Slashdot Mirror

Since I think the Polar Bear thing is particularly funny (I think a lot of teen girls think they are so cute, in spite of the fact that they are apparently some of the most aggressive and violent bears), this is certainly not Fox News. nor are these folks. But with proof like simply SEEING them so far off shore and presuming global warming is the reason, it's so obvious that any criticism must be wrong! I guess since the food that Polar Bears eat - like seals - are remaining completely stationary while the snow/ice presumably recedes. I've seen reports that polar bears can swim anywhere from 60 to 100s of miles, so apparently they aren't completely sure....

Incidentally, from here [reason.com]:

All the articles you link to follow from the same exact flaw which renders them rather meaningless - they claim that polar bears are not threatened because present numbers are stable or increasing (polar bears are lucky animals, living far as far away from human settlement as they do); yet they miss the point that it is the future that matters - what will happen in 50-100 years time when the arctic is ice-free? This style of nonsense reasoning is typical of the obfuscation performed by denialist pundits.

The Daily Telegraph by the way is the FOX News of the UK. If you think the CRU team are bending the truth, they can't hold a candle to the Daily Telegraph.

Hey dipshit, a climate change skeptic (McIntrye) found an error in nasa's GISS data and forced NASA to restate the facts of the matter, that 1998 was NOT the hottest year on record.. thats record belongs to 1934, and 3 of the 5 hottest were before 1940.

hey moron quoting old invalidated new, click here

You sound like you're arguing from information given to you by Al Gore. I'm not sure he's a trustworth source.

Since I think the Polar Bear thing is particularly funny (I think a lot of teen girls think they are so cute, in spite of the fact that they are apparently some of the most aggressive and violent bears), this is certainly not Fox News. nor are these folks. But with proof like simply SEEING them so far off shore and presuming global warming is the reason, it's so obvious that any criticism must be wrong! I guess since the food that Polar Bears eat - like seals - are remaining completely stationary while the snow/ice presumably recedes. I've seen reports that polar bears can swim anywhere from 60 to 100s of miles, so apparently they aren't completely sure.

To me, the Polar Bear thing is a good example of someone seeing something and it getting blown completely out of proportion and people like Al Gore picking up on it and trying to use it for their own gain. Al Gore does not appear to be struggling financially.

Incidentally, from here:

Gore shows an animation of a polar bear (very reminiscent of the Coca Cola bears) swimming pitifully in the sea trying to haul itself up onto the last piece of ice floating in the Arctic Ocean. In 2002, the World Wildlife Fund issued a report warning that global warming was endangering polar bears. Arctic sea ice is thawing sooner and this means that the bears who hunt seals on the ice have fewer opportunities to feed themselves. This week saw an alarming report that hungry polar bears are turning cannibal. Yet, the WWF report itself found that most bear populations are either stable or increasing (see page 9 of the report). And remember, polar bears evidently survived when Arctic temperatures were warmer 6000 years ago. Of course, if predictions that the entire Arctic Ocean will be ice free in 100 year turn out to be right, then the polar bears will have a problem.

(emphasis mine)

That "ice free" bit was a link to "sciencedaily.com."

Sure, as long as your happy with reducing the life expectancy for the vast, vast majority of people then great. I'm glad you are happy to kill off 15% of your sick so that everyone can get mediocre care. I'd rather the system focuses on finding out why:

1. that 15% doesn't have health insurance. It is a choice for a large group. Even the illegal immigrants would have insurance if they were simply legal immigrants and poor (medicaid is then an option). These stats look a lot less ominous suddenly

2. improving the care for everyone.

Anyways, it isn't a significant statistic. It happens to be that those people who die of cancer because they never got care are still diagnosed as having died of cancer. Cancer isn't some silent killer. it has very obvious effects in late stage that these people end up going to the emergency room for and then getting counted.

What I would be interested to see is the difference in survival rates for just the poor to see if the US even treats it's poor to lower quality care.

The heart attack data comes directly from the UK Department of Health and the Journal of the American Medical Association. The cancer data was sourced here: http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba596

the problem is when faced with these stats, Europeans now can't raise their hand and say,"yes, we have worse care by a very wide margin in several important areas" but rather fall back on "the US in unfair because not everyone gets to have those great results". But at least we strive to do well enough for a large enough group that rates on average still trounce Europe.

I don't know anything about this gentleman, but, maybe, his writings simply go against the current Illiberal pro-Democrat bias of the paper? They weren't always this way — most famously, NYT used to be against government-mandated minimum wage until 1999.

Perhaps, they are trying to score some favors from the current government in the hopes of getting substantial financial help (a bailout, that was, no doubt, already promised to them) and certain writers are no longer welcome?

One does not need to be a "rabid partisan" to fall into disfavor — until recently NYT weren't hiring such partisans anyway. Just not participating in the adoration fest could've been enough. When the company survival is at stake, one can't afford taking chances...

it will influence your opinion (although whether that influence is towards more funding, privatization, or better management can vary).

No it wouldn't, waiting is part of why I do not like socialized medicine.

Just in case someone out there has the numbers, what about the relative life expectancy of people over 65 in Canada and the United States, broken down by annual income or personal net assets?

It's not broken down by income or wealth but the List of countries by life expectancy does list average life expectancy. Oh, lest someone objects to wiki, it was the first result when I googled "life expectancy" canada "united states". However "a casual look at life expectancy statistics reveals no obvious pattern".

The Barbarian Invasions

Reading it I see one of the comments, by a Quebecois, says "Yes the health care is that bad here. But then again where is it perfect? The population is growing old, hospitals are overcrowded, our government spends most of our tax money for it and its still not enough. But at least we don't have to pay for health care. I'm happy to pay taxes that help elders and sick people get treated."

Falcon

In space they can dump it overboard. Got a place to put all that CO2? Check out the raw tonnage you're dealing with before you answer.

Um... where is all that CO2 now? We are not creating it, we are releasing it. How bout we put it into plants, the way nature intended? Maybe we could put into your Mountain Dew. There's a thousand other uses for CO2.

Or, is your problem not with coal and CO2, but something else:

Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.

While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.

According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team:

        * Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources.
        * This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet.

Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute.

"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."

You apparently lack the intelligence to understand that getting criminals off the streets does improve public safety

You apparently lack the intelligence to realize that carpeting a city with cameras DOES NOT GET CRIMINALS OFF THE STREET. If that were the only goal of such a program, it must be noted that it fails utterly at doing so. There is empirical evidence of the case, straight from London: in 2008 only 3% (I'll let you look it up, smartypants) of the violent crime in the city (chiefly mugging) was solved with the help of CCTV. 3 percent. It's much more effective at spotting drunks and tracking other anti-socials than it is at finding muggers. FACT. It's a colossal Orwellian boondoggle and a big waste of tax money that does a better job of robbing people of their privacy than it does of finding robbers. Let's remember: this whole thing was started to track movements of the IRA.

People being registered to lawfully concealed carry on the other hand, has demonstrated a much more positive effect on the crime rate, here in the US. Furthermore, CCW holders average a lower crime rate than COPS themselves, and states which have adopted shall-issue laws have not seen a rise in accidental killings, but many have seen all other rates of violent crime go down.

If you were at all concerned about the welfare of the general populace, you'd look harder at the facts, and you'd be demanding your Illinoisan representatives move in the right direction, the direction of the 35 states which have enacted shall-issue laws.

From http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba597/ : "Only 60 percent of federal gas taxes goes to the construction and maintenance of highways and bridges." Not to mention I don't see why taxes from other sources, such as income, can't be used to fund highways in bridges considering the highway system contributes to national defense by providing for the speedy movement of military vehicles and military supplies carried by private commercial vehicles. The highway system also plays a significant role in the national economy. One could argue that the federal government shouldn't be involved in roads at all (leaving them to the state a local governments), but since it is involved in roads, I don't see why the funds it provides for roads should only come from the federal gas tax.

Not sure if these are scientists: Avery/... some other guy I forgot the name of

News article about MIT scientists with evidence against human-induced global warming

Dr. Ball, I think his name is.

Of course, I have heard scientists say that all real scientists believe it and don't dispute it.

Peer reviewed stuff on here...

Here's the deal : burning hydrocarbon products causes measurable economic damage to other people besides the entity burning them. I.E. : if you burn a gallon of gas, you create air pollution. Also, your country may have to fight a war to make sure that gas is available.

Well, I'm not going to argue the so called economic damage from burning a gallon of gasoline or the completely preposterous was for oil bit. All of the later is made up fiction and the previous is within acceptable ranges. Regardless of those even hinting of existing, the point I made is still valid, the economic problem won't be fixed any time soon because of those issues I discussed. You might want to justify holding people captive with your make believe ideas but it doesn't change that fact.

Economists call these things "negative externalities". The correct approach to fixing negative externalities is to charge a tax on the activities that cause a negative externality to other people.

You realize that those are buzzwords designed to bring you on board right? The simple fact is that externalities are offset but price advantage which is especially true in the situation I laid out. Taxing the hell out of people for made up expenses and inferred damages that aren't real does nothing but cause the situations I laid out. Again, you can justify it all you want but it isn't going to change the problem I laid out. Personally, I think it is selfish of you and people like you to put so many poor people into such a difficult position because you learned a few buzz words.

This would have the net effect of making alternative energy relatively cheaper, stimulating more investment in it, and eventually replacing the use of hydrocarbons for energy altogether.

Lol.. Smoke and mirrors is your answer? Let's see, if we artificially raise this and cause those people to suffer, we can make that look more attractive. You may not want to believe that is what your doing but that is it. You mentioned some mythological war for gas that has never happened and rely heavily on concocted damages that don't exist in order to justify the expense. Well, here is the point. I don't really care how you can justify your pet projects or practice your religion, the points I made still stand. The people will continue to be disadvantaged because of your pet policies and the economy will not recover until that disadvantage is removed.

Now find a way to do both and we will have a good solution. But selfishly insisting on your way only means that the economy will not recover any time soon, eventually the normal people will see it, and anything you can get accomplished will be torn away to stop the real damage to people.

BTW, your buzzwords and externalities and such came about as justification of the original intent of the Kyoto protocol which contrary to the pushed purpose wasn't about stopping global warming, it was about alleviating the third world debt which is why out of the 150 some off countries that signed on, only 37 have limits on their production of GHGs with the ability to purchase credits from nations that pollute more then they do. Read this article and try to find out as much as you can about LEAD. Most of it has been pulled from the web but they disappeared and stopped asking for the first world to forgive the third world debt at the same time that Kyoto was being negotiated.

In other words, your being fed a political lie designed to redistribute wealth. Now note that this doesn't mean that global warming isn't real, it means that it is being used for ulterior purposes and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. If you would just read and study the Kyoto accords, You would see that

I'll admit that most of the results from google seem to come from websites that are far from non-biased, but here is an example of the least crazy one:
Gun ownership vs Crime
If you google for: Gun Control vs Violent Crime, you'll find quite a few articles that back up what I said.

The idea that a gun ban would decrease crime is illogical. Violent criminals don't generally buy their guns at hunting stores, they buy them from illegal gun dealers.

Maybe UPann's Health care plan and the health care un Penn in general isn't as good as other areas of the country. I haven't needed to wait to see a specialist but this isn't really the same as in other countries.

In America, when we know what is wrong with someone, we schedule an appointment to take care of it. In countries with socialized health care, you sometimes go on a list and have to wait until your number is ready and if there isn't anyone in more need then you, you go. If there is someone who can, they will jump in front of you and you go back onto the list. Now, have you had your appointment bumped after waiting 2 months to see the specialist just to have to wait longer? And yes, you had the option of going somewhere else, even if that meant further away then your local area to see the specialist sooner. In other countries, you don't, you get what they give you.

This waiting isn't about someone waiting for a specialist to get time, you are after all, under the care of another doctor, it is about waiting 10 years for bowel surgery and having to goto other countries to get procedures done. It is about doctors deciding who gets treatment and who doesn't, regardless of anyone's ability to pay but because of perfectly legal acts like smoking or growing old. Sure, you can drink, but you won't get any surgury if you do, but it is still legal right? But there are other stark contrasts between the US system and other countries like England's. This piece actually offers a pretty good comparison so take the time to read it.

I know I have been picking on England's system so lets get into some of the problems with Canada's. Canada has wait time to see general practitioners that makes your specialist appointment look like a week long vacation. Granted the government is working on the problem and has supposedly worked out a plan that will be implemented in 10 years or so, but what about until then and what about everything up until people complained loudly enough for the government to act. It is so bad that companies are offering medical insurance in Canada that will take you to another location and even out of the country if your wait times are too long. Imagine that, the people of Canada are buying health insurance when they already had free health coverage from their very own government because the times they wait to get treatment is way to long.

Now maybe you just don't know about the wait and thing a 4 week wait or an 8 week wait to see a specialist is similar to a 16 week wait to see your general practitioner or having to wait 16.2 weeks to see an orthopedic surgeon, and another 24.2 weeks for treatment to be performed after the initial visit. Now those numbers are averages, this means that some are longer and some are shorter. But we every one that's shorter, there is one or more that is longer. You may think, well that isn't too long. Most back problems have healed themselves in 3-6 months, if the healing is improper (which is why surgery is often used), there will be problems with the back for the rest of the patient's life. So lest see, 14 weeks is over 3 months already. 24 weeks is six months longer, there is a good chance of a patient needing an orthopedic surgeon never regaining normal use and comfort levels in their back again simply from the wait between seeing and treatment. Of course this isn't always the case but it gets introduced and it shouldn't be there.

Let's be honest here: our country has lost its manufacturing base.

No. As a percentage of GDP, goods production has gone up.

The US manufacturing base is huge. Really unfathomably large. You could cut out half its output (measured in dollars) and it'd still be in the number one position for industrial output (assuming you don't combine the EU nations together).

He's more of a cowboy than Al Gore. He's more likeable than Al Gore.

And if you're honest, he doesn't pull Scientific frauds.

(And yes, Al Gore used this argument, which has been proven to have been constructed fraudulently many times).

Meanwhile, the sun's corona is at a historical low temperature. If the sun really does control temperature, we'll know in the coming year.

(and there's no serious scientist doubting it's going to be a VERY cold year, and most are talking 5 or 10 years with the oddball out about a cold 200 years (like the last time the sun did this))

Not that we don't all know very well just exactly how worried Al Gore is about the climate

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

From the first link :
US Oil Consumption.
2004 40.294
2005 40.393
2006 39.958

I also understand that we are using less oil this year than last year and last year was less than '06. Although, I can't find a link for that so you'll have to take my word... or not. Not that it would matter as you didn't look at the links I provided the first time.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman [wikipedia.org]. Where are these predictions?

OK, how's this quote:

We cannot long continue our present rate of progress. The first check for our growing prosperity, however, must render our population excessive.

Sound familiar. I hear the same argument made every day. This one is different in that it was made about coal, not oil. Oh, and it was made in 1865. Such statements have been made ever since. Take this one for example:

Scientists have criticised a major review of the world's remaining oil reserves, warning that the end of oil is coming sooner than governments and oil companies are prepared to admit.

That was from an article written in 2007. It says the same thing.

Here is someone how agrees with me:

Oil is a nonrenewable resource. Every gallon of petroleum burned today is unavailable for use by future generations. Over the past 150 years, geologists and other scientists often have predicted that our oil reserves would run dry within a few years. When oil prices rise for an extended period, the news media fill with dire warnings that a crisis is upon us. Environmentalists argue that governments must develop new energy technologies that do not rely on fossil fuels. The facts contradict these harbingers of doom.

Of course, I said we'd be out of oil by now. Well, that may have been an exaggeration. We will never run out of oil. Eventually, it will be too expensive to bring out of the ground. So while we will have oil under ground, WE, meaning those with empty gas tanks, will not.

I was speaking of M. King Hubbert. He said US oil production would peak in 1970 and then fall. That was over 38 years ago. We should be out by now. While Hubbert was correct in his claim, his dates and reasoning were way off. It's not because we have run out of oil as he predicted, but because environmentalists have done whatever they can to curtail US energy production (not just oil!).

links:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47276
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/world-oil-supplies-are-set-to-run-out-faster-than-expected-warn-scientists-453068.html
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg/bg159/

And they're not. Everything the proponents of anthropogenic global warming has turned out to be wrong, even as they furiously attempt to dig up some shred of science to support their claims. I suggest starting with "The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud" by Canadian environmental journalist Lawrence Solomon, and the National Center for Policy Analysis' "A Global Warming Primer," http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf (can't figure out a way to link to a PDF on /., probably not supposed to be able to) to get a better idea of what's been going on.

I live in Minneapolis. A few years ago we implemented a "conceal and carry" law which allows citizens to carry handguns on their person at all times. Since then the crime rate has risen steadily.

I'm not saying one caused the other, but I don't think there's much evidence for your statement.

I just posted this, but here it is again--documented evidence.

I wonder if after passing that law, Minneapolis then started banning guns everywhere. Obviously there are some places, such as where alcohol is sold. But often opponents of the change of gun laws try to make it so that while you can get a permit, you can't take it anywhere.

I've already seen a story where some politician is remarking about a "wild west" attitude. When they passed the concealed carry law in Texas there were plenty of critics predicting shootouts in the streets. However the violent crime rate went down. Rates have risen slightly, but not to the levels they were before the law was in place. One study also found that concealed carry gun owners are more law abiding than the average person.

In Texas, the concealed carry law was first brought up after a massacre at a cafeteria in 1991 in Killeen Texas. The killer systematically killed 23 people and wounded another 20 before committing suicide. Most could do little more than cower helplessly under the table. One woman had a gun, but had left it in car and so was unable to stop him from killing both her parents.

We do not need to fear the lawful people having guns...it's the unlawful who count on their victims being unable to defend themselves you need to fear. However, having a gun is not for everyone. If you don't believe you can draw your gun and shoot to kill, or you're not willing to safely learn how to use one, please DON'T buy a gun.

Almost half of uninsured Americans have household incomes at least twice the federal poverty level. http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba339/ba339.html

The harder you make it, the better chance people will be caught committing a crime.

The problem I was getting at is that if you concentrate too much on the 'silver bullet' system, you waste so much resources that you end up unable to pursue the criminal - even if you know who he or she is.

Setting this system up is going to cost money. Serious amounts of it.

The way I look at it - $X put towards traditional police methods catches Y% of crimes. If $(X-Z) traditional police methods + $Z new technology/methodology catches > Y%, then it's worth it. Yes, there are privacy concerns and such in there. Like preventing false convictions, preferably even arrests of the innocent. I look at those as a more messy yet harder to assess issue.

Heck, if there's an expedient way to purge DNA of those who aren't convicted, whether simply never charged or found not guilty, then this isn't as big of a deal to me.

Take the ballistics database in Maryland - $2.5 million spent, not cases solved or even expedited by it. Turns out a gun's 'fingerprint' changes over time and wear and the ammunition used, especially when new. $2.5 million could have been another 25 or more officers on the street during that time.

Even with only 792 guns, the correct gun was only in the top 15 less than 50% for multiple characteristics(considered essential for further investigation).

DNA isn't necessarily a big deal. If I was being a cautious criminal I'd already be wearing gloves to prevent fingerprints, as long as I don't cut myself or get scratched up or whatever I'm not going to leave enough DNA for the police to find it. Especially for something as simple as a home burglary.

All this makes me wonder how many mystery DNA samples the police have for 'cold cases'. Theoretically this could give you an idea of how many crimes you might be able to solve with this system in place.

Citation Provided: Google search "Robert Liburdy" DOE "Lawrence Berkeley Lab" and Fraud. In case you're too lazy, here's a few links

http://www.ncpa.org/pd/budget/pd081299a.html

http://www.lbl.gov/Publications/Currents/Archive/Aug-13-1999.html#RTFToC4

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE3DB133EF937A15754C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2002/07/13/MN242131.DTL

Don't tell Greenpeace! They'll declare these resistant hybrids as 'evil' and claim these 'frankenfoods' will destroy all humanity!

Not like they haven't before....

Apparentlybiottech == Montsanto under any circumstance.

Education is your friend, not spreading falsehoods. Which is not to say everything in your post is untrue: just parts of it.

summary is located here:

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba596/

It contains references at the bottom. An interesting summary, though it only slices for cancer.

investing directly in the health, education, and general welfare of the people do you get a healthy and prosperous body politic.

Generally speaking, you'll find that many, even most, republicans agree with this, it's just that they vary on the best means to achieve it.

Personally, I think that teaching a measure of self-reliance is one of the most important things to do. Government aid is, at least in the USA, historically one of the least efficient means to help people. The most efficient is people helping themselves.

I mean, take medicare, with a budget in 2003 of 278 billion - and 33 billion in estimated fraud. That's 11%. Ouch, and it's not even getting into waste.

Private schools regularly manage to give superior educations for half or even a third or less cost per pupil, without even counting 'special needs' students or budget.

Of course, I tend towards the libertarian end of things, but I'm definitly not an anarchist. Government has it's place, but we need to trim it down quite a bit.

My general philosophy is to structure aid to avoid such that situations like where a family on welfare is actually better off not working than getting a job*, even at a minimum wage job. Where a kid who's smart enough to save his inheritance ends up ineligable for grants, versus one who spends it on a car who is(they were fraternal twins).

Still, I think that most people should have to work a bit for college, in order for them to value it. I also think that we need to renew emphasis on technical schools; not everybody is suited for academic pursuits. There are plenty who are happier with a wrench in hand.

*Obvious exemption would be if they're currently getting training for new career skills, but that's temporary.

... of the 'medical-pharmaceutical-industrial complex'. They just don't realize how their medical eduction was co-opted by said complex in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

See 100 Years of Medical Robbery, the follow-up Real Medical Freedom, How Medical Boards Nationalized Health Care, and How The Cost-Plus System Evolved.

See my post on k5 for preview quotes for all but the last article: links on how healthcare became screwed up

anonymous 'cause I just spent a bunch of mod points. :)

If you had an attention span slightly beyond that of a mouse you would have looked at the more elaborate pages and the references to the more scientific material and it's research. Thanks for actually visiting the site but I suggest you read a bit more. Scientific references are all there.

If anything do me a favour just read these two documents and learn rather than just criticizing the format. It would be much more constructive.

36 Inconvenient untruths about Al Gore's movie

Easy facts about Global climate

The little advert you are referring to is designed to be printed and we can't quite afford to hire half a news paper.

Always amazes me how it is OK for this idiot Al Gore to release a Hollywood blockbuster and call it truth when sceptics are expected to quote sources on all their counter arguments. The damage the global warming idiocy is doing to this planet is becoming greater and more real because it averts our eye from those issues that really matter. Now we sit back and feel satisfied because we use a "green" mainframe computer so we "did our part"

US manufacturing output is as strong as it has ever been. It may now take less employees to produce even more goods. Sorry.

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba456/

Freeman Dyson on Climate Models
The first of my heresies says that all the fluff about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of diluted citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models. Of course they say I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak.

But I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.

The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That's why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.

There's no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. The warming happens in places and times where it is cold, in the arctic more than the tropics, in the winter more than the summer, at night more than the daytime.

I'm not saying the warming doesn't cause problems, obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it. I'm saying that the problems are being grossly exaggerated. They take away money and attention from other problems that are much more urgent and important. Poverty, infectious diseases, public education and public health. Not to mention the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans.

He also worked out a way to reverse global warming quite cheaply.

Actually the scientists on realclimate.org have an agenda to push, Michael E. Mann (on the site & a significant author) has had his work discredited, basically it's "bad science". Check out this link.

http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/breaking-the-ho ckey-stick

This is my first mention of Polar bears so whoever else is talking about them it wasn't me.

Here's a few links:

- NCPA report which uses some of their own figures as well as references the WWF report that started it all.

- A article from The Scotsman quoting Canadian expert Mitch Taylor.

- Dr. Taylor's own article from the Toronto Star (The Star link no longer works but this site has the full article)

This the same Calder often quoted derogatorily on certain websites with anti environmentalist leanings?
several quote an article "In the Grip of a New Ice Age?" in the National Wildlife Federation's journal, International Wildlife attributed to a "Nigel Calder" in 70's
the line they like to quote is: "the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
eg http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba337/ba337.html
http://www.mises.org/story/2119
http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosop hy/BG1143.cfm

And this from someone who feels it necessary to call me a "Knucklehead"? He didn't HAVE a counter-argument, unless you consider "You're wrong because I say so!" a counter argument.

Very well. Since neither you nor Waffle Iron can even be bothered to come up with a cogent counter-argument other than a "Neener neener, you're a big meanie" and "Watch me alter your argument in a nonsensical way to mock you with." I'll just pound you both into the ground with evidence. Apparently all you understand is Appeals to Authority, so here they are:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496781/p osts
The source page for that post - http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ ID=2319http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&A rticle_ID=2319

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/What_Watt.ht m

http://www.cei.org/gencon/019,05568.cfm

http://acuf.org/issues/issue71/061104cul.asp

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar ticles/V10/N3/C1.jsp

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/56456.st m

I can pull these links ALL DAY, but I've got work to do and a life to live.

The point is, the more evidence we gather, the more we realize that IF the world is warming (and it's a BIG if) then it's part of a natural cycle that has been taking place on our planet for Millenia, and there isn't a damn thing we can do to cause or stop it. All we would be doing by adopting the inane Kyoto accord agreements (or anything like it) would be to weaken our economy and society in such a way that should natural global warming actually happen, we wouldn't have the economic or social strength left to survive it! All it takes is an open mind and a little critical thinking and the "Global Warming" hysteria becomes just that. Hysteria not worth wasting our energy on.

If you can't see the evidence right in front of you, then you're a damn fool and I've got no more time to deal with you.

Good day sir.

I think that you should check your facts on that. I don't own a gun, and won't have one in the house, but the right to carry concealed handguns has had an effect of reducing crime in the states.

Here are a couple of links:
http://www.texasinsider.org/election_watch/Opinion _Jerry_Patterson_1_6_2006_Guns.htm
From the next link:
Both sides cite statistics to bolster their claims.
The author of the only comprehensive study on the issue to date has reached a controversial conclusion that concealed-carry laws translate into less crime.
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns /part2/gunside1.html
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

Now, these stories are rather scary in that they say its safer when you don't know who has a gun. Where I live, the biggest crimes now are theft when no one is looking, so an alarm system keeps things pretty safe.

More and more, an armed populace is looking like a good idea to me and I get this view by living amongst concealed handguns rather than looking from the outside in.

Because Jimmy and crew, at the time, felt SO DAMN BAD about how scary nuclear anything was that the best they could do was ban doing something useful with the waste.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/pd112801b.html

Wrong. We don't reprocess fuel because it has been banned since the 1970's, an executive order signed by Jimmy Carter. Good old Jimmy Carter, he will be remembered because he felt so bad for everything that ever happened. Felt so bad.

http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/pd112801b.html
http://www.ananuclear.org/CarterHLW.html

It weren't scientists who started bringing political motivations into this subject. It has been known for many years that the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes what has been called the "greenhouse effect". The fact that burning fossil fuels causes climate change had been perfectly well established and was a consensus among climate scientists, until the government of the USA started throwing their weight around.

Good science allows one to predict global warming from fossil fuel burning. Bad science, wandering from the truth, is when politicians start picking at straws and claiming more studies are needed until they find a stooge who is willing to sell his scientific integrity for thirty pieces of silver in the form of federal grants.

For an example of particularly bad "science", check this site. Notice the use of sentences like "Only 13 percent of the scientists responding to a survey..." and "More than 100 noted scientists, including ...". That so typical of "bad science" that I'll risk a Godwin here and mention an anecdote where Hitler ordered a study made to prove Einstein was wrong. The paper was signed by dozens of scientists. When Einstein was asked about it, he answered "If I were wrong, one scientist would be enough to prove it".

How would you like to defend your thesis, to be able to present it before a board of scientists, or to have a poll conducted among a number of unspecified people claiming to be scientists? Which method do you think is better science?

1. Make up some fake science
2. Claim that it's being suppressed by the academic community
3. Devise a spurious but easy to swallow argument to counter the scientific claim - this step can be dressed up to your liking, perhaps rolling it into a pop science book, or even a full fledged "theory" to make it seem more legitimate
4. Bank on the fact that Joe America (who hates "them goddamn know it all science queers") doesn't realize that he's so stupid that if he can understand the "explanation" then it must be wrong
5. ...
6. This is freaking Slashdot, I don't need to explain step 6...

1. Make up some fake science
2. Claim that it's being suppressed by the academic community
3. Devise a spurious but easy to swallow argument to counter the scientific claim - this step can be dressed up to your liking, perhaps rolling it into a pop science book, or even a full fledged "theory" to make it seem more legitimate
4. Bank on the fact that Joe America (who hates "them goddamn know it all science queers") doesn't realize that he's so stupid that if he can understand the "explanation" then it must be wrong
5. ...
6. This is freaking Slashdot, I don't need to explain step 6...

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st279/

The Physical Evidence of Earth's Unstoppable 1,500-Year Climate Cycle

On both sides.

This has been presented before, and debunked before. This study shows that while ice is thinning in some parts of the arctic, it is thickening in others and the temperature change isn't uniform.

It also shows that the majority of polar bear populations are steady, with an equal number on the increase and decrease.

That shipping lane has been there before, and guess what -- there were polar bears around back then. Amazingly enough, polar bears aren't the hot-house flowers these people are making them out to be.

The climate is changing, that is for certain. The only thing more certain is that politicos and people who want gov't grants are going to exaggerate and hype every little anomaly beyond belief in order to garner attention and eventually money. What they hell ever happened to science for the sake of actual knowledge?

The fact is that most of the warming in recorded history happened between the 10th and 15th centuries.

About 0.28% of greenhouse gas emissions is from human activity, if water vapor is taken into account, and about 5.53% if it's not. the rest is from natural sources.

I have some suggested reading for everyone, whether you believe in it or not: State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. It is the only novel I can remember reading with a several page long bibliography. It basically explain's why environmentalism isn't a science, it's more of a state-sponsored religion

if you don't like what I've said, read my references, if you still don't like it, oh well, because unfortunately this won't be going away with so many children attending public schools, where most every person in the US learns it.

.....And another Global Warming Denial Myth goes poof......

There is another theory. It applies not only to earth, but to the other planets as well, Mars in particular. Measurements indicate that Mars is definitely getting warmer also. Since Martians don't drive SUVs or burn coal in the power stations, their global warming must be due to some other cause. The one commonality is that we both use the same sun for energy. So that is the source of global warming.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
also
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ ID=2736
and
http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

It is interesting that there are two references to an overheated sun in the ancient writings of the Bible. One is in Isaiah 30:26 and the other in Revelation 16:8, both of which talk about man's corruption and the judgments of God, at the end time on rebellious mankind. Words of punishment and judgment are highly unpleasant, but there IS justice in the Universe and we are given a glimpse of some of what this will entail.

We humans like to think ourselves to be in control of our destiny, but that is the biggest fantasy we collectively entertain. There is one true God, His name is Jesus, who came to earth and who ultimately runs the entire Universe. (Ephesians 2:5-11)

.....I know Bob Carter exists. He's taken enough money from Exxon.....

So you can't find Dr. Dick Morgan, Bob Carter takes bribes, so what about:

Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson,
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology,
Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University,
Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama.

These people are more learned that you or I and do not agree with other learned guys, who tells use we are all going to burn and/or flood BECAUSE of human activity, who have just as many degrees. So now you choose to BELIEVE the burn boys and I actually believe in global warming in a way you and those like you will scoff at derisively.

The ancient book of Isaiah, part of the Jewish and Christian holy writings contains many sections that concern themselves with the Last Days, a time of judgment, when God Himself will once again assume sovereign, complete control of His creation, including mankind. If you would take the time to read what is written there to get the context, you'd come across the following verse:

(Isaiah 30:26 The moon will shine like the sun, and the sunlight will be seven times brighter, like the light of seven full days, when the LORD binds up the bruises of his people and heals the wounds he inflicted.)

I do believe what is written, that there will indeed be some dramatic global warming, but humans will have nothing whatsoever to do with it. There is already evidence that the sun is putting out more energy:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17977
also
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/?page=article&Article_ ID=2736
and
http://www.physorg.com/news6892.html

There are many similar articles you can google for. We humans were created by and ultimately are subject to God's sovereign purposes.

there is one thing nobody can beat us in: Freedom, Civil Liberties, and a the most solid defence against a corrupt government in history.

Sweden my arse, this is the same Sweden that until recently was practicising forced sterilisations? FTFA,

Those of mixed race, low intelligence or with physical defects underwent forced sterilization by the state in order to prevent such qualities from being passed on. However, there is evidence that sterilization extended even to those who were merely rebellious, promiscuous or did not fit in somehow.

I don't like your arrogant assumption that you or the things you believe in know exactly why the climate is the way it is. Chandra observatory scientists and others have been noticing a huge increase in the output of the sun.

Also, no one should speak about this problem unless the propose a solution that is realistic. Asking China and India not to pollute is going to be impossible, and if developed countries let them "catch up," well, let me put it to you this way, the Chinese aren't going to sit around and think about how bad things are for the environment. Ever. So developed 1st world countries must continue to grow so that technology to deal with a more difficult future actually comes to fruition.

This post does not mean that I buy the gloom and doom scenarios put out by those who warn of global warming, nor do I reject them (I do not think the climate is understood very much at all) - I believe in clean energy, preferably for now, nuclear and wind power.

I believe in pollution being a problem, but to think that the activities of people or volcanism is more important than the activity of the sun or the earth's magnetosphere is really not very smart in understanding the Earth's climate.

Recently, Mars has been observed warming up.

Lets say everyone (including those in Russia, India and China which will *never* happen) go to 100% clean existence and we regress to simpler medieval times sustenance farming and making the Sierra Club happy is the new religion and then the earth CONTINUES to get warm, then we are in a real pickle - no technology to try and bail out the human race and the same problem as before.

http://www.ncpa.org/newdpd/dpdarticle.php?article_ id=2736

MARS IS WARMING
Daily Policy Digest
GLOBAL WARMING
Tuesday, January 10, 2006

The planet Mars is undergoing significant global warming which supports many climatologists' claims that the Earth's modest warming during the past century is due to a recent upsurge in solar energy, says James M. Taylor, of the Heartland Institute.

For three Mars summers, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near the planet's south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress, says Taylor. Furthermore, documented changes from 1999 to 2005 show that Mars' climate is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago.

But there are not a lot of anthropogenic gas emissions on Mars, so what internal dynamic is warming the planet and what does it mean for Earth? According to researchers:

At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities.
The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun; the longer the time period that the Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium, the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere.
Therefore, greenhouse gases would still contribute to warming, but not as strongly as once thought.
Furthermore, the warming of Mars adds another level of uncertainty to claims that the Earth's modest recent warming is a result of human activity, says Taylor.

Source: James M. Taylor, "Mars Is Warming, NASA Scientists Report," Environment and Climate News: Heartland Institute, November 2005.

I am fully aware of this.

Funny, because you're completely (and purposefully) ignoring it.

Erm - that is you - you are ignoring the expertise. It is the thousands of climatologists who are fully aware of solar maxima and minima. Please provide some substantial scientific publications that demonstrate that solar intensity changes do indeed account for all warming.

Oh no no no sir...you've got it all wrong here. You see, it is you who is propounding the idea that we need to reduce CO2 emissions in order to curb climate change, not I. I am saying there is not enough data to make such a conclusion. The burden of proof is on you, dear sir, to provide unquestionable, unassailable, irrefutable evidence backed by broad, overwhelming, near-total scientific consensus that there is a need to reduce CO2 emissions as you advocate. When you provide it, I will promptly, fully, and without reservation endorse the concept of reducing CO2 emissions. Until then, you're spouting poppycock with no proof. You, like thousands of others, are guessing about the cause. If you're going to advocate such sweeping ideas like banning or significantly curbing CO2 worldwide -- and the associated negative effects that could cause global economic catastrophe, especially for developing nations who are huge CO2 polluters -- you'd better have mighty good evidence supporting your position. You don't, and neither does anyone else.

Prove it. You claim it is a lie - then please provide numbers of papers for and against.

If you weren't so blind to things around you (or living in an echo chamber) you'd be aware there are vastly differing opinions on global warming/climate change/whatever. Since you've obviously been content to arrive at your predetermined conclusion, I have no doubt you haven't bothered to research anything that disagrees with said conclusion. However, I'll do you the service of puncturing your self-insulated little bubble with the results of a quick Google search:

Three Views on Global Warming
Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds

Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth

Myths of Global Warming

The global warming myth and its selfish defenders

This is just a quick sample of the 3,940,000 hits I got searching for global warming facts and myths. Seeing as how you're utterly unaware of nearly 3.5 million websites devoted the concept of disagreement over global warming/climate change/whatever, I can only conclude that you're either too stupid to search for it, too apathetic to care, or too biased to risk exposing yourself to contrary opinions. I'll be generous and say it's the latter, but you feel free to give me reason to change that assumption.