And Kansas City? :confused:

Oh, great...that's just what we need. Bunch of horny sailors running after our daughters around here.

From what I'm able to discern, and I'm no scientist, global warming is occuring. I believe that the main objection to doing anything about it in the USA is financial. I don't know that Kyoto is the end-all, but shouldn't someone somewhere act like there *might* be a problem?

Republicans and Democrats alike will be adversely affected by catastrophic climate change. No matter what happens, the price of energy will go up as a result...worldwide tropics or global ice age.

If the accellerated global warming is caused by man, and I'm not saying that it isn't, then doesn't it make sense that the most underdeveloped parts of the world, where the fastest population growth occurs, need to be brought up to speed technolgy-wise so that their population growth will slow and their energy consumption will be channeled through more efficient means?

Wouldn't that solve part of the problem as well?

I think the theory goes something like "if we apply Kyoto to the Third World, it will strangle their economic development, and they'll have no opportunity to reach parity with the rest of the industrialized world."

In other words, it is acknowledged that Kyoto makes everything more expensive to do, Third World nations can't afford it because they fall below a certain level where it can be absorbed or passed on successfully. Meanwhile, the US just looks at it and says "it is bad for the economy, we aren't going to do it."

That is at least a logical conclusion. If it is bad for Third World Countries, then it is going to have a negative financial impact on everyone, everywhere who follows it.

And here we are, still suffocating in our own waste. I don't think the comparison to yeast in a carboy is a bad one.

One need only review the 1960s for deja vue. As MBAs took over the auto industry, then auto pollution did not exist? When that was obviously a lie, the industry cried (lied) before Congress swearing they could not possibly meet the 1975 pollution standards. In the meantime, Chrysler already had a fleet of cars in CA using a system called CAP that met the 1974 standards.

We have same today. If these political extremists were innovative, then America would be leading the charge with innovation. But that is too much a change from the status quo, for extremists. Therefore global warming must not exist. Where a patriotic American sees advancement, new products and markets, innovation, and wealth; the political extremist sees costs, messy changes, destruction of the status quo, and fear.

Global warming gases are not increasing. The need to preserve a status quo says so (or somehow god will prevent it from happening). Oh.... facts and numbers now say otherwise. So the new spin is "We can't do anything about it so we should not try". Deja Vue. Those anti-innovative, late 1960s, American auto executives, who refused to innovate, are back masquerading as righteous, right-wing Republicans. Previously American MBAs literally surrendered technology (and therefore the jobs) to Japanese and Germans. So as pollution control (which also means less energy consumption) devices were required, they arrived with Japanese and German patents.

No wonder history only repeats itself every 30 years. How many remember by the American auto industry made nothing but anti-American products in the 1970s and 1980s.

That oxygen sensor now found in all cars? A Bosch patent. A little money goes to Germany for every time a Chevy is sold - because GM stifled American innovators. Those who fear change took the ostrich approach which meant lost American jobs. They denied that pollution was a problem then, as they deny global warming today. They denied that cars getting only 10 MPG could be doing 24. Deja vue. IOW they feared to innovate- the definition of an anti-American.

Denials about global warming mean other nations will prosper when America finally concedes reality. Then America must pay big bucks for technologies developed elsewhere. Ostriches are the classic example of anti-Americans. Ostriches fear facts about global warming. When will the extremists among us stop denying science facts - thereby destroying future American jobs and wealth? When we call them what they are - anti-Americans - people who fear to innovate. Financial reasons are only another excuse to promote and protect the status quo - an anti-American mentality.

The Reason Foundation is not backed by Ayn Rand; Rand wasn't particularly fond of Libertarians and Libertarianism. That said, _Reason_ is a political magazine.

This latest study I knew Jag would jump on is just as political, though. I wonder how long it took them to tweak the parameters of their favorite model to make them fit the data. Or did they just choose data which was used in the calibration of the model in the first place?

Yes and no intersetingly enough, there are a variety of arguments around about the economic impact of koyoto, some positive some negative, replacing old, inefficient equipment and bringing other gear up to scratch can have a positive economic impact along the same lines as most infrastructure investment. Of course there's also the economic impact of rising sea levels and more extreme weather to factor in.

Does it make you feel better to say that? You know it would be quicker to put your fingers in your ears and sing loudly, it'd be equally logical as well. Do you have any evidence, even the slimmest strangest rant off newsmax or what a freeper told you to back that up? Or is it simply that if something doesn't fit your narrow worldview it must be denounced loudly before it might cause critical thought? I mean for fucks sake, it's US government funded research, not greenpeace.

YES! real estate prices will continue to go up as the continents are reclaimed by the oceans! "you know, they aren't making anymore land... maybe i should just put all my money in real estate..."

hey - how did one of my clients get their thoughts into this thread? :confused:

Ms. Rand is safely in the grave where she can wreck no further harm on this nation's innocent young or anyone else. I was joking about her funding of any scientific studies. I'll take your word regarding her stance on Libertarians. For all her disdain of them, Libertarians seem to have an inordinate fondness for HER, however.

From my brief perusal of the Reason article and its source, Reason appears to have isolated one statistic out of context and gone on to draw some completely false conclusions from it - such as, petroleum releases less CO2 when burned for fuel than does coal. Actually, petroleum may release fewer particulates into the atmosphere than does coal, but the burning of petroleum is hardly "reason" for good cheer on the environmental front.

Jaguar, the best part is that after much of London and other parts of the UK go under water, you guys are going to get pretty damn cold. While the rest of the world basks in the coming heat wave, Europe is going to become a very chilly place. Among other things, climatologists figure the oceans' currents will be altered significantly by the torrent of fresh water pouring into the seas from melting glaciers and ice caps. The Gulf Stream will most likely vanish.

That's OK, you Europeans don't need to thank us for this. We Americans love to bask in our ignorance (along with the warmth), and elect politicians who don't "believe in" global warming and refuse to sign off on any international treaties.

Please tell me you're joking. Please tell me you don't really think that because the sea around the equator is warm it is melting the ice in the arctic.

Incidentally, (most of) the ice in the antarctic isn't bathed in seawater anyway, it's sitting high up on land.

Ok, I'm joking. But while we're on the subject, why did the last ice age end?

That's not what the science says. The science says sea around the equator is warming - both significantly and quickly. (It is why we teach the concept of differentials to high school students - so they can appreciate the major difference created by three letters.) Furthermore numbers show the depth of that unusually significant warming is slowly moving into deeper regions of the ocean - because the sudden increase in temperature has been so large and recent.

Melting of ice in water (ie Arctic Ocean) is not a concern for landmass flooding. Melting of ice in Greenland and Antartica will cause sea level rise. To understand the principles, pour yourself a coke with lots of ice. Notice that as the ice melts, the coke overflows the glass. Or does it.

No it doesn't overflow. The melting of the block of ice sitting on top of the glass causes it to overflow. :cool: