New Mars Forums

One of many articles with credible sources saying the same thing.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8046526/

It then goes on to address the opposing view, climatologists who say:

Not exactly a conclusive rebuttal.

Essentially what we have is this. Most likely temperatures in parts of the world are in fact rising, it happens through natural processes at predicatable intervals and we're due. Most likely "global warming" has precisely zilch to do with increases in hurrican activity, which also moves in predicatable cycles and we're due. Most likely human activity has some affect on climate just as forest fires, ocean currents and cow farts do. In near certainty human activity is not the driving force of climate change as evidenced by past patterns. Most likely we can't stop it if we wanted to. With total certainty measures such as the Kyoto Protocol would have no measureable effect.

Conclusion: Reality of global warming probably but not certain. Will reverse according to natural cycles as it has always done. Advise preparations for new projected conditions.

In short, the world changes and there's nothing you can do about it. if you think your land is gonna flood, don't build below sea level. If you think your land is gonna dry out, don't start a farm. Shit happens, it isn't fair, deal with it.

I don't expect to convert any of the true believers, but your priests are spouting nonsensical doctrine.

I here I thought I'd be in a better mood today.  :?
Must be the global warming.  Stupid Bush.

Absolutely the Republicans dish out mud in equal measure. The difference is that they attack their opponents themselves. Kerry lied about his medals, Clinton is a horny lying President, on and on. Today's Democrats have as a central element of their strategy the practice of taking anything that is bad for America and using it for political gain. It puts them in the position of benefitting only when America gets hurt. That's not a good place to be to gain the support of Americans.

There I days I swear half the Democrats in the Senate would go into a mass orgasm if a nuke went off in an American city.

Yeah, it's a little over the top. But I'm not retracting it. 

Not out, just hoarding it. 

Riiiight. We all know the hurricane was caused by global warming that Bush won't do anything about and <gasp> we couldn't build levies becasue of the war in Iraq. What an evil bastard that Bush is. 

First off, it doesn't hold up on either count. Second, you guys on the Left have to realize that trying to turn every bad thing that happens into political gold is hurting you. It really turns people off, it's like clapping in glee when someone gets hit by a car because you can act concerned for the cameras as they die on the pavement. 

Hurricanes happen, it's just a fact. This last one was by no means unusual. Cities built on flood plains will flood. Trying to imply that a study on a single levee being cancelled somehow made the damage worse and that it's the direct result of the Iraq War is political propagandizing at its clumsiest. It's like an SNL skit. But funnier.

Jumping to conclusions isn't scientific. The mere presence of climate change in no way indicates a direct human cause for it.

Here's the problem. Too many people link global warming with human industry when there is no conclusive evidence to tie them together. Maybe the world is getting warmer (that itself is a matter of some dispute) but accepting the premise, it in no way indicates that we're directly behind it. I know it's tempting to think I don't remember it ever being this hot, the world is changing. I bet it's because of all the pollution. Yeah, that's the ticket. The world has always had climate shifts, even in the very brief flash that is human history things have changed dramatically. We're coming off the tail end of a small ice age, of course it's going to get warmer. If it is the result of the natural climate shifts that have occured for as long as the Earth has existed there's nothing we can do about it. I don't like pollution either but skewering our own industry and economy isn't going to stop the planet's cycles. We're better served just accepting what change there is and adjusting to it based on hard facts, not trendy, ever-shifting theories. "Man made global warming" is an exercise in faith, perhaps the fastest growing religion in the world. Like so many other superstitions, making policy based on it will bring misery to many and solve nothing.

You'd be right but for the little detail that the rest of Article 1 goes on to define the Congress in question, what composes it, when it meets, how it enacts law etc.

It really is a fairly simple document to follow, means just what it says. No subtle tricks, no hidden meanings, no arcanum needing translation.

Just checked it out. As I figured, very conservative and very Christian. Like uber-Republicans. Most of their "you might be a constitutionalist" list I don't find objectionable.

as for the ones Cindy cited:
15: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that it is not unconstitutional for children in public schools to pray or read the Bible.

If we're talking about schools leading prayer, that I oppose. But if a kid wants to pray in school I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to. Hell, as an atheist I can confidently say that the Bible is no more ficticious than the average high school history textbook anyway. 

19: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that the federal government has no business bribing churches and faith-based organizations with federal tax dollars.

I don't see a problem here either.

25: You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that in the beginning God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Okay, I see the objection here. No, not the anti-gay reference, I just don't believe that God exists, let alone created anything.  Remove the creation angle and the whole statement is meaningless.

And therein lies the real problem with the Constitution Party in my humble opinion, God's word is not the law of the land, the US Constitution is. The Almighty has no jurisdiction here. 

Arrgh!

Yes, since my first day here. Sometimes I like clark because he has a tendency to take every position to the point of absurdity to illustrate flawed resoning. At the same time, he can be real prick at times without reason or provocation.

This last little tirade of his I would not have edited out of other users posts but I wouldn't have banned him either. Primarily because, like Josh, I don't want to get to the point of posting rigid rules that need to be enforced universally. Anythign we enact has at some point been violated by at least half the members. Where do we draw the line? One ad hom? Six? a clear pattern over years? Why? Besides, if we've reached the point where it's necessary, it's too late.

Yes, Shaun could with just a few mouse clicks never have to put up with clark's tantrums again. Hell, we all could. We could ignore anyone that says anything we don't like. We could enact all sorts of standards and aggressively ban anyone who violates them, but then we wouldn't have many users left.

Kinda like now but with more work.

No rules nor snazzy interface features are going to solve the apparent problem. If we can't associate as a functional community of our own accord this isn't going to work. We can blame Shaun for being too sensitive, we can blame clark for being a combative troll, but in the end it's the fault of no one and everyone. Shaun, clark, me, Josh; we all fucked it up in our own little ways. Some more than others but it's all so subjective and not worth any further time or effort.

<flush>

Farewell Shaun, you will be missed.

Sure it's limited, but we can do far more than we have been. We have virtually no civil defense apparatus in place. Many communities have no structures suitable for surviving an attack, no fallout shelters, if they do they often don't know where to go. The vast bulk of the population doesn't know what to do and has nowhere to go even if they survive the initial attack. They simply die. Our industry has no precautions taken to keep it functional after an attack, our entire financial structure could be cleansed by a few well-placed EMP bursts. We don't have protected food and water supplies, the Soviets used to (and by some accounts Russia still does) have giant grain bunkers for such an event, we've got whatever a person has in their cabinet and whatever FEMA brings assuming they can respond.

Essentially what we need is a segment of government and industry to get together and look at the problem as how can we win a nuclear war rather than assuming that the prospect terrifies the rest of the world as much as it does us and dismissing it. There is so much we could do, some of it insanely simple. Just having the Department of Homeland Security launching a campaign to encourage people to have some food and water and rudimentary sheltering would do tremendous good should the need ever arise. Educating people about the real effects of nuclear weapons would help immensely, they don't vaporize everything and leave the air and water radioactive for 10,000 years.

In short, this is one of many cases where we have become so comfortable in our position and so sure that nobody would ever want a war that we've made ourselves grossly vulnerable to fairly simple attacks that would have devastating effects. We're climbing up on a giant pile and it only takes a couple midgets kicking the base to knock us on our ass.

While we need to watch for those midgets, we should also be prepared to get up and fight should we ever find ourselves in that scenario.

Back on topic, I have concerns that for all the doom scenarios about nuclear terrorism we may be missing the big problem.

If a terrorist group has one nuke they may well blow up one American city. It may not be the most effective tactical use of such a weapon, but terrorists don't look at the conflict through the same lense we do.

Americans always fail to realize that. We always look at avoiding war as the goal. All too often our enemies look to winning a war as the objective. Heads up our asses.

So terrorists blow up a city, in the grand scheme we can cope with that. But what if they blow up four or five? New York, Washington, LA and Chicago. I'd add Detroit to the list but I question whether anyone would notice. 
Because we have made essentially no preparations for either large-scale nuclear defense or long-term war fighting, a small group of terrorists could conceivably deliver a crushing blow to this country. A situation that other powers will exploit to their benefit and our detriment.

Okay, step further up the "what if" ladder. Let's entertain for a moment the idea that some nation already possessing nuclear weapons chooses to attack the US in part by offering clandestine support to those terrorists?

Call it paranoid, call it "war gaming", call it being prepared for all contingencies, just run with me on this. A few major cities are hit by smuggled nukes. Millions dead, massive communications failures, mass chaos. Add in a hacker attack to shut down further chunks of the telecom and financial networks just for shits and giggles. Any second-rate power in the world suddenly has a free hand to do whatever the hell they want. China taking Taiwan, easy. North Korea invading the South, you're all clear Kim. Russia. . . doing some crazy Russki stuff, just do it.

Point being, aside from taking steps to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack we also need to prepare to endure one, minimize casualties and infrastructure damage, maintain communications and remain a fully responsive global military force during and after the attack(s) however the severity.

Yep, have a good one clark. If that is your real name. <glares suspiciously> 

So sandwich it with some other insulating material. Problem solved.