The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

clark · 2004-06-30 14:19:48

Defensive much?

There is no balance, we merely perceive one because of the incredibly brief time frame we're capable of truly understanding on a gut level.

Okay, there is no balance. There is only what we think we see. There is only a brief moment of sunshine between the Ice Ages and the Great Flood. Let's enjoy it while we can. Better yet, why don't we actively work to prolong the day when things dramatically change for the worse.

We need more time for what we consider to be the inevitable, it seems that we may hasten that finality- a bit like smoking a cigarette. You know it takes a bit of your life away, but you want your fix today. If we can stave off the enivitable long enough, then we may actually be preapred to survive as a technological society beyond it- instead of having to start all over.

We may well be a factor, be we aren't causing it any more than we're causing rain or earthquakes.

We seed the clouds, and drop bombs that release the equivilent of small earthquakes. So if we're causing those... :laugh:

While the Right needs to admit that climate change may have implications for humanity in the foreseeable future, the Left needs to acknowledge that they don't understand the forces at work and blaming it all on rich countries is nothing but the same propaganda they've spouted for years in other guises.

I'm not blaming anyone. I think it behooves us to just be more proactive in figuring the whole damn thing out. I fail to see how less pollution is going to be a bad thing.

BWhite · 2004-06-30 14:28:42

Humans who can read and write have been around maybe 10,000 years (give or take). That same period appears to have had a much more stable climate than the norm.

Therefore I believe we need to figure out how climate works and be prepared to engineer it if necessary to preserve a stable climate conducive to large human populations.

Otherwise, those who stand to lose out will not go peacefully.

= = =

Mars may not be the first planet we terra-form.

smurf975 · 2004-06-30 14:43:17

For me I don't care who's side is right or wrong about global warming. Because pollution is the number one threat to childrens lifes (astma, low vertillity, weak immune systems, cancer) and is a more direct threat then global warming.

Not that many people die from pollution, such as cigarette smoke,
It may even make the gene pool stronger by eliminating the weak.
But global warming could be catastrophic, only a few Humans surviving inside military,
under mountain installations, and submarines.

No one dies from cigarette smoke, consuming too much alcohol, old age, asbestos, DDT or even pollution. And I never stated such a thing. Hell you will not even die from handling highly toxic radioactive materials. You don't even die from a car accident but from the frontal impact of some object. A gun also never killed anyone but the high velocity projectile that enters your body and destroys your tissue.

People die from the side effects of pollution or have their lives shortened by it and have general health affected (more sick people).

Global warming can be handled by technology. Pollution is slow poisoning of the human body. It results in malformed children and many other things.

I’m not even going to try and answer the strong vs weak people argument.

Why do you think that the only people that survive a global warming would be military people? Like I said global warming is not like a meteor hitting Earth. There will be food, only now at different places and perhaps less.

C M Edwards · 2004-06-30 14:54:35

(Yeah, I know I'm too lazy to start a new thread... :bars3: )

Does anyone know anything about current popular explanations for the precipitous drop in Carbon-14 concentrations over the past fifty years?

Carbon-14 spiked at levels double the previously measured concentrations during the peak of nuclear weapons testing in the early 1960's. However, its present day levels are nearly back to pre-1950's concentrations - reduced by half. Atmospheric concentrations of Carbon Dioxide (the main reservior for non-A-Bomb C14 in the atmosphere) increased by a third over the past fifty years.

Fossil fuel and geologic emissions have very little C14 because they come from sources that sit around much longer than the halflife of C14, so all the C14 in them decays away over time. Dillution with CO2 from these sources no doubt played a role in the decrease in concentration. However, one and one third (the current-to-1960 ratio of CO2) times one half (the current-to-1960 ratio of C14) is not equal to one. Something else has to be at work.

The C14 concentration did not decrease because of radioactive decay. (The halflife of C14 is 5000 years, not 50.)

So, where did the C14 go?

IMHO, the answer to that question is more critical to understanding the real effect of fossil fuel emissions than any political considerations.

MarsDog · 2004-06-30 17:49:07

The safety play approach may be to burn the fossil fuels and methane in the oceans quickly. Then there will be less expelled to burn, when the next asteroid hits. Another ice age would cause less disruption than overheating.

Algol · 2004-07-01 04:50:19

The problem i have with SUVs (asside from safety issues) is that they were orriginally specifically designed to get around fuel efficiency and pollution controls.

I agree with Clark, less pollution cannot hurt us, more pollution can and will, its just a matter of opinion by how much.

Cobra is correct that there is no 'balance' in so far as climate warming and cooling are naturally occuring phenomenon - what you really need to examine though are the time frames involved. The planets flora and fauna (including us) will naturally adapt through evolution and geographical mobility to a changing climate (otherwise there would be nothing here today) but how fast?

Lets get some facts and figures and bring them into discussion.

No one can, with certainty, describe the cause and effect relationship in climate change - but maybe we are beginning to get an idea, and maybe the risk of being right alone is enough to begin to make responisble decisions. ???

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-01 05:01:55

Okay, there is no balance. There is only what we think we see. There is only a brief moment of sunshine between the Ice Ages and the Great Flood. Let's enjoy it while we can. Better yet, why don't we actively work to prolong the day when things dramatically change for the worse.

All fine and good, the question is whether we can prolong that day and if so, how? It seems to me that there are far too many people crying out for crippling the industry of certain wealthy countries while offering no conclusive evidence that it will make the slightest bit of difference in terms of global climate. Less pollution is good, but raving like lunatics about the impending doom that's all our fault is kooky.

Humans who can read and write have been around maybe 10,000 years (give or take). That same period appears to have had a much more stable climate than the norm.
Therefore I believe we need to figure out how climate works and be prepared to engineer it if necessary to preserve a stable climate conducive to large human populations.

Again, I find myself in overall agreement with Bill. Now, moving onto the first step, let's look into the variables affecting Earth's climate with a clear and analytical eye. We can't very well engineer something if we don't understand it now can we. :;):

Algol · 2004-07-01 07:47:24

It seems to me that there are far too many people crying out for crippling the industry of certain wealthy countries

Actually its more along the lines of a majority of wealthy countries are worried about their potential detrimental effects on the environment and are trying to agree to a method to reduce their pollution in certain areas.

How exactly do you feel that industry may be crippled?

You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.

Ian Flint · 2004-07-01 07:54:39

I'm with you on that one, Algol. :up:

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-01 08:06:59

You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.

You'd be correct if it were proven that humans are the direct cause of global warming, that it's bad, and that we can stop it, offering a clear program for doing so. None of this has been proven, merely asserted, often by people who actually are anti-American.

Offer real evidence, verifiable data and proven methods and I'll be the first to agree that we should step in to regulate the climate of our planet, but so far all we have is highly ideologized doomsday rantings based on incomplete, misunderstood and sometimes outright fabricated data. Let's not go jumping off the cliff of hysteria just yet.

BWhite · 2004-07-01 08:20:56

It seems to me that there are far too many people crying out for crippling the industry of certain wealthy countries
Actually its more along the lines of a majority of wealthy countries are worried about their potential detrimental effects on the environment and are trying to agree to a method to reduce their pollution in certain areas.
How exactly do you feel that industry may be crippled?
You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.

China's coal burning and Brazil's clearing of rainforest may have a much greater macro-environmental effect than SUVs, but if we Westerner's preach at them to stop and then we refuse to even discuss SUVs, why should they go along with us?

IMHO, the US is best situated to deploy the technology that will promote energy conversation and reduce greenhouse emissions. Therefore, if a global ethic were formed we could comply first and then use Kyoto-like protocols as a club to pummel China into buying OUR technology - - on pain of global trade sanctions.

BWhite · 2004-07-01 08:24:27

You seem to feel that its a case of everyone in the world trying to harm America, whereas its more like everyone in the world trying to make tough decisions while america sulks like a petulant child. Im sorry, but thats what it is.
You'd be correct if it were proven that humans are the direct cause of global warming, that it's bad, and that we can stop it, offering a clear program for doing so. None of this has been proven, merely asserted, often by people who actually are anti-American.
Offer real evidence, verifiable data and proven methods and I'll be the first to agree that we should step in to regulate the climate of our planet, but so far all we have is highly ideologized doomsday rantings based on incomplete, misunderstood and sometimes outright fabricated data. Let's not go jumping off the cliff of hysteria just yet.

Cobra, once again, FOX viewers are not the relevant jury on this question.

If uneducated Filipino's lose rice crops to unusual monsoons or droughts, and our leaders respond by saying PROVE global warming is the cause, aren't those farmers now fertile soil for planting seeds of anti-Americanism?

What is the science? I dunno.

But I do know we in the US have a very hard time adopting any perspective except our own.

= = =

Forget law. Forget scientific proof. How does this http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/a … evel/]this stuff play politically?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-01 08:45:58

Forget law. Forget scientific proof. How does this this stuff play politically?

Now you've got a valid point. If some dirt-farmer believes his crop failure is the result of rich American pigs then it doesn't really matter in a practical sense whether or not it's true if that motivates said farmer to join a terrorist organization and blow up an American target.

But then how far do we go to placate people with erroneous ideas? How much are we willing to bend to the misconceptions, delusions, or excuses of others before we simply have to stop?

I'm getting the impression that we all want the same things here, cleaner fuels, more efficient industry, renewable resources; we just have different motives. So yes, let's work on these things in a way that doesn't harm us economically. Let's encourage others to follow our example. If some of us want to believe that we're saving the world from melting and/or freezing brought on by greedy evil industrialists, fine. But don't scoff if someone else blames the rain on invisible flying monkeys peeing from the clouds.

clark · 2004-07-01 09:01:44

I'm getting the impression that we all want the same things here, cleaner fuels, more efficient industry, renewable resources; we just have different motives.

So, Cobra, how has Bush encouraged any of this type of behviour in American industry? From where I sit, I see him increasing the types and amounts of permitable pollution into atmosphere.

I don't see him trying to do anything along these lines other than claim that global warming is a hoax perpetuated by anti-american's who want to take our jobs.

I fail to see how pulling out of the Kyoto Accord would somehow induce China and Brazil to get on board. Or Africa, or India. Yet we are led to believe that America will follow its own guidelines... I ask you, where are these guidelines?!

Where is the effort towards trying to curb any amount of greenhouse gas in any appreciable way?

Where is the foreign aid or leadership to get developing countries to develop clean and green?

There is none.

So yes, let's work on these things in a way that doesn't harm us economically.

Because the Republican Party is a stalwart defender of the environment...

BWhite · 2004-07-01 09:11:43

Forget law. Forget scientific proof. How does this this stuff play politically?
Now you've got a valid point. If some dirt-farmer believes his crop failure is the result of rich American pigs then it doesn't really matter in a practical sense whether or not it's true if that motivates said farmer to join a terrorist organization and blow up an American target.
But then how far do we go to placate people with erroneous ideas? How much are we willing to bend to the misconceptions, delusions, or excuses of others before we simply have to stop?
I'm getting the impression that we all want the same things here, cleaner fuels, more efficient industry, renewable resources; we just have different motives. So yes, let's work on these things in a way that doesn't harm us economically. Let's encourage others to follow our example. If some of us want to believe that we're saving the world from melting and/or freezing brought on by greedy evil industrialists, fine. But don't scoff if someone else blames the rain on invisible flying monkeys peeing from the clouds.

Remember, people like bin Laden are engaged in psy-ops.

Lying to the rest of the world is part of his game.

= = =

We always seem to shoot ourselves in the foot. Example is the whole cigarette lawsuit business.

Part of me gets really annoyed at smokers who want to sue over lung cancer. Part of me says such lawsuits are just bullshit.

But, another part of me wants to throttle and punish tobacco makers who for decades would come before Congress and take solemn oaths and SWEAR there was no evidence tobacco use causes cancer.

Cigarettes cause cancer? Pure BS! Anti-corpoate bullshit, junk science!.

Today, those same tobacco executive solemmnly ask, how can anyone sue for cigarette caused lung cancer. I mean EVERYBODY knows tobacco use causes cancer.

= = =

A few years ago I fell off my chair laughing when a fast food franchise issued a press release saying that the dismissal of a consumer lawsuit over fast food induces obesity "was a victory for personal responsibility"

Heh!

= IF = the average American truly were "personally responsible" the fast food industry would be bankrupt!

Oh, McDonalds routinely asks for PROOF that a diet rich in Big Macs is unhealthy.

= = =

Okay, now US officials tell impoverished Pacific Islanders that global warming has nothing to do with their island vanishing between the ocean.

But if you PROVE it to our satisfaction. . .

What does that do to our credibilty (even if we are 100% correct?)

MarsDog · 2004-07-01 09:23:37

Now you've got a valid point. If some dirt-farmer believes his crop failure is the result of rich American pigs then it doesn't really matter in a practical sense whether or not it's true if that motivates said farmer to join a terrorist organization and blow up an American target.

http://www.saskpulse.com/news/news-displaya879.html]New Terrorist Motivation ?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-01 09:25:55

So, Cobra, how has Bush encouraged any of this type of behviour in American industry? From where I sit, I see him increasing the types and amounts of permitable atmosphere.

You're missing the point. I'm after clean, renewable fuels because they end or reduce our dependence on foreign powers and I hate that gasoline smell. I'm after increased efficiency because it's... yes, more efficient. I don't care about making America or anywhere else more "green" because the entire premise of human-caused catastrophic climate change at its roots is dubious at best.

Bush has made some meager effort into supporting hydrogen power. He is generally supportive of non-regulatory, non-coercive methods of getting more efficient vehicles on the road. But the question isn't so much "what has Bush done for the greens" as this. Shall we formulate policy based on technological and economic realities, or on wacky theories slathered over tired leftist themes?

What does that do to our credibilty (even if we are 100% correct?)

I'm not disagreeing with your stated premise, but merely asking if lying to the world because it's easy and convenient is the right course of action. I question it, but then I'm direct in most matters. Maybe playing along with their silly ideas for awhile is the right course of action... manipuate 'em a little, get 'em to see how much we're trying to solve the problem, even if we know it is a steaming mound of dung. Hope they never find out we've been playin' 'em... :hm:

smurf975 · 2004-07-01 09:28:21

I think that Cobra Commander is not denying global warming but he is saying that you must prove that it / was caused by US citizens / industries.

Now you've got a valid point. If some dirt-farmer believes his crop failure is the result of rich American pigs then it doesn't really matter in a practical sense whether or not it's true if that motivates said farmer to join a terrorist organization and blow up an American target.

Makes me think about the Zapitista in the south of Mexico but they are more fighting / protesting against landowners.

clark · 2004-07-01 09:35:12

. I don't care about making America or anywhere else more "green" because the entire premise of human-caused catastrophic climate change at its roots is dubious at best.

:laugh:

Then why do you buy into the theory of terraforming Mars? Or is that just a dubious fantasy you indulge in?

The point is, if we can sit here, and pretty much agree that mankind has the capability to affect the climate of another planet, with just a few people and some concentrated effort, why do you think that 6 billion people, unthinking, can't affect the climate of our own world?

Algol · 2004-07-01 09:49:20

Cobra

Do you contest that there is a hole in the ozone layer? Or that carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 400'000 years? Representing a 30% increase in the last 100 years?

Cobra Commander · 2004-07-01 10:32:50

Then why do you buy into the theory of terraforming Mars? Or is that just a dubious fantasy you indulge in?

Because A: I'm not 100% certain we can,
and B: It would require much longer timescales than fit with the current "global warming" arguments and would require methods far more energetic and directed than any currently practiced on Earth.

The point is, if we can sit here, and pretty much agree that mankind has the capability to affect the climate of another planet, with just a few people and some concentrated effort, why do you think that 6 billion people, unthinking, can't affect the climate of our own world?

I never said we aren't affecting the climate, merely that we are not single-handedly bringing about historically unprecedented climate shifts that would be avoided if only we'd stop burning fossil fuels.

Cobra
Do you contest that there is a hole in the ozone layer? Or that carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 400'000 years? Representing a 30% increase in the last 100 years?

I acknowledge that there is a thin region, or gap in the ozone layer over the pole. For the sake of argument I'll accept your 400,000 years CO2 level claim for the moment.

Assuming the accuracy of these claims, I see no direct causal relationship to human industry, no evidence that such will with certainty lead to famine and ruin, no evidence that if so we can stop it, no evidence that we are witnessing anything but a natural shift in the climate of this planet consistent in degree and timing with previous history.

Again, clean fuel is good. Renewable energy is good. Reduced pollution to cut back on noxious clouds of smog is good. The arguments for global warming and that it's all our fault? Not so good.

BWhite · 2004-07-01 10:40:20

Assuming the accuracy of these claims, I see no direct causal relationship to human industry, no evidence that such will with certainty lead to famine and ruin, no evidence that if so we can stop it, no evidence that we are witnessing anything but a natural shift in the climate of this planet consistent in degree and timing with previous history.
Again, clean fuel is good. Renewable energy is good. Reduced pollution to cut back on noxious clouds of smog is good. The arguments for global warming and that it's all our fault? Not so good.

Its not all our fault.

clark · 2004-07-01 10:52:26

It's no one persons fault. It's no one nations fault. It simply is the consquences of our choices.

I believe the Earth has a dynamic global biosphere that interacts with all various parts of the world, like the ocean, atmosphere, geosphere, and even the moon-sun, all to develop a constantly altering equilibrium that allows for periods of stasis.

I happen to like this current stasis. I'm sure the dinasours would find it too cold.

We're playing with fire, and it makes more sens to tread lightly. I'm not saying that we shut down business and go back to living in caves. I am saying that no matter what side you're on, it's hard to argue that less pollution is a bad thing. That taking proactive steps to minimize our contribution and impact on the dynamic equillibrium of our biosphere is probably the best course of action (barring that, at least the most prudent).

Perhaps the global warming theory is bunk, but what isn't is the dead space that spreads in the deoxygenated sea water. It isn't bunk worrying about what happens when all that ice up north and south starts to melt, raising sea levels along the coast. We need to worry about the pollution of our fresh water supply- about changing weather patterns that have caused the destruction of every previous ancient civilization.

Think of it like this, as we advance, we stretch out across a bridge- the further ahead we get, the more dependant we are upon the base to support the entire structure.

Communication, transportation- these are what allow the great wonders we see today. If the s*it hits the fan with global warming and disrupts our transportation infrastrucre, billions will simply die. It's pretty fragile, and it is getting more so (as we specialize and increase our interdependancy among people and areas).

It is seriously in the best interest of the most advanced societites to make sure we do everything we can to mitigate, or prevent stuff like this. But don't worry Cobra, I hear ya.

C M Edwards · 2004-07-01 14:09:30

Anyone have any good references for Kerry's opinions and plans regarding global warming?

clark · 2004-07-01 14:14:14

He's against it, except when he's for it. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2004-06-30 14:19:48

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#102 2004-06-30 14:28:42

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#103 2004-06-30 14:43:17

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#104 2004-06-30 14:54:35

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#105 2004-06-30 17:49:07

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#106 2004-07-01 04:50:19

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#107 2004-07-01 05:01:55

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#108 2004-07-01 07:47:24

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#109 2004-07-01 07:54:39

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#110 2004-07-01 08:06:59

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#111 2004-07-01 08:20:56

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#112 2004-07-01 08:24:27

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#113 2004-07-01 08:45:58

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#114 2004-07-01 09:01:44

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#115 2004-07-01 09:11:43

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#116 2004-07-01 09:23:37

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#117 2004-07-01 09:25:55

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#118 2004-07-01 09:28:21

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#119 2004-07-01 09:35:12

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#120 2004-07-01 09:49:20

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#121 2004-07-01 10:32:50

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#122 2004-07-01 10:40:20

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#123 2004-07-01 10:52:26

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#124 2004-07-01 14:09:30

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

#125 2004-07-01 14:14:14

Re: The Kerry Factor - John Kerry's Views of PlanBush

Board footer