WIP

Nonsensical beliefs like the demands of third world nations that first worlders who have and continue to produce the most greenhouse gases, do something about their emissions and pay for damages that are reeking havoc in mostly poor countries that have the misfortune of living within 30 degrees of the Equator perhaps? Some of their ideas seem very sensible to me. Back in 1968, when Apollo 8 astronauts took the first video images of the Earth from Space, it seemed like it could have been the beginning for a sense of nationalism that would include the whole planet. This is the only kind of nationalism that would be useful today. Other lame nationalistic appeals that have their root in the human instinct for tribalism, need to be diminished if the human race survives the next few generations.

First, I'd like to say I'm sorry for being insulting when I posted that comment on Saturday. I should have waited till after our weekend trip for the dust to settle, instead of posting comments while the shootings were still a breaking news story. But, two days later, I'm still in no more of a mood to cut Sarah Palin any slack than I was on Saturday. The way Sarah, and other rightwing political pundits and wannabees have been inflating the violent rhetoric and appealing to the worst qualities in their already paranoid base of support, this shooting, and previous less publicized attacks by fringe elements on the right, are the inevitable result. Ben Smith has an update to his Politico column which includes one of Palin's Twitter messages, which refers to the crosshairs as "bullseyes." The original column includes some attempts to spin the story by a Palin aide named Rebecca Mansour; who claims that the crosshairs could just be "surveyor's symbols".....as if any actual Palin fans would interpret crosshairs as a something used for surveying! And that's why I really want to see Palin, and other rightwing demagogues get burned this time by their dogwhistle calls to supporters that use violent rhetoric. Combine the crosshairs with "don't retreat, reload," and the message is unmistakeable for any yahoo or bubba driving around with a loaded gun. The Palin aide also seemed to have done a Google search for some desperate example to use of leftwing violence, and made reference to the hostage-taking incident at the Discovery Channel last fall. Of course in that example, no one died except the hostage-taker who was shot by police marksmen. He apparently had a homemade bomb strapped to his vest, which may have actually worked, if he had a chance to detonate it. However, there are many important aspects missing in that example now used by rightwingers. The most important being the increasing appeal to paranoia, xenophobia, and racism that's churning on the right. There is no network of leftwing agitators of the equivalent to Glenn Beck (who's crying idiotic rants about the Tides Foundation, inspired a lunatic with a gun to go to their HQ with the intention of mass murder), or Bill O'Reilly (who shares culpability for the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller), and there are worse ones just waiting in the wings for their chance to have a nationally syndicated radio show. There are no environmental groups advocating the use of violence to advance the green cause, but there are a whole host of conservative and libertarian talkers, bloggers, and even politicians, who have called for an armed, violent response, if they can't get their way at the ballot box. So, any claims of equivalence between left and right are false equivalence! The fact is that the threats of violence, and threats to democratic principles are almost exclusively coming from rightwing sources. And, another, even more important aspect of this story is that it is the right which is the voice of gun rights, and in the U.S. pushes so hard against any sensible efforts to control firearms, that any idiot (like this shooter) can walk into a gun store and purchase a Glock pistol. And this is an issue that has repercussions outside of the U.S., since most of the handguns used in shootings in Canada, have come from the U.S.; as have the vast array of weapons that Mexican drug gangs have used to kill almost 30,000 Mexicans....and the Americans complain about their border problem! The sad fact is that the lobbying of the NRA and Gunowners of America have made it impossible to trace illegal handguns in Canada and Mexico back to the U.S. gun purchasers, or gun stores that sold them! The gun laws in the U.S. have steadily chipped away at handgun control to the extent that Arizona allows people to walk around with concealed weapons......and now they are paying the price for it! As I said Saturday, much of the blame for America returning to the Wild Wild West falls at the feet of Democrats, who have done the political calculus that the Gun Lobby is too rich and too powerful in Washington and state capitals to take on directly. Maybe now that politicians who don't have Secret Service protection realize how much their lives are in danger, they'll stop playing politics with so called gun rights.

Did they put her in a gunsight? Or, did they threaten her with violence, like the frequent tea party threats that outraged her father? NO! Then shut up! We know where the violence, and the threats of violence are coming from, and it's not coming from liberals or leftists. It's coming from right wing clowns who expect to get their way one way or another!

Yeah right! I expect all of the rightwing pro-gun nutcases to go into their bunkers for awhile after this. Here's what we do know so far about how the right wing leaders have fomented random violence through the their demagoging and over-the-top rhetoric: Ariz. Congresswoman Giffords shot; Dad: 'Entire Tea Party' her enemy Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ariz_congresswoman_shot_in_head_YFTvsurRHy5OWGSRKnuK8J#ixzz1ATgoFGlM "Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole tea party." He added that politicians constantly faced danger. "They always get threat[ened]," Giffords cried. "We don’t really have any information. The Police department was supposed to call us but they didn't." From Matt Yglesias: ad for an anti-Giffords meeting on June 12: Fun campaign event: "Help remove Gabrille Giffords from office. Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly" http://yfrog.com/h5p7wp also, her office was vandalized in 2009 Daily Kos Blogger - Land Of Enchantment has put together a page on this Jesse Kelly, who ran for the Republican nomination, and posted that ad: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2011/1/8/934297/-Second-Amendment-Solutions-%28pictures,-continuing-updates%29 Also worth keeping in mind, last month shots were fired at Congressman Raul Grijalva's headquarters, no suspects were apprehended. And maybe any Facebook users here can tell me if Sarah Palin has removed a page on her site that reportedly had pictures of 20 Democratic Congresspersons (including Gabrielle Giffords) with gunsight targets. Maybe after this outrage, Democrats...especially you President Obama, will grow some balls and put that stupid 2nd Amendment in it's proper context: the wording that the gun nuts used also includes the phrase:"well regulated militia" in it! It doesn't say any nut with a pickup truck gets to buy an automatic and drive around with it in the front seat! One of the great unreported stories of 2010, has been the discovery that most of the guns used by drug gangs in Mexico for mass-killings, are coming from the U.S.

Not for me. I prefer to live myth-free.

Cap n trade is the easy sell because there are so many people lined up who think they can make money off of it! We always hear from the right wing that 'you get less of what you tax, and more of what you subsidize', or at least they like to pull that one out when they're talking about welfare or other social programs for the poor; so why doesn't it work for carbon emissions also? Tax carbon, and there should be a strong incentive to move away from developing more tar sands, and seeking out energy sources that have less of a carbon tax burden. And, we can't forget all of the leverage that was applied by the oil lobby to further confuse the public when a carbon tax was proposed. Dion's carbon tax proposal was to be revenue neutral, or at least near neutral, so the blather about over-taxation was a red herring right from the start. Considering the power and wealth of the oil companies, and their saturation of the media, I'm not sure whether any real action on climate will ever be taken by a Canadian or American government.

That was a sad day for politics in this country, in my opinion. Sure, Stephan Dion never learned how to speak English properly, but here was probably the last time you'll ever see a Canadian leader deliberately fly in the face of what's popular to do what needs to be done.....now, we got Iggy, so everyone's on the cap and trade bandwagon.

One income families were the norm when I was growing up, now it is almost impossible for most middle class families. I have a higher income then most, and when we went from being a two-income to a one-income household ten years ago, that meant moving out of the suburbs and buying a cheaper house; and going from two cars to one car......which ended up being best for the whole family; but even a family trying to live modestly, will have a hard time getting by with an income under $50,000 these days. I don't know much about it, but I hear mostly good things about the public daycare system in France. I don't know how they do it, but if a daycare system is well-funded and staffed with professionals making a decent living, it would probably be a lot better than dumping the kids off with babysitters.

Your national myth is going to crash and burn in the near future, because the costs of maintaining the vast U.S. Overseas Empire are being payed for by China and other foreign buyers of U.S. paper.

Just as I figured, your rant on socialism here, is no more coherent or has any more to do with socialism than past rants. I am not a socialist by choice, and I wouldn't be looking at options from the left if I believed that our present capitalist system could fix itself internally. And I don't believe an economic system that depends on continual growth is sustainable anyway! The planet isn't about to grow larger to accommodate the demands for more crap by a consumer-driven economy. The way I see it, when civil society begins to disintegrate (which is happening now in gradual steps), a fearful populace becomes more authoritarian, looking for strong leaders to fix everything. The social dominators who lead the mob and channel the fears and anxieties of their followers, have one of two directions to go in when economies go in prolonged decline, and the middle class disappears and is replaced by a wealthy elite and an impoverished lower class: 1. Go to the right, and divert attention from the wealth class who owns the politicians, and have structured the law, tax, and banking systems to their advantage, and to the detriment of the majority. This can easily be done by a fascist leader who deflects the unwanted gaze from the rich, and onto scapegoats -- which can include racial minorities, including aboriginals; religious minorities...invading Muslims etc.; foreign enemies -- especially ones resisting occupation and corporate control of their economies. And, along with choosing a scapegoat, the prospective fascist ruler makes sure to wrap himself in the flag and religion of his followers, and maintains the loyalty of the impoverished footsoldiers of fascism, by making the experience feel patriotic and godly. 2. Option two, to go to the left and take on the oligarchs is a harder sell, especially in this age of global capitalism. A Marxist or Neomarxist autocrat will first be aware that he could prosper a lot more financially by collaborating with the oligarchs -- so, going to war against them is not only a greater challenge, it also ruins his chances for great financial rewards. These days, we have Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador among the few nations that are fighting against the imposition of global capitalism. And, it's not just a fight over control of domestic natural resources. Large multinational corporations are trying to gain complete control of water resources all over the world. Back in 2003, it was riots against water privateering in Bolivia, that brought Evo Morales to power. The Water Privateers In most third world nations, foreign corporations are buying up land, and seeking complete control of their economies...not just the oil, mines and minerals etc.....and every time the corporatists loose, they use the power of global finance provided by the IMF and the World Bank, to try to destabilize the economies of rebellious governments. If that doesn't work, then it's time to send in the CIA, or some State Dept. contacts to see about organizing a military coup. And, if all else fails, it's time to invade and restore democracy!

The playgrounds in many inner city neighbourhoods have been infested with drug dealers and gangs, so it's no surprise that few children are seen there; but even in the suburbs, the playgrounds are empty because both parents are working late, and the kids are either with babysitters or stuck sitting in some after-school program till 6 or 7 at night. And then they are lined up in the drive-thru of McDonalds or Burger King etc. for dinner....and that may be a bigger cause of childhood obesity than lack of exercise. Yeah, some middle class suburbanites have their kid's activities scheduled, and leave no time for children to use their imaginations.

Who said the Antarctic wasn't a factor in global warming? Bonam tossed it in because he believes there's too much ice in the Antarctic Glaciers to allow a near-future runaway greenhouse effect, as described in articles like here: Royal Society special issue details ‘hellish vision’ of 7°F (4°C) world — which we may face in the 2060s!....and I don't see the quantity of ice in the Antarctic giving us more time. Also, rising sea levels is a problem for people living in coastal areas, but it's not the greatest danger presented by planetary warming. Studies of past eras when the Earth was ice-free show that these were times of great extinction because no ice means a weak or possibly non-existent ocean conveyor system. My point is that in the short term, the ocean conveyor system of the Northern Hemisphere is not going to be helped by ice in the Antarctic -- since it works by circulating waters from the Equator to the Arctic. The volume of ice in the Antarctic would only provide more time for the ocean conveyor system in the southern oceans. And, even that point is debatable, since the article I cited on page 6 shows that the Antarctic oceans are warming at a more rapid rate than the Arctic: However, rarely is the question raised: why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? The implicit assumption is it must be cooling around Antarctica. This is decidedly not the case. In fact, the Southern Ocean has been warming faster than the rest of the world's oceans. Globally from 1955 to 1995, oceans have been warming at 0.1°C per decade. In contrast, the Southern Ocean has been warming at 0.17°C per decade. Not only is the Southern Ocean warming, it is warming faster than the global trend. That would only be true if we were at an equilibrium. But all indications are that rising greenhouse gas levels will keep driving a warming climate in the Arctic.

Recently, I've noticed that many scientists such as James Hansen, are speaking out against the purveyors of cap and trade schemes (like Al Gore), and trying to get carbon taxation back on track -- since taxing carbon will provide the greatest disincentive for increasing carbon, along with providing the necessary financial incentives for alternative renewable energy. Gore has been a promoter of Cap and Trade right from the beginning; so whatever good things he has to say about promoting the issue of Climate Change, are negated by the problems of corruption and financial manipulation that cap and trade schemes can provide. Evidence for how convenient the pitfalls of cap and trade are to global warming deniers, came to me in an email from a friend over the weekend. Seems he's become a big fan of the Jesse Ventura show: Conspiracy Theory, and wanted me to watch a few episodes. To cut to the chase, after watching a typical misleading 9/11 truther presentation, I went next to Jesse's examination of climate change. And sure enough, Jesse says:"follow the money," again; and ofcourse, he's not talking about the money being dumped to sow doubt and confusion provided by the large energy companies; no, Jesse means the money that Goldman Sachs, and other major investment banks plan to earn from a carbon credits futures market.....and needless to say, Al Gore shows up several times in the episode because of his efforts on behalf of cap and trade. Now, like most conspiracy theories, there is no real search for truth here. Jesse's backers approached this issue the way a mystery writer writes novels: start with the conclusion and work your way back through the plot. Jesse never does explain how large banks hoping to cash in on cap and trade equals no global warming, but he doesn't have to! Cap and trade has provided a convenient target to shoot at, and deflect attention from the facts of climate change, and the malfeasance of the big oil companies. Here's the link if you have the time to waste watching this episode or others in the series. Also, Mother Jones has an expose on how cap and trade could provide yet one more derivatives market scheme to cause a financial meltdown: Could Cap and Trade Cause Another Market Meltdown?

Ultimately, there's not much point to trying to force people to do activities that they are not enjoying. Exercise should be something that's enjoyable, and something to look forward to during the day....not an obligation to try to get in shape. As long as I've had a Y or other fitness club membership, it never fails that the gym is packed in January, and then after a few weeks, when those New Year's resolutions become distant memories, then there's lots of free space in the weight room or on any of the machines! The most productive way for people who think they're too busy to exercise, to get some simple aerobic exercise, is to leave the car in the driveway, and walk, run or bike anywhere that's less than two miles away. I usually run to work three days a week, and run to the gym.....I don't see a whole lot of point to jumping in the car to drive to a fitness club, and running on a treadmill or an eliptical machine etc.

Our weather is directly affected by what's going on in the Arctic, not the Antarctic. The volume of ice on the Antarctic Continent isn't going to help us much if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice-free in a few decades: Ice-Free Arctic Ocean Possible In 30 Years, Not 90 As Previously Estimated and Arctic sea ice extent for December 2010 was the lowest in the satellite record for that month. These low ice conditions are linked to a strong negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, similar to the situation that dominated the winter of 2009-2010. It will mean catastrophe for the Arctic Ocean ecosystem; a weakening of the ocean conveyor system in the Northern Hemisphere....think about the effect a severely weakened Gulf Stream Current will have on Europe; and let's try to imagine how much worse the recent extremes in weather will be when there is no permanent Arctic Ice Cap to moderate temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

I don't think the answer to the youth fitness problem is more sports programs. Kids used to go out and play after school, but safety concerns, and kids stuck in afterschool programs, waiting for parents to come pick them up and drive to McDonalds on the way home, are a big part of what's wrong with modern life. The only physical activity most kids get, is highly structured sports programs, which just does not make up for all of the hours of inactivity during the week. Young children are supposed to be active most of the day. Unfortunately, they have to adjust to the sedentary life, or end up with a prescription for Ritalin.

But, on the downside, we have more obese, unhealthy people, driving up health costs and ending up in nursing homes at an earlier age.

No they won't! As long as there are people who believe that our world had to be created, and 'someone's watching over them' there will be some form of religious organization to channel those beliefs. I don't believe that we have to create specifically non-religious organizations. The ones I've attended don't seem to have much of a sense of community; it's not much more than listening to a lecture or hanging out a pub....which is fine in itself, but where do atheists go for weddings and funerals? I don't see any specifically atheist groups trying to create a real community. Atheists who want something more than a place to hang out, can find a more satisfying alternative at a Unitarian church (if there's one nearby). As mentioned before, we use two different methods of understanding to make sense of everything; and no one is completely rational...not even Richard Dawkins! The difference is that, where there is a conflict, naturalists are going to discount their intuitions for what seems like a logical answer, whereas the believers are going to stick by how they feel....so, regardless of the dangers of religion, it's not going to go away, especially now at a time when things are getting worse for a lot of people.

I never said there aren't going to be problems with trying advance rules applied by religions. But, theologians and religious leaders that are open to the results of empirical knowledge, are going to be a lot more pragmatic about applying their rules, than the rigid fundamentalists, who have tied themselves to a stake, and driven it into the ground. Many times the religious leaders are aware that their reasoning can cause unneeded harms, and they still insist on following their "higher principles." A good recent example would be the Catholic-affiliated hospital in Arizona, where the Catholic Church broke with because they had to perform an abortion to save a woman's life. A Church official told a reporter that he was fully aware that both the mother and the fetus would die, but still insisted that they had to follow their rules.

The God Delusion The Devil's Chaplain God is Not Great The End of Faith Letter To a Christian Nation Breaking The Spell My complaint is not with different approaches, and it should be pointed out that Richard Dawkins was a lot more strident in his opinions 15 years ago, when he wrote essays like "Viruses Of The Mind," and believed that all of our beliefs have come to us through good and bad meme ideas. Religious beliefs did not have any foundation in the way some people make sense of the world, but were instead the result of getting too many bad memes (religion) early in life. So, maybe he's moderated a bit in recent years, but Dawkins and the rest of the crew think that everybody should be able to find fulfillment and satisfaction going through life as a naturalist -- and I believe people use two different and competing modes of thinking (intuition and reasoning) to find answers. How much a person depends on one or the other methods of finding answers, will play a large role in determining whether or not they need to believe in supernatural causes, or in a designed universe. The new atheists should be taking a look at some of the stuff that is being learned about how children develop ideas, along with studies on older subjects in developmental psychology. A good place to start would be here: Supersense, by Bruce Hood An interview discussing the subjects of the book can be found here at the Brain Science Podcast.

That first graph looked awfully familiar -- likely because I'm sure it's the same one that a certain one-note charlie denier used to post and repost over and over again here. What makes me see red when this sort of information is published by climate change deniers is that they carefully cherrypick their information, and neglect to inform the intended reader of the strengths and weaknesses of such a chart. I only discovered this by taking the time to go to the original source, where the paleoclimate investigators themselves, discuss the higher range of errors from using chemical analysis of ancient rocks to determine temperatures, oxygen and carbon dioxide levels. Legitimate, honest researchers will show their cards upfront to a general audience. But these so-called "global warming skeptics" force the reader to find their mistakes and weaknesses. To me, it looks similar to the proofs of intelligent design and irreducible complexity; where evolution skeptics at the Discovery Institute play the same game of deliberately trying to misinform the public by leading their audience on to jump to the desired conclusions. My first objection to this notion that: 'if temps and CO2 levels were higher during the Phanerozoic, then everything's fine now' argument, is that this was half a billion years ago! We weren't living then, and neither were any of the plants and animals that make up our present ecosystem; so why would consider that we can just take comfort knowing that there were times in the past when things were worse? If we're going to just use examples from the past, why not use the Permian-Triassic Extinction period....... Which was also a time of rapidly rising CO2 levels, growing ocean acidification, and warming temperatures? Likely because there was that unpleasant mass extinction problem....which we are heading for again through neglect and ignorance. There is also that problem of accuracy in chemical analysis. A study published in Science last year, which used an improved form of chemical analysis, that more closely matches data gathered from other sources: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report You don't half to go back even 15 million years to ask whether we are creating a climate that will destroy civilization or worse! Our modern way of life....especially the kind of agriculture that we have become dependent on to feed 7 billion people, is based on hybrid plants that are less able to adapt to climate extremes than natural varieties....hence the collapse of the wheat harvests in Russia last year. Expect more of the same in future, due to an increasingly volatile climate, overuse of groundwater, and increased meat consumption in former third world nations: http://trendsupdates.com/collapse-of-world-food-blame-industrial-agriculture/

Why I hate socialism - communism and the like. Socialism and mob rule seem the same to me. Here we are, galloping down the road towards fascism, through a growing income gap, and a Conservative government that's promoting militarism and trying to appeal to rightwing religion; and Oleg's looking in his rear-view mirror at Communism!

From the previous link: If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is Antarctic sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). This strengthens the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas lead to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009). What they're saying is that a cooling of the stratosphere caused by ozone depletion, is not going to rebuild the Antarctic if it increases the number and power of storms. The waters surrounding the Antarctic are warming rapidly, as mentioned above, and an increase in storm activity is going to work against whatever cooling effects a drop in ozone production would cause.

Which is totally beside the point, since the Antarctic has always contained more ice than the Arctic Ocean! The core issue is that ice is disappearing at a more rapid rate than at any previous time in earth history. The effects of reduced ice are: imminent extinction of animals that have become specifically adapted to that environment and will not have time to adjust to the new environment; further increase in global warming due to reduced albedo because of disappearing ice; and if you're concerned about the increase in extreme weather of late -- expect more of the same and much worse -- since ice moderates temperature extremes, plus enables the ocean conveyor system that keeps the oceans circulating, and adding oxygen to ocean water. The only thing that's increasing overall is Antarctic sea ice, not the land-based glaciers. As a whole, the land ice is decreasing; regional increases like in the East Antarctic, are due to being part of a different weather system than the western half of the continent. In fact, the likely reason for the increase in the East Antarctic Glacier is from the precipitation coming from the areas of the Antarctic that are melting. Another point to keep in mind is that the Antarctic Ocean temperature is rising faster than the Arctic; so although it may take longer to disappear, the Antarctic is going to lose all of its ice also! http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-intermediate.htm

One of the ironic negative effects of the fight against air pollution, that really took off in the 70's is that it may have helped to contribute to global warming -- because the particulates in air pollution reduced the amount of sunlight hitting the Earth. That's right! Everybody just went by the basic assumption that since trees produce oxygen through photosynthesis, then planting trees and and everywhere could offset the damage done by human-produced CO2. And, closer examination reveals that northern forests absorb more sunlight and heat up the planet, so as the treeline moves further north, it is actually increasing the warming effect in the Arctic. Whatever way you slice it, there is no offsetting strategy that is going to make up for the damage done by man-made CO2 production. Now, nevermind the trees, the great unreported story on climate this year comes from a study published in Nature which reveals a 40% drop in phytoplankton in the world's oceans. It's not trees that provide most of the Earth's oxygen, it's the plants in the oceans; and the decline in sea plankton for reasons that are still not fully understood, means a drop in oxygen along with CO2 increases. This sort of thing happened during the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when the world's oceans essentially died, and over 90% of animal species became extinct. This is why some climatologists are starting to seriously consider whether present trends will lead to human extinction in less than two hundred years.