is the Prime Minister. In the recent elections, no clear party emerged and they had to form co-alitions with independants.
I can't see that holding primaries would advantage or disadvantage any of the parties. The issue is anyone can run for parliament...so long as they put down a minor deposit, so if you don't like your local candidates from either major parties, you can run someone you do like.
I think what really has emerged from all this close calls at election time is that people hold more complex views than right and left, which is where the old 2 party system aligns. They hold a mix of views about things like the environment, the economy, the function of government, social issues, religion etc which is kind of hard to cram into a rigid two party system based on outdated 20th Century ideology.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Whoa whoa whoa..
Can we, like, stop with the picking of nits and just stick to the general principle of "let's not trash our living space" ?
Seriously, that's WAY easier than the endless atom-splitting, to just hold that not trashing your own environment is a damn good idea and maybe we should make some effort not to do so ?
And what's this algae farm thing, I wanna know more about that one!
-F
THANK YOU!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kiki
I'm *very* familiar with the situation. You've dodged every question and piece of data I've put out there. I'm really losing interest in discussing it. I apologize for being irritable, I'm quite overstressed from work at the moment.
CTTS:
Your data is anecdotal. The global mean temp is rising, just not for the reasons that people are saying it is. What they don't realize is that this global warming scare is just like the H1N1 flu scare and the terrorist scare, it's a set up for really bad policy.
Magon,
Again, I apologize for my current mood, but do you *follow* politics, like, at all?
The Tories introduced the measure *before* they were elected, forcing the hand of Labour to take up the issue, and the labour socialists shot it down, openly stating what I just quoted them as saying.
This was not a conspiracy, it was not a theory, and it had nothing to do with the Tories taking power except in that, obviously, this helped the Tories win. But what really helped the Tories win was that Labour was so truly awful. It was as bad as G.W. Bush, it was basically identical, and the result of that was that the Lib Dems in their infinite wisdom threw their backing behind the Tories because Labour had become so neocon/neolib that it was the only "liberal" thing to do.
And hats off to them, by all means. If all liberals were like the LibDems I don't think I'd ever have a major argument with them. It's the lockstep following of idiocy which I find intensely irritating on both sides of the aisle.
Now... If we can get back to the *topic*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Algae farming.
I was in Iowa, and I was looking at all of these ethanol farms and refineries, advertising different methods to get more ethanol per acre.
Now, you know this is just my sort of problem, so it took me about five minutes. I thought through and came up with a number of crops which produce higher seed weight and oil per % of biomass, and more biomass per acre, and then I thought of ways you could radically upgrade it with fast growing trees or bamboo, and using various parasites like termites to break down the polysaccharides and after about five minutes of this it hit me:
Someone out there is going to figure this one out: Some life form produces far more oil at far more efficiency and it's going to be something really weird that we would never think of if we were thinking of it rationally, it'll be like jellyfish or something.
Well, as it turns out that person was a man working on the Human Genome project in La Jolla, which probably means Scripps, but not definitely. Anyway, the answer was Algae.
Algae, as a life form, operates at over 99% efficiency. It turns co2 into oil, and then, the oil, when burned, turns back into co2. It's a completely balanced system.
Also, it's extremely space efficient. If we took the land that we currently have devoted to ethanol production, and used it as algae farms, the United States would need no other form of energy.
Not only now, but for almost any foreseeable future. In fact, we would export energy. In fact, in ideal conditions, the estimates are that the US ethanol production could serve the entire world energy needs.
But it gets better. There's no reason to use viable farmland: An algae field can be built just about anywhere, and on any scale. Whether it's the middle of the desert in a closed system with water filtration, or on the rooftops of the buildings which are going to be consuming the oil. Ultimately, there would be no need to transport the oil at all. Gas stations could grow oil on site. Maybe eventually, cars could grow their own.
It's pure photosynthetic fuel.
Exxon/Mobile has poured $600 billion into the research, which dwarfs other private sector investment but is only a tiny fraction of what the US govt. has invested in corn ethanol, which last I read was over 80 billion. Exxon says that they are currently producing 30 times the yield per acre of corn ethanol's theoretical maximum, and that in ideal conditions, the algae fields would produce 400 times as much as the nearest competitor.
And thanks, I'm glad someone was interested in the science. Actually, a couple people here were on to this one before I was.
Now, of course, comes the political game. You know there are control freaks out there in the international finance and energy industries which simply do not *want* to have problems solved, especially in a way which can be so easily distributed, and they will oppose this, one way or another.
Now, a side note about good ideas. Good ideas can come from anywhere. The failure to realize this is the greatest failure of TPTB, who believe that only think tanks of the trusted and intellectually superior elite can come up with good ideas. This resulted in one of my favorite diplomacy FAILs of all time: When the us, in the person of Gates I think it was, told the Pakistanis that they could provide the logistical manpower to rid the country of terrorists and insurgents, and that we would send our experts to provide the solutions which the Pakistanis could execute... to which the Pakistani foreign minister replied "Actually, we have our own brains."
But yes, it works both ways.... remember when we were having a dispute about Merck's Gardisil vaccine and I said that it was poorly executed, but I had seen the Merck research team and the work they had done, and it was some of the best damn work I've seen done in the field. This is because Merck is made up of people. It's not really just a giant machine to control us with drugs. Sure the power structure is a problem, but real people have their own brains, and can come up with s
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.
The project reminds me of Miranda, yes. It is an experiment in trying to make people "better" (esp the fat part).
But making less than flattering comments (or not endorsing) a PROJECT is not the same thing as criticizing its participants. Even if the inhabitants of Miranda had agreed to THEIR experiment, I would not have criticized them either. More power to them, I guess, if they have that much hope.
As to the point you made, I have NEVER criticized the RIGHT of the NI inhabitants to volunteer for this experiment.
-----
They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better...
-- Mal in Serenity
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I had nothing polite to say about this
It's strangely fascist. IMHO, the co2 scare is a scam. They're not killing them yet though. It's just misguided liberalism. It's an experiment to see if people get really annoyed and move.
or this
Recently in Britain the Tories introduced primary voting, so that the people could pick their party's candidate before voting for them. This is fairly large part of how they won. Labour opposed the move because there was a strong resistance from its socialist caucus, whose leader said in an interview, "But if we went to a primary system where the voters chose the candidates, no socialist would ever win." I don't have the transcript because I just told this by a british friend over the phone who had just listened to it. You're probably right, it's a testing ground, and they probably are not testing the program, they are trying to prove to their fellow socialists that they can pull this off. So, they'd pick the community that would have the fewest problems with it.
which were truly irrational rants that have no basis in reality.
Your very next post had a very little about CO2 and global warming per se and was again mostly a paranoid rant. The next had nothing about CO2 and global warming, same for the next post the next one and the next one after that. It was at that point that I pretty much stopped reading your posts.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
CTTS:
Your data is anecdotal. The global mean temp is rising, just not for the reasons that people are saying it is.
I wasn't aware that I presented any data. I presented links to people who dispute the existence of global warming. Those links support my point that a debate exists.
It doesn't necessarily mean I support them. In fact, I have not presented my personal position on GW in this thread. It is interesting how everyone immediately jumps to conclusions simply because I say a debate exists.
For all I said here, I could be a GW proponent who simply believes the evidence standards need to be higher before legislation.
-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kiki
Magon,
Again, I apologize for my current mood, but do you *follow* politics, like, at all?
The Tories introduced the measure *before* they were elected, forcing the hand of Labour to take up the issue, and the labour socialists shot it down, openly stating what I just quoted them as saying.
This was not a conspiracy, it was not a theory, and it had nothing to do with the Tories taking power except in that, obviously, this helped the Tories win.
please show some data to demonstrate that primary voting was widely introduced in the UK to the point where it affected the outcome of the last election, because I haven't been able to find anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
In your first thread, you said it sounded like Miranda. Apart from being a tad alarmist, it doesn't exactly endorse their decision making in choosing to go along with this experiment.
The project reminds me of Miranda, yes. It is an experiment in trying to make people "better" (esp the fat part).
But making less than flattering comments (or not endorsing) a PROJECT is not the same thing as criticizing its participants. Even if the inhabitants of Miranda had agreed to THEIR experiment, I would not have criticized them either. More power to them, I guess, if they have that much hope.
As to the point you made, I have NEVER criticized the RIGHT of the NI inhabitants to volunteer for this experiment.
-- Mal in Serenity
Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed. If you want to compare Miranda, then I'd say that the secret experiments conducted by US military in the last half of the 20th Cent were a more applicable analogy http://www.whale.to/a/cantwell9.html
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
CO2 absorbs heat and there is more CO2 absorbing more heat, therefore, it is warming up the earth. Those are facts which aren't about to change. What part do you have a problem with? WHAT conditions, WHICH definitions can you point to that will change that?
I just put a drop of boiling water into the ocean. I can say I am warming up the ocean, because it is a fact that the ocean now has more heat than a minute ago. But I don't think that is what "warming up" means.
Even if I measured the temperature of the ocean, and it IS a teeny fraction of a degree higher, how do I know that isn't cause I read the thermometer wrong? How do I know something else didn't cause the temp rise at the same time? Correlation doesn't equal causation. Sure the coincidence is worth further investigation, but concluding causation is premature.
I already said that the conditions for CO2 to exert greenhouse effects is a non-issue. But since you press me, I will give you an example.
In logic-speak, ALL conclusions rest on certain premises. There are assumptions underlying ALL hypotheses. One assumption behind the theory of the greenhouse effect is the earth as a black body, where the earth emits radiation in a continuous bell curve across all frequencies. What if the earth should absorb and re-emit IR radiation unevenly? What if the earth should emit very little radiation in the absorption bands of CO2? Then CO2 would have almost nothing to absorb, n'est ce pas? So, one would have to assume there is radiation for CO2 to absorb in the first place, before it can exert a greenhouse effect.
I have no problems with the black body assumption itself, but I know critics who do. My intent was to point out there ARE assumptions involved. Not everyone even accepts there IS such a thing as a greenhouse effect--thankfully, I didn't bring THAT up.
Quote:YOU are sure the answer is yes, but others are not. You can dismiss those people as wrong, but it doesn't change that the debate exists.
"is it a statistically significant rise?" Yes - it is higher than it's been in nearly 800,000 years by all measurements, and higher than in the last 20 million years by some.
Quote:Those wavelengths for CO2 are at 2.7 microns, 4.3 microns, and 15 microns. Water absorbs broadly across the spectrum, largely overlapping with CO2, with the exception of 4.3. Factor in that there is tons more water vapor molecules than CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.
Different substances absorb at different wavelengths, effectively closing off heat radiating back into space at those wavelengths.
Here is a graph to illustrate:
Here is question on CO2 absorption bands with various answers:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070718162208AA2Tjim
Quote:
The CO2 wavelength was one fairly open window in a bunch of closed ones. By increasing the CO2 concentration, we are closing one of the few windows that are open. If you are in a stifling house and you close your one open window even a little, the house will invariably get hotter.
Except your CO2 window is a tiny slit the size of a toothpick amongst large mansion windows. Would closing one crack in the wall really warm the house that much? Maybe, maybe not. But the debate exists.
Again, the idea of significance.
Now GW proponents argue that the toothpick slit is significant because it allows the number of closed windows to grow. Maybe the mechanism for explaining this growth is valid. Or maybe it is a magic crack.
The fact remains people DO, and should be allowed to, debate whether that crack indeed has window-growing properties. You can take sides in the debate, but you can't say there is no debate.
-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
CTS: "For example, the Keeling Curve is based on measurements from on top of an active volcano. They have to subtract the volcanic contribution. They have to estimate that amount. What if they are wrong or the data used for their estimate is incomplete? There is room for debate, which in science, means room for improvement."
Oh, one more thing, CTS - Mauna Loa (where the Keeling curve is measured) is NOT a continuously active volcano as you erroneously imply.
Everything I said was factually correct. I did not imply anything. If YOU had inferred from my statements that Mauna Loa was continuously active, then YOUR inference was erroneous.
Quote:Eruptions were in 1950, 1975, 1984. They estimate and correct for the volcanic contributions.
The last eruption was, I think, in 1972. In addition, the measurements are taken upwind on air coming in from the ocean, not on air coming from the volcano.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/
"easy to remove them... with a mathematical filter." Or...
"Although the volcanically contaminated CO2 data are removed from the global averages, they are still scientifically useful."
Or here:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcan
icco2.html
"A volcanic component can be ESTIMATED (emphasis mine) by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions. "
Just to be clear, I think the corrections are probably fine. But that's an assumption. The assumption could be proven wrong as the science advances. So of course, there is room for debate.
Quote:Redirect. This has nothing to do with the point I made, which was the process used to correct for volcanic CO2 contributions are subject to improvement and debate.
Finally, other isolated places record the same CO2 increases.
Quote:LOL. But I don't necessarily agree with them! Talk about wrong assumptions....
I don't know where you get your arguments, but you need to stop accepting and propagating falsehoods simply on the basis that you agree with them.
My only point is: there is a legitimate debate. In other words, the debate exists, and both sides make some very good points. This is not a falsehood.
-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kiki
Feel free to reject my opinion. Did I mention that I was feeling irritable?
Magon
Quote:
United Kingdom. On August 4, 2009, Dr Sarah Wollaston was chosen by Open Primary as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes, for the 2010 general election, the first time such a mechanism has been used to pick a prospective candidate for an election in the UK. This was after the current incumbent Anthony Steen decided to step down in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal. The Conservatives have plans to roll this out further and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.[11][12]
It was widely reported here in the US. Looks like they haven't yet taken it all the way.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
kiki
MagonQuote:
United Kingdom. On August 4, 2009, Dr Sarah Wollaston was chosen by Open Primary as the Conservative Party candidate for Totnes, for the 2010 general election, the first time such a mechanism has been used to pick a prospective candidate for an election in the UK. This was after the current incumbent Anthony Steen decided to step down in the wake of the MPs expenses scandal. The Conservatives have plans to roll this out further and there are hopes other parties may nominate future candidates in this way.[11][12]
It was widely reported here in the US. Looks like they haven't yet taken it all the way.
As I said in my earlier post, and I quote..."Britain has experimented with some form of primary system, but it is not yet widespread, so I doubt that it had anything to do with the Tories winning power."
Care to elaborate on the widespread reforms which helped topple Labour that you mentioned earlier...or don't you follow the news either
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't mind debating how flawed my analogy is. What I don't like is people putting false words in my mouth. I think you should apologize for accusing me of saying things I didn't. If I had misunderstood you and accused you wrongly of hypocrisy, *I* would apologize.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed.
On another note, I gotta step away from this thread cause of the Time Suck. My kids are chanting "No more Firefly Fans!"
-----
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
--Richard Feynman, Physicist.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon
don't really read my posts do you?
I said that the idea helped topple Labour: Tories definitely came across as pro-democracy, and Labour definitely came across as anti-democracy on this issue.
Also, I never said it had anything to do with Tories winning, I said that in my first response to your posting this.
So, are you willing to concede now that it was a Tory idea?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since CTS is gone then I get the last word?
CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008, a volcano that occasionally becomes active..?? you must think scientists are pretty stupid.
First of all, whining "But there are uncertainties, errors!" ... c'mon. You don't think scientists are aware of that? Hell, most of the data my group produces winds up in court one way or another... I spend a GREAT deal of time thinking about how to reduce errors, and how to define the remainder. Scientists think a lot about where to sample, how to analyze, and what it means. I personally know two people who traveled to world to sample air from remote clean locations for detailed analysis, and through volcanic and forest-fire plumes. That CO2 has increased is a robust, repeatable observation which has been made by many means and many nationalities, so its not some western-northern liberal conspiracy.
Quote:On this topic, you are like Rappy. You will find a isolated fact and repeat it out of context, clinging to it like a drowning person in a sea of data which belies your beliefs.
Everything I said was factually correct.
Yanno, there are people who believe to this day the earth is flat. They will bring up all kinds of reasons to doubt the overwhelming data which says otherwise. But that doesn't mean there is a serious debate on the topic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
CTS
I have hung out on this board long enough before I even posted to know how you argue. Your last defense is: but I never SAID that - exactly. I never used THAT word - specifically. I never MEANT what I posted - really.
You're like a little kid who says they didn't do something b/c some small detail is wrong.
Just grow up already, OK? I'm not daddy, I'm not going to hit you, I'm not trying to invalidate your existence, you don't need to rebel against facts in a sneaky cowardly way - you don't even need to rebel at all.
How about it - give free adulthood a try.
Also, if you read my posts to Rap C.A.R.E.F.U.L.L.Y. you will find not only did I not SAY 'blame' specifically, I never even IMPLIED it, not even once. Not by the direction of my argument, not by the selection of facts I posted, not by any means in any way at all. I was extremely careful to NOT do that. That's how I know he read it in, all by his itty-bitty self.
Your posts, OTOH, don't even come close to that level of care. You actually go out of your way, exactly like Bush, to imply one thing while avoiding specific words. I was pointing out TO YOU that that is a game we can all figure out, and if you want to be given a level of credibility, you need to stop.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hell, Debate all ya like - BUT IN THE MEANTIME...
Can we at least agree that perhaps not polluting our living space, and perhaps reducing our impact in that respect is kind of a common sense idea ?
I mean, we can pick the nits to death all in good time, and it frustrates me to no end that every conversation on this topic devolves into exactly that when the principle itself is so bloody obvious it should not need explaining ?
Reminds me of two people fighting over how to patch a boat while it's sinking... who eventually drown cause they got too involved in that to DO any bloody thing.
-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I come here for my benefit - for entertainment, discussion, insight. I'm not invested in the relationships, which have long since turned into concrete here, or in the posters, with a few exceptions. So I'm not interested in forging agreements or maintaining solidarity or creating agreeable fictions. I post what I think and discuss what I want. It's not always going to be nicey-nicey. Agree with me, or don't. But if I speak what I see up front, no games, maybe others will respond in kind. If I get that honest response, I will consider my time here well spent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Man made global warming is overblown fact-hoax(meaning it is always stated as fact when in reality there is a MAJOR debate amongst scientists). Is the earth's climate changing? Yes. Do we really know why? No.
CTS is correct...it is debatable. To close your mind off to that possibility is foolish and CTS should not even bother with you.
Look into the many anti-man-made views...CO2 lagging temp, sunspot cycles, climate history in general, GRBs, etc..
Watch a couple docs on it (maybe start with The Great Global Warming Swindle...although there are better)
Then ask yourself, what
I think CTS was getting at, Considering all the other variables... what is the true role that manmade CO2 plays in GW? And do we want to change our world economy by taxing a hypothesis, while supressing development of poorer countries?
I say hold steady and let the debate continue....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Nope, it's hopeless. People would rather pick up a submachine gun and unload it into the bottom of the boat to express their frustration at "outside patchers vs inside patchers" from whichever side they happen to be coming from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh don't I know it.
Still, it's kind of obligatory for me to TRY.
Oh, and Kiki, go right on with that - I'll take honest over nice any day, and I too find the entrenched positions shelling each other to no effect a little frustrating, but you know, even despite that we do get some quite thought provoking discussions goin on round here.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem
It's not just the entrenches sides which shell each other, hell half the time I don't know what side people are on, everyone shells everyone. At the moment I just came down with a bug because I've been stocking and restocking and counting inventory a fair amount of which is now stacked up by my bed because all that running through the freezing rain...
This is as good a video game as any, but give me a decent anime and I'll wander off.
Speaking of sparring, if this is the Niki-Rap get a room convention, does that make Wulfie this guy?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Magon
don't really read my posts do you?
Not your longer ones, I confess, but I have probably followed you on this thread reasonable closely.
Quote:
I said that the idea helped topple Labour: Tories definitely came across as pro-democracy, and Labour definitely came across as anti-democracy on this issue.
Also, I never said it had anything to do with Tories winning, I said that in my first response to your posting this.
So it toppled labour, but not helped the tories win???????? Which are you actually saying, or are you saying both because that is quite confusing.
Quote:
So, are you willing to concede now that it was a Tory idea?
So what if it is a Tory idea? Doesn't mean that the Tories are more democratic, only that they see this type of reform as a possible solution. Just because you don't support primary voting doesn't mean you don't support democracy. What a ridiculous Americancentric statement. There have been many calls for electoral reform across the political spectrum, with a number of solutions offered. As I said, there are different systems...creating a system more aligned with the American one which seems riddled with holes and problems anyway, may not solve the current difficulties that the Westminster system is experiencing,
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I don't mind debating how flawed my analogy is. What I don't like is people putting false words in my mouth. I think you should apologize for accusing me of saying things I didn't. If I had misunderstood you and accused you wrongly of hypocrisy, *I* would apologize.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Except that Miranda was not implemented with the knowledge or willing participation of its inhabitents and was covered up both before and after, so your analogy is pretty flawed.
.
What I see is that you are condemning a voluntary scheme introduced into a willing community who wish to be involved in a trial to make their community a leader in sustainable economics because you personally don't support that scheme, and you personally feel that this is the first step in some totalitarian reckoning of us all.
I'm not going to apologise because I haven't insulted you. I'm having a discussion over the internet, and disputing your views.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
You and Dreamtrove have been critical of the rights of the inhabitents to do what they please, as they please.
The accusation that I have been critical of the rights of the inhabitants of NI to do what they please is patently false.
When I challenged you to substantiate that accusation, the best you came up with is that I compared THE PROJECT to Miranda. Apparently somehow in your mind, the words "Reminds me of Miranda" morphed into "Those NI inhabitants have no right to do what they please. Who do they think they are, trying to cut down their CO2 output? They suck for even thinking about doing this." (<--- That would be my idea of criticizing their rights and condemning them.)
I could call this morphing a wild imagination. But you maintain it despite my attempts to clarify that I do not THINK such things, let alone have ever said them. At this point, I can only call this morphing bluntly for what it is: a lie.
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I'm not going to apologise because I haven't insulted you. I'm having a discussion over the internet, and disputing your views.
It's ok to lie about things I didn't say just because you think the lie is not insulting?
In my view, it WAS insulting. But my view on this doesn't count, does it?
Never mind. I would like an apology. I would have offered one if it were me. But I didn't expect one.
-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
What I see is that you are condemning ...
And I have told you that you see wrongly. One comparison to Miranda, flawed or not, does not a condemnation make.
-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008, a volcano that occasionally becomes active..?? you must think scientists are pretty stupid.
Quick note about cherry picking.
If I say kangaroos exist, all the data I need to provide is just ONE instance of a kangaroo.
I don't need photos of ALL the kangaroos in the world. I don't need to show all the places where there are no kangaroos. In arguments about whether an entity exists or not, the fallacy of cherry-picking does not apply.
I am not making the argument that the WHOLE EARTH is either cooling or warming. If I were, and I showed only one month, THAT would be cherry-picking. If I were, I would need to show comprehensive data on all the parts of the earth that are warming vs. all that are cooling per month for thousands of millenia if possible.
If I show one part of the earth cooling for one year as an ILLUSTRATION of the statement, "Parts of the earth are cooling...at different times," it is not cherry picking. Does that part not exist? Are there not more parts like that? I only need one or two instances to substantiate the point those cooling parts exist (you had said they didn't exist).
Now if I had said, these cooling parts make a significant net cooling effect on the earth, and showed only one month or one year or one decade, THEN I would be cherry picking.
See the difference? Cherry-picking only applies to certain types of arguments, arguments that I never made on this thread.
The part about the correction of volcanic contributions is the same thing: argument about existence. Volcanic contributions to the reading DO exist. Corrections for those contributions DO exist.
-----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS: YOu just demonstrated your superior ability to cherry-pick facts: one month in 2008,
Ohh... and it wasn't one month. Look at the graph again. It says January to December 2008. It was one whole year.
Correction of this error has nothing to do with the correction of the cherry-picking argument. It's just an aside.
----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SO if I say that global climate change exists, all I need to do is show one instance of it?
I know what you're saying: it's called the null hypothesis, but you've mis-stated it.
Anyway, parts of the earth cooling from time to time is well within the model of global climate change. That's why scientists no longer refer to "global warming"... because they (unlike you) understand that some parts of the earth will warm up much faster while other parts may stay the same or even cool over the short term, some parts will get wetter and many parts will get drier, that extreme weather events of ALL types - droughts, hurricanes, monsoons, blizzards - will become more frequent. But ON THE AVERAGE, the earth will get warmer AND atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased.
Which they undeniably have. Saying that they have not is akin to arguing the earth is flat or that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Why not just accept repeated, robust observations and move forward from there? For example, calculate how much heat so many extra gigatons of carbon dioxide will absorb, and show me (relative to other heat sources) that the amount is trivial and we will actually be having a discussion, not just a denial of reality.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
SO if I say that global climate change exists, all I need to do is show one instance of it?
Yes. And I could not accuse you of cherry picking.
BUT -- we could argue about the definition of global and the definition of climate change.
----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon,
After some thought, I am sorry I accused you of lying. It is unkind. I apologize.
----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
because they (unlike you) understand that some parts of the earth will warm up much faster while other parts may stay the same or even cool over the short term,
I have not given you enough information about my personal positions on GW for you to determine what *I* understand. I have talked about OTHER PEOPLE's positions. Please do not assume them to be my own.
You had made an assertion that there did not exist parts of the earth that were cooling. I was simply correcting that assertion as inaccurate. I was not making an argument about averages either way (which is why cherry-picking is not an issue).
Reality is that the debate exists. What I hear you say is that the debate, in your view, is akin to the flat-earth position, absurd and not legitimate. So, can we agree that there IS a debate then?
If we can agree that the debate even exists, we can move on to whether the debate is legitimate-- which is another issue altogether. We'd have to define legitimacy first.
Personally, I prefer dialectics to debating, hashing one precise and specific issue at a time until an agreement is reached. Then, standing on that agreement, hash out the next issue, step by step. Contrast this to debating, where each side simply takes its best shot, and a third party (presumably lurkers) decides who "wins."
I'm just a bit left-brainy that way.
----
Disclaimer: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say. If you made an inference, it is probably wrong. If you're not sure where I stand, please ask, preferably politely, before jumping to conclusions. Thank you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I started reading this thread and almost thought it was about religion. "Global Warming/Climate Change is the one way and it only happens this one true way with Co2. Your Co2 emissions are an ABOMINATION!" Frankly, I think in 1,000 years or so we're gonna see this debate as irrelevant as most of us view Leviticus (no pork, don't mix clothing fabrics, no football).
I'm looking for an article I read on this written by a NASA scientist, but I just can't seem to find it at the moment. I'll post it if I come across it again, but I'll just have to paraphrase some of it to the best of my ability. The scientist talked about solar cycles or some such and described the Medieval Warm period that lasted for a couple hundred years or so followed by a mini ice age that basically just ended around 1900. So it seems it's just time for us to get a little warmer regardless.
Still, pollution is an issue and more power too this little community for lookin' for answers. I'm with DT on this though, I think it's not our Co2 emissions as much as it's our destroying the Earth's capacity to deal with those kind of things (deforestation and desertification) that is the problem.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
It's ok to lie about things I didn't say just because you think the lie is not insulting?
In my view, it WAS insulting. But my view on this doesn't count, does it?
Never mind. I would like an apology. I would have offered one if it were me. But I didn't expect one.
You know I see a lot of shabby nasty stuff on these threads, where people call each other all kind of shit. I don't do that. I argue and discuss, occasionally snark. So excuse me if I don't see what I have to apologise to you about. I haven't called you a nazi loving pig dog, or claimed you've made crazy wild love to a hamster. I've read you posts and responded to what I've understood them to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME