Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 48,387
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#33662 Jan 19, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No sorry you still don't have one.
Then it still looks like you don't have one.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33663 Jan 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
Then it still looks like you[, troll] don't have one.
True. Remember it's a talentless troll bent on denial.

Look at the matrix of

http://okiefunk.com/node/1191

.:-]
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33664 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>True. Remember it's a talentless troll bent on denial.
Look at the matrix of
http://okiefunk.com/node/1191
.:-]
A noble attempt at rational argument.

Unfortunately, his argument founders on a false premise - the assumption that there is in fact a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible "actions" that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory.

This premise is most definitely not proven, rendering his left-hand column strategy specious.

This introduces a third column to his matrix - the response strategy labelled "we have already irretrievably screwed the pooch - so buy lots of seed, ammo reloading components, and property on Baffin Island." Which can be readily seen by inspection to deliver the best outcome over the other two competing strategies - for those savvy individuals who so choose, if the "Act NOW!!" strategy is in fact spurious.

If the AGW jihadists are mistaken, we avoid all the death, disease, and economic consequences of foolishly mis-allocated economic resources under the "act" column - smiley face.

If the AGW jihadists are correct, but all the panicked action actually delivers no significant relief from GCC, then the results are no worse than the other strategies deliver.

(Alaska or real estate on the Northwest passage will do just as nicely. See y'all at the beach!!)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33665 Jan 19, 2013
Huh, yours is not a noble attempt at communication. Your ilk fears "a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible 'actions' that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory."

We can assume that you never choose column A because it's on the "left-hand." In matrix algebra, it's the first column, seriously.

As to the Baffin idea, it's a great one if you like it cold and under water.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33666 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
A noble attempt at rational argument.
Unfortunately, his argument founders on a false premise - the assumption that there is in fact a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible "actions" that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory.
This premise is most definitely not proven, rendering his left-hand column strategy specious.
This introduces a third column to his matrix - the response strategy labelled "we have already irretrievably screwed the pooch - so buy lots of seed, ammo reloading components, and property on Baffin Island." Which can be readily seen by inspection to deliver the best outcome over the other two competing strategies - for those savvy individuals who so choose, if the "Act NOW!!" strategy is in fact spurious.
If the AGW jihadists are mistaken, we avoid all the death, disease, and economic consequences of foolishly mis-allocated economic resources under the "act" column - smiley face.
If the AGW jihadists are correct, but all the panicked action actually delivers no significant relief from GCC, then the results are no worse than the other strategies deliver.
(Alaska or real estate on the Northwest passage will do just as nicely. See y'all at the beach!!)
How would you know?

Everything you've posted here is based on some lazy strawman arguments you picked up from stupid newspaper stories or blogs.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33667 Jan 19, 2013
flack wrote:
Space Station To Test $17 Million Inflatable Room
NASA will use Bigelow's Expandable Activity Module to determine the potential benefits of inflatables for exploration and commercial space work.
If inflatables can be used larger and larger structures can be put into space at much cheaper costs. Less launch weight means less launch cost or larger structures being launched for the same money.. The most expensive part of space flight. This could lead to manufacturing in space or the moon or both. We are moving into space anyway. This will help speed it along.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33668 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Huh, yours is not a noble attempt at communication. Your ilk fears "a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible 'actions' that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory."
"Fears?" Not at all.

I've simply seen no convincing evidence such measures and implementable action plans in fact exist and actually pencil out.

That's not fear, that's simple realism - which is what the AGW jihadis fear.
SpaceBlues wrote:
As to the Baffin idea, it's a great one if you like it cold and under water.
Of course we're buying up the the higher ground that will NOT be "under water" in a century's time - but perhaps you're right about the temps.

You prefer someplace a bit warmer? Consult your all-powerful perfectly-predicting numerical models and let me know where you would suggest instead will be the Malibu and the Riviera of 2090, mmm-k? That will be truly USEFUL application for these models - we're looking to buy up vast tracts to sell to the tragic birkenstocks-and-windmill-powe red-bicycles bunch when all their earnest and well-intentioned pipe dreams prove pointless, and their Malibu beach homes are - as you say - underwater.

Get right back to me on this, ok? We need to move fast on this. Thanks awfully.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33669 Jan 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
How would you know?
How would I know ... what, exactly?

Don't be so cryptic. We know how FOS you are when you venture outside your narrow "it's allll about the SCIEEEEENNNCCEEE!!" lane, and a cryptic response like this really doesn't camoflage the fact you don't know what you're taking about yourself.

It kinda calls attention to it, in fact.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>Everything you've posted here is based on some lazy strawman arguments you picked up from stupid newspaper stories or blogs.
That's ... it? That's the best rational and intellectual response you could muster?

C'mon dude - you're slacking. You sound like the typical lazy bonehead topix idealogue here. It's beneath you. Really. Shape up.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33670 Jan 19, 2013
Lol. mmm-K? Is that mini mm hyphen Kelvin?
litesong

Everett, WA

#33671 Jan 19, 2013
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Am I your friend?
//////////
'phud fetid feces face' flustered forth:
No.....
//////////
litesong wrote:
'Patriot AKA Bozo' just got some good luck!

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#33672 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
"it's allll about the SCIEEEEENNNCCEEE!!"
It's all based on the science, which you don't have a clue about, so anything else you have to say is worthless.

You've simply decided that reality is bound to conform to your lifelong ideology, which of course is arrogant and stupid.

There really is no fool like an old fool.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33673 Jan 19, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fears?" Not at all.
[1] I've simply seen no convincing evidence such measures and implementable action plans in fact exist and actually pencil out.
That's not fear, that's simple realism - which is what the AGW jihadis fear.
<quoted text>
[2] Of course we're buying up the the higher ground that will NOT be "under water" in a century's time - but perhaps you're right about the temps.
You prefer someplace a bit warmer? Consult your all-powerful perfectly-predicting numerical models and let me know where you would suggest instead will be the Malibu and the Riviera of 2090, mmm-k? That will be truly USEFUL application for these models - we're looking to buy up vast tracts to sell to the tragic birkenstocks-and-windmill-powe red-bicycles bunch when all their earnest and well-intentioned pipe dreams prove pointless, and their Malibu beach homes are - as you say - underwater.
Get right back to me on this, ok? We need to move fast on this. Thanks awfully.
Let's break it apart in my way.

[1] Ignorance is not bliss. Name calling aside.

[2] There's no hurry in your venture into the cold. There are already flood maps out there you could use.

Seriously, let's get back to your
"a set of practical, affordable, politically feasible "actions" that can be taken in a meaningful timeframe and that will actually make any real difference in the future global average temperature trajectory."

What would be palatable as in % of GNP?

I could start the list:

1. Prefer peace over warring. This plan would save $ trillions globally even in 20 years. Plus it reduces fossil-fuel usage and its harms.

And you?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33674 Jan 19, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> If inflatables can be used larger and larger structures can be put into space at much cheaper costs. Less launch weight means less launch cost or larger structures being launched for the same money.. The most expensive part of space flight. This could lead to manufacturing in space or the moon or both. We are moving into space anyway. This will help speed it along.
Nope. Have you heard of man-made space debris?

There's no place like home, the Earth that you could physically go to.

Get real.
litesong

Everett, WA

#33675 Jan 19, 2013
'teddy r stupid' wrote:
..... we're buying up the the higher ground that will NOT be "under water" in a century's time - but perhaps you're right about the temps.

You prefer someplace a bit warmer?..... let me know where you would suggest
/////////
litesong wrote:
Don't buy here:
http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/pipstarr/v...
Kasanchesarada

Saint Paul, MN

#33676 Jan 19, 2013
There is no global warming. The ice melting , is just Britney Spears loosing fat. Lol.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33677 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. Have you heard of man-made space debris?
There's no place like home, the Earth that you could physically go to.
Get real.
Yep and they track every bit of it. There is a company, I forget from where, that is about to launch a few debris cleaning satellites. They will orbit the earth be maneuvered to catch space debris. Once they catch as much as they can they be sent back into the atmosphere to burn up on re-entry.

“fairtax.org”

Since: Dec 08

gauley bridge wv

#33678 Jan 19, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. Have you heard of man-made space debris?
There's no place like home, the Earth that you could physically go to.
Get real.
Yet!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33680 Jan 19, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Yep and they track every bit of it. There is a company, I forget from where, that is about to launch a few debris cleaning satellites. They will orbit the earth be maneuvered to catch space debris. Once they catch as much as they can they be sent back into the atmosphere to burn up on re-entry.
LOL.

Have you heard of pollution?

Combustion with oxygen?

Burn baby, burn.

;-(
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33681 Jan 19, 2013
flack wrote:
<quoted text> Yet!
Never!

True.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#33679 Jan 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all based on the science, which you don't have a clue about, so anything else you have to say is worthless.
You've simply decided that reality is bound to conform to your lifelong ideology, which of course is arrogant and stupid.
There really is no fool like an old fool.
Sure, the natural and annthropogenic forcings and the global climate response is "all based on the science" (of which I in fact have a fairly comprehensive understanding, thanks very much). You and I have no disagreement whatsoever on this front, as much as that seems to shock and disappoint you.

But when it comes to actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale - no, it's not "all based on the science." That is your delusion. Making such changes a reality is not even a little "based on the science." Such changes will come about because of public and private finance, engineering, economics, technology, management, and politics - or not at all. And speaking as someone who has spent a few decades engineering, managing, and organizing finance and public/political support for some of the most massive human changes to the planet to date, it pains me to have to tell you that in this arena - you have no clue, and your sanctimonious "science lessons" and baying for vague "action now!" are worthless.

Your role, as a scientist, in actually effecting real and significant CHANGES to the anthropomorphic forcings on a global scale, is to present the convincing scientific evidence on what the priority targets are - and then shut up and try to stay out of the way of those who actually know how to get it done. Analyze the measured effects of changes as they are implemented and give us progress reports, and advice on desirable course corrections we should consider. Make yourself useful.

Oh - and drop the ridiculous charade that your scientific knowledge and predictive power of this highly complex system is flawless, and incapable of error. It just makes you sound silly. Have the honesty to fess up as you revise and improve your analyses and tweak your models based on improved scientific understanding. We'll understand - it's your insistence on defending your "science" as unassailable dogma and your climatic models as perfect that's not understandable.

Buck up, son - as I think I've reassured you before - your youthful hubris and self-assurance is only a temporary condition - you'll grow out if it.

Selah.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min shinningelectr0n 1,141,647
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 55 min Cali Girl 2014 51,240
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Frank 180,620
After Ferguson the Protest Should Move to Chicago. 1 hr Culture Auditor 3
The Road to Perdition is strewn with the corpses 2 hr ScrewAdvertisers 14
This guy is GOD to Piano Legs & the Malignant M... 2 hr StarfucksAllowADS 16
Do you find smoking attractive? (No posts about... 3 hr DlCK HERTZ 14
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:30 pm PST

NFL 1:30PM
Colt McCoy 'pushing' Robert Griffin III, Gruden says
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Colts' Week 12 Preview vs. Jags
NBC Sports 9:51 AM
Colts cut return man Griff Whalen, sign RB Zurlon Tipton
NFL10:14 AM
Colts promote Zurlon Tipton, waive Griff Whalen
NBC Sports 4:12 PM
Week 12 skill-position injury report — final