Slashdot Mirror
Black Soot May Be Aiding Melting In the Himalayas
Hugh Pickens writes "The Himalayas, home to some 10,000 glaciers, are the main source of replenishment to lakes, streams, and some of the continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies. Since the 1960s, the acreage covered by Himalayan glaciers has declined by more than 20 percent with a rate of warming twice the global average over the past 30 years. Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases — may be causing much of the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalayas. 'Tibet's glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate,' says James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. 'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.' The circulation of the atmosphere in the region causes much of the soot-laden air to 'pile up' against the Himalayas. The soot mixes with other dust from nearby deserts, creating a massive brown cloud visible from space that absorbs incoming solar radiation. As this layer heats up in the Himalayan foothills, it rises and enhances the seasonal northward flow of humid monsoon winds, forcing moisture and hot air up the slopes of the mountain range."
continent's mightiest rivers, on which millions of people depend for their water supplies.
It is more like hundreds of millions.
839*929
Feeding a lame troll, but the source of soot is the same source as the CO2. So we're still solving the same problem. And they've already noted that the melting in the Himalayas is abnormally fast, but that doesn't change the fact that all the glaciers are melting, if "only" half as fast as the Himalayas.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
How long until the Abominable Smog Man evolves?
rewriting history since 2109
...which links to a god damn diagram, not an actual picture from space of a massive brown cloud. Way to fail submitter.
i wasn't sure to believe until i saw the proof:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/himalayan_glaciers_h.jpg
We have already noticed problems with soot. In fact I recall reading books about terraforming where soot was sprinkled on an ice cap, so the idea is pretty old.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
'Black soot is probably responsible for as much as half of the glacial melt, and greenhouse gases are responsible for the rest.'
Becomes:
Now Live Science reports that tiny particles of pollution known as 'black carbon' — and not heat-trapping greenhouse gases (...)
Quite shameless. I am almost impressed by the gall of the submitter...
underneath we will have a shitstorm of politically biased comments
so i offer a third option, to climate change doubters and climate change believers:
1. who fucking cares whose fault it is
political recrimination gets us nowhere. its cold in the house because someone left the window open? ok, so you're going to sit there and scream at each other over who opened the window? here's a new idea: how about someone demonstrating actual responsibility and instead actually stand the fuck up, walk over, and close the fucking window: NO MATTER WHO LEFT IT OPEN
2. who fucking cares if we are heating up or cooling down or not changing
the fact is, we live here, and we are interested in controlling the thermostat. if it gets too cold, do something to turn it up. if it gets to hot, do something to turn it down. we are homo sapiens, this what we do: we do not adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us. we do not grow fur, we make clothes. we do not enter torpor at midday, we invent air conditioning
if you say we shouldn't mess with the weather, you are by extension denying the fact that we already are having an effect on the climate. so we might as well get involved with twiddling with the environment ON PURPOSE, because the notion that 6.5 billion humans can magically have no effect at all is a completely absurd premise on your part
this environmental attitude is the engineer's approach. fuck all of you capitalists, politicians, activists and hysterical whiners. the engineer will prevail here, because only we have the solution to what the rest of you simply bicker about
we need scientifically, factually sound well-researched methods for forcing change on our planet on purpose. and then we'll fix your fucking problem. something like seeding the dead zones of the ocean with iron
lets put it this way: make believe, for the moment, for the sake of argument, regardless of your beliefs, that
1. the earth is actually heating up
2. it is doing so because of nature, not man-made reasons
ok, well what are we supposed to do, just accept rising sea levels, melting glaciers and the sahara desert growing 25%?
no, we artificially introduce methods for cooling the earth down. we do this, #1, for selfish reasons, but also for #2: a preservation of current species and ecosystems, as a side effect. are you going to let the amazon dry up because you don't like the idea of man fiddling with the environment?
yes, the planet could continue to evolve new species without human intervention. but what is really going to happen is that this planet is going to become a museum, under human supervision, of the current catalog of species and ecosystems that have evolved so far. why? because we want to fucking live here, that's why
so, for the deniers in opposition to supposition #1 above: if you don't believe the earth is heating up, you still have to admit the earth has had historic swings in climate, and that we earthlings will have to intervene at some point, correct?
and for the believers in man-made change in opposition to supposition #2 above: you believe that climate change is caused by man, you have to admit that to fix the problem we have to do it PROACTIVELY. please don't try to sell me the moronic bullshit that 6.5 billion humans can live on this planet like ghosts. this is a different kind of denial than those who deny climate change, but no less foolish
imagine that: no pointless recriminations and blame games, no living in denial and sticking your head in the sand
commence with the retarded partisan bickering anyway. meanwhile, us engineers will roll up our sleeves and will actually go and fix your fucking problem while you political assholes do nothing but bicker
more action, less "hot air"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is pretty old news. I think I've seen reports of this at least as far back as 2003. But it's estimated that this effect is only 25% of global warming. Green house gases are most of the rest. And, yes, it doesn't necessarily take a huge increase in global temperatures to get the glaciers melting.
So we're still solving the same problem.
But filtering soot by adding smokestack scrubbers (which 1st world countries started doing many decades ago) is a heck of a lot cheaper and less disruptive than destroying the world economy to eliminate CO2.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
I believe they're supposed to act as a buffer. They accumulate water during the wet season, and release it during the dry, in roughly equal amounts. If they melt faster than they accrete, then you get more water during the dry season for a while (while the glaciers are close to their original size), then it starts to taper off as the increased melting is offset by the lesser amount of ice. Eventually, the glaciers are reduced to virtually nil, and you get little or nothing after that.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
The right wingers will surely use this as "proof" that global warming is wrong.
AGW skeptics have known about Asian black soot for 2-3 years. (It's also been found in Arctic pack ice and in the Colorado Rockies.)
I'm just glad that the "mainstream" has finally "noticed" it.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Galciers are essentially a water battery. There is very heavy seasonal precipitation high in the mountains. This precipitation becomes glacier ice, which slides downward and melts.
The sliding process and melting however happens perennial, and thus turns high seasonal percipitation into a dependable perennial water source. Without glaciers, all the water simply comes gushing downhill - which can be very damaging on its own, and leaves the people without a dependable water source for the rest of the year.
There are two possibilities how a glacier can "die" - either the yearly precipitation dries up (therefore, melted ice is not replenished), or the temperature gets warmer and the "melting zone" goes up the mountain, ultimately leaving no glacier. We observe the latter across the globe.
You haven't addressed the secondary issue; that the melting in the Himalayas is only doubled by the soot, not caused by it. And the scrubbers would have little to no effect on glacier melt in the rest of the world. And that "destroying the world economy" is a politically motivated, short sighted conclusion. Most of the reasonable forecasts show it "dragging" the economy down by about 1-3% of the "GWP" (Gross World Product). The economic doomsday types like to discount the possibility that the cost of oil will increase much beyond the rate of inflation, as if the entire world can start living like Americans (or even Western Europeans) without drastically increasing the price of oil.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Aerosal pollution over India and Bangladesh--2001
Haze over China--- 2003
Haze along the Himalaya Front Range --2004.
Smog over the bay of Bengal-- 2006
Cry me a river about lost corporate profits.
Says he who doesn't realize that Eeeeevil Corporate Profits are what
Or are you too young to remember why the Iron Curtain fell, and why so many (non-union) citizens welcomed (nay, screamed for) government privatization: government bureaucracies do an absolutely suck-ass job of providing services.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted
Can you just help me out real quick and post a few links to these predictions of a deluge?
Much appreciated.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
The linked diagramm is a dead giveaway that this is more of a PR stunt than usefull scientific research. No matter what the verdict, fact is: we are putting to much polution into the atmosphere and we need to stop. That's a fact, and no lobbying otherwise will change it.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
the ability to plunge the entire planet into winter: just detonate all of our nuclear warheads
we won't do that. i'm simply countering your supposition that the earth is large and we are small. we WERE once so small as you believe. we aren't anymore
we're simply not going to accept the next ice age or the next sahara age. we're going to actively prevent it. when the amazon is drying up, and the taiga is melting, and the streets of london and shanghai are as venice, we will find the industrial, scientific and political willpower to oppose that
simply because massive ecosystem change will imperil billions on this planet and their economic well-being. we will therefore assemble to resist climate change. this is what we do: we are homo sapiens. we do not adapt to nature. nature adapts to us
if you don't understand or believe we have the power to alter our ecosystem, or that for some reason we won't alter our climate when climate change threatens us, manmade or natural, then you are in some sort of serious denial about what kind of creature we really are
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Back in 1970, at Resolute Bay in the Canadian high arctic, I had a discussion with two scientists about global warming -- back then, the Arctic Ocean had increased in temperature by 2.7 degrees over the previous 40 years!!! One identified mechanism was soot from the atmosphere, a byproduct of combustion and to a lesser extent, volcanic ash. The amount of energy it takes to raise the temperature of an entire ocean by this amount is staggering...
This soot reduces the albedo of the snow and ice, resulting in less incident energy being reflected back into space and the unreflected energy raising the local temperature.
For anyone who cares to look, "global warming" is a function of very many causes creating a frightening synergy, greenhouse gasses though probably being the main culprit.
So when we see scientists trying to come up with excuses for why ice packs are melting without a huge increase in global temperatures, we need to question both their motives and their data.
A few simple points that are (surprisingly, still) worth mentioning. Scientists are not coming up with "excuses" for the melting of ice packs. They are observing it and developing explanations based on models. You may personally believe that the melting of ice packs would require "huge" (conveniently unquantified) temperature increases to happen, but I'm willing to bet you personal beliefs in this matter are not based on rigorous observation and mechanistic explanations of the system. The questioning of the data used by scientists to come up with the said explanations has to be addressed in an individual basis. I'm certainly supportive that not only data from global warming research, but all publicly funded research be openly available, but it is utterly naive to think that the all conclusions presented in published peer-reviewed articles would not be supported if these data were available (and it's deceptive, at the least, to question their conclusions without even knowing their contents). The questioning of the motives of the scientific community to fabricate the conclusion of ice packs melting due to anthropogenic climate change is, in my opinion, one of the weakest arguments of denialists. Conspiracy theories abound, but no one seems to find the underlying motives that lead this entire scientific community to take on the daunting task of misleading the world's population, while doing it under the public's scrutiny and very aptly covering its tracks. Staging the moon-landing is child's play compared to this.
Yes, we can see oceanic water levels rising *in certain localized areas*, but we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted.
Hopefully we can finally put to bed the reality of global warming and focus on the real problem of global pollution.
How on Earth the oceanic water levels will rise *in certain localized areas* is beyond me. Unless your theory accounts for a substantial increase in oceanic water viscosity as well, although that might explain why the current rises in ocean levels have failed to meet your expectations. And, according to recent EPA definitions, the problem of global warming caused by CO2 emissions *is* "the real problem of global pollution".
Incidentally, everyone is naturally entitled to their opinions, but I prefer anthropogenic global warming denialism when it's devoid of blatant logical inconsistencies.
"And if solar cycles are the cause, there's not a darn thing humans can do about it except adapt."
you really believe that?
if climate change threatens our economic well being, you rest assured that century or two of focused scientific innovation and politically supported engineering and industrial policies will, without a doubt, counteract natural changes, like a cooling or a heating solar cycle cause
nuclear detonations at volcanic regions to cool things down under cloud cover (study factual little ice ages after massive historical volcanic eruptions in man's historical written record)
purposeful amping up of CO2 output to greenhouse effect heat things up
there's all sorts of things we can do
we have amazing technological abilities compared to just a century ago, nevermind what powers we will discover in another century or two
in 2 or 3 centuries, this entire planet will have a micromanaged climate, if civilization doesn't break down. then the issue will be political bickering between, for example, morocco wishing to do away with more sahara so it can can grow more crops, while brazil says this costs them money to counteract the related drying up of the amazon due to morocco's efforts. we already see this sort of environmental bickering between nations over the damming and controlling of rivers that cross national boundaries
lets put it this way: our ancestors would be in amazed awe at our ability to completely redirect an entire river if we wanted to, and as we frequently do in today's world. but ancient man, in looking at the hard work of beavers, would not think it in the realm of the impossible for us to do that one day
likewise, today, looking at how past volcanic eruptions have led to mini-ice ages, i, like ancient man before me looking at beavers, see that future micromanaging of our climate is not impossible, and will be someday a mundane matter-of-fact effort, like garbage disposal and plumbing
you just lack imagination and perception
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My eyes must be playing tricks on me because I can't seem to find the sections in those links that discuss massive sea level rise occurring by 2009. Since you wrote "we aren't seeing the massive deluge that was predicted" I have to assume you weren't referring to predictions of sea level rise by 2100 (as referenced in the second of your two links) but sea level rise that would be observable today.
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
And the proponents of AGW have known about this for at least 6 years. And it was (as I recall) in the "mainstream" back then, if I recall correctly.
Corporations != the free market. I am not in favor of communism, I am in favor of taking power away from huge corporations and reducing their role in government.
Calling it melting is prejudicial (because it implies melting due to warming), it's termed glacial retreat and in most cases, there are valid reasons for this not associated with "Global Warming". For instance, the glaciers on Kilimanjaro are retreating because the rain forest at the bottom was destroyed which drastically reduced the amount of precipitation on the mountain's slopes. Less precipitation == less liquid to freeze, so the water lost to the summer temperatures was simply not replaced.
Interestingly, the cost of replacing the stoves causing the Himalayan pollution (it is believed that most of the soot is not from large scale generation, but from household stoves - individually they're not that significant, but there's a hell of a lot of people in that part of the world) has been estimated at $15 billion. This seems like a good use of resources to me, rather than fantasy schemes like cap and trade.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Hear, hear!
The sea level rises mentioned in the IPCC reports are measured in centimeters over decades in the worst case scenarios, which isn't exactly the end of the world.
Measurements (i.e. the instrumental record) of sea levels is 1.1mm per year steady for the last 20 years. The real dangers of melting glaciers is the effect of (probably localised) changes in the salinity of the water damaging ecosystems.
For myself, bollocks to "doom!" and "end of the world" predictions associated with climate change. The real issue with carbon dioxide production is the acidification of the oceans, and the increase in plankton and algae associated with the increase in CO2. Fish are an important part of the diet for many people all over the world, and we've done well from the ocean's bounty over the years.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
the link says it all
there are engineers who get stuff done, and there are whining ignorant morons who take up space. that's pretty much the entire human race
technical universities: start assembling the geoengineering major programs of study now, to get a jump on the upcoming scholastic trend
liberal arts universities: start a program on reality tv programs. pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I am in favor of taking power away from huge corporations and reducing their role in government.
As am I, but in a globally-connected world I see this as a prisoners' dilemma: all countries must do it together, or some countries corporations will gain the advantage.
And that's not even counting countries like the PRC, where most large corps are owned by the gov't (usually in the form of the PLA) and thus want these companies to have a lot of power...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
If this was presented as a pollution problem, you could get the right-wingers on board. After all, Edmund Muskie sponsored the Clean Water Act in 1971, and despite Nixon's veto it was overrriden and became law. Republican members pretty much have supported it. When the EPA gets back to pollution control, they will find many right-wingers willing to support these efforts.
Sadly, they will also find many right- and left-wingers unwilling to pretend that any pollution controls within the U.S. will solve any significant global pollution problems. The developing countries will resist joining in, as it will raise costs and diminish growth, and China is quite literally a black hole of pollution with no intention of limiting growth or raising costs to even halt the increases, much less reduce.
In a way, we are entering a perfect storm of globalization, massive industrial development, fossil fuels as a
cheap path to industrial prosperity, and the attendant rise in global pollution and genuine climate impact. CO2 is not so much of a problem as particulates, but it is much easier to sell punishing the developed countries rather than set new standards and prevent the avalance of underdeveloped countries spewing so much more. China will eclipse the US in this impact, if they haven't already, and we have no prospects of limiting their spew. Africa is next, and more is the pity, since Africa could be a miraculous eco-economy if they could bear to live a little below their industial potential and stop killing one another so wantonly. South American is well on its way to completely developing their lands, with the requisite loss of habitat and forest. We may one day realize that the deforestation of the Amazon did more to ruin Earth than every car and coal power plant ever built. And there are other forests under attack.
If were only so simple, but this global problem is not being addressed globally yet. And I see little hope for it to be so any time soon. Many developing countries want to 'get theirs', and get it now, figuring they can get the developed countries to either give up theirs, or fix it in technology. We might be able to, but probably not, unless it is a truly global solution. And there is no forum to discuss this honestly, so it will continue.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Here's where common sense disappears completely. The ONLY power a corporation has comes as a result of YOU buying their products. If you don't want them to have power stop buying their stuff.
You won't do that though, because you cannot live without the conveniences they provide for you, but keep crying a river about people having money and power YOU voluntarily gave to them. If you truly hated corporations then you would change your lifestyle to one not completely dependent on them.
How about not electing government officials that take bribes from corporations? You can't blame corporations for the actions of politicians.
Your hate of corporations is ill-founded.
that is, a post that has to loudly and voluminously announce how much they don't care
paraphrasing shakespeare: methinks the lady doth protest too much
hey, genius, if you didn't care... YOU WOULDN'T POST
proof of not caring is not commenting, not being here
there really are people who don't care about this debate. those people are playing videogames or twiddling on facebook right now. if they saw this thread, they wouldn't even roll their eyes (too much caring in that effort), they'd just click away, truly uninterested. meanwhile, you: you're deep in a thread writing a large comment about how much you don't care. no one is holding a gun to your head to post a comment, friend
fact: if you comment, emotionally, voluminously, AND WITH ALL CAPS, you obviously fucking care
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thoughtful people are slowly, slowly awakening to the idea that the climate alarmists predicting doom for the planet's climate may be less than completely right. Previously, the melting of the himalayan glaciers was positively, definitely, absolutely, without doubt, guaranteed attributable 100 percent to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. The simple fact is that nothing technical that supports the AGW theory that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from "pre-industrial" levels to the current level has caused (or even contributed to) any measurable amount of planetary warming. Similarly, there is nothing to support the popular idea that some arbitrary co2 concentration is necessary to maintain our current planetary climate conditions. Our current knowledge of the things that might affect the Earth's climate, and the magnitude of their effect, is primitive, and dominated scientifically by the equivalent of 15th-century flat-earthers. Go to the NSIDC (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) website and read their 'news and analysis' to see how they spin every little uptick in the arctic ice cover. Would you trust agenda-driven people like that to tell the unvarnished scientific truth about...anything? They are the technical equivalent of eugenics people excavating an african anthropological site. If the Earth's climate continues to cool (as it has for the last two years) they will keep spinning it as validation of their models, right up until their funding dries up and they have to pull the power plug on their computer and website. Anyone (Al Gore comes to mind) who claims to know all, or even any, of the answers to global climate change is being blatantly dishonest. It was hysterically funny to see record low temperatures and snow visit Copenhagen at the same time that planetary leaders were meeting there to discuss global warming.
Corporations != the free market. There was capitalism before we became the corporate state we (the U.S.) are now.
But free market --> Corporations IOW capitalism kills itself. Thanks for admitting that.
You missed a step or two. Free market --> government intervention --> Corporations --> more government intervention --> Fascism.
And another comparison you may want to think about: decentralizing government --> more freedom vs. centralizing government --> tyranny.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The primary dangers in sea-level rise are "tipping points" (a term I, for some reason, dislike) -- sharp nonlinear transitions. The simple progression of sea level rise gives you very little sea level rise, but if you cross a threshold where a lot of land-bound ice melts over a period of time, you can suddenly (in the climatological/geological sense of "suddenly") get substantial ocean rise.
The IPCC reports correctly point out that there are quite a few potentially negative tipping points (and a few positive ones) that we may be approaching, but predicting what exactly will happen with them is extremely difficult. The major risk they present is in their unpredictability. Even the IPCC "worst-case" scenarios are not actually worse-case, because they (rightly) do not include these unpredictable transitions.
The market crash was caused by government intervention and the policies of the Federal Reserve. Try again.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You mean like this?
Oh, and as for soot: while it may be news here, it was widely covered by the IPCC. See AR4 WG1 Ch. 2 Sec 2.5.4, "Radiative Forcing by Anthropogenic Surface Albedo Change: Black Carbon in Snow and Ice". They cite five different papers. Evidence for forcing is classified as "B" (moderate), consensus "3", (insufficient consensus), level of scientific understanding is "Low". In the next IPCC report, given the sizable number of papers that have come out since that, that'll probably be bumped up to "A", '2", "Moderate", and the net forcing contribution will probably be bumped up to about 0.5 W/m^2 (out of ~2.6 net and ~1.7 for CO2).
Nobody pushes buttons like our bunny. Big red buttons with labels that say "IGNITION", apparently.
Yeah the bankers choosing the wrong algorithms to calculate risk on derivatives, a speculative real estate bubble, and no background check loans for houses had nothing to do with the crash right Curunir wolf?
All activities encouraged by government regulations, and backed up by risk mitigation such as Freddie, Fannie, and the Greenspan put
Note these actions were all chosen freely by market actors with no government coercion involved whatsoever.
Not true. At all.
I'm sure you understand how the CRA encouraged high-risk mortgage lending. Department of Housing and Urban Development set targets for Fannie and Freddie in 1992 to purchase low-income loans for sale into the secondary market that eventually reached this number: 52 percent of loans given to low-to moderate-income families. With that to back them up, and no consequences for brokering loans that couldn't be paid back, it's no wonder too many bad loans were made.
Add to that regulations that allowed banks greater leverage for government-backed loans. You understand fractional reserve banking, right? Well the government passed regulations that allowed banks to maintain less reserves for having significant amounts of their reserves in the form of government-backed mortgage loans. Add to this the Fed maintaining artificially low interest rates, the knowledge that any failure will be met with bailouts, and you have a perfect storm of government regulation encouraging house-of-cards behavior.
Even the Libertarians big hero Alan Greenspan admitted there was a "flaw," after the crash, look it up if you don't believe me.
Really? Greenspan is the hero of the Libertarians? News to me. I've never liked that party, though.
The problem with conservative Libertarians is you guys are all about responsibility until *you guys* fuck up, and then guess what, it's the "gubmints" fault. How about banksters and real estate agents looking in the mirror and manning up about a serious screw up? Too bad tax payers were left holding the bag on that one,
Wait - first, as mentioned, I'm not a Libertarian. Plus, all those banksters were just doing what they were encouraged and sometimes required to do by regulation. Not sure what real estate agents had to do with it? How did they screw up? Their job is to sell houses.
And who called for the bailout? You! Why? Why not let those that cause the problem fall on their face? Why are they being propped up? Oh - government has to step in to interfere more. You may find that in the long run this "cure" is going to be worse than the much-hyped "disease" that the politicians kept telling everyone is sure to come.
I read for 1.4 trillion we could have paid off *all* Americans sub prime mortgages thus preventing Americans from being foreclosed *and* bailing out the banksters sketchy derivatives.
So why didn't that happen? Why did it all go to Bears Stearns (and the other institutions that owed Bears Stearns money)?
Of course that makes too much sense because it benefits everyone as opposed to a chosen few rich people, right?
I think it's actually more insidious than that. But keep on trusting what the politicians are telling you if it makes you feel better. I think it actually makes a lot of sense when you think about who they are working for (hint: a few rich people).
And note I actually cheer on Ron Paul and Libertarians when they challenge empire abroad, and police state at home and challenge why a private bank the Federal Reserve mints our money, that is all good stuff. Too bad your faith in the 100% rationality of market actors is so misplaced. Hint greed distorts peoples ability to choose rationally during bubbles which occur often, look up "irrational exuberance."
That's just another Greenspan excuse
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
First off the coal industry not the oil industry are the main funders for anti-science propoganda (Exxonn have a large stake in both industries). Secondly they are feeding us poison.
And please the IPCC is not a government in any sense of the word, nobody is trying to take the free market away. The word "market" in "free market" refers to a set of rules for exchanging goods and services (ie: government regulation). The word "free" refers to the fact you are free to join if you play by the rules.
People want those rules changed so that unintended side effects such as AGW are minimised. But we have had this converstaion before and despite the wealth of cotra-evidence I don't expect you will change your extreme view of capitalisim that colours most of your posts and blinds you to every other issue.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In a free market, the bad actors would be left to fail. We don't know what would have happened if the failing corporate garbage heaps were not propped up artificially. We were scared into believing the world would end.