peter_puck
-
Posts
321 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by peter_puck
-
-
If you could miss Freeman Dyson then I would suggest that you really don't have the background to judge who's reputable and who's not.
That's like being unfamiliar with the name "Einstein" or "Hawking"!
Dyson makes Suzuki look like Carrot Top on a hangover morning...
I just noticed he was on this list, as I said, I didn't really pay attention to the whole list. Dyson is famous (more so for his influence on science fiction (Dyson sphere).
However, back to my point. His research in no way relates to global warming. His inclusion on that list is, at best, a celebrity endorsement. I don't buy Michael Jordan's underwear because he endorses it.
-
It appears some true conservatives have finally started coming to their senses about McCain's decision:
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/eon0830hm.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postparti...id=opinionsbox1
and they need to shut up. As much as I hate blind partisan behavior, now is the time for it. We have had the republican leader in the Alaskan senate say "she is not even qualified to be governor, much less vice-president". Her own mother-in-law questioned her qualifications.
There are people on this forum who would argue anybody was a good pick, no matter what sort of baggage they had. Those people should be given rolls of duct tape to put over the mouth of the next Republican or conservative media person to say something bad about Palin.
-
what do you mean not gain? Instead of a big pile of grain there is fuel. What do you think before ethanol farmers sat in the coffee shop all day? No wasting energy is producing grain to rot in a pile to be given away and be poorer as a result.
Again, you are using more fuel than you making (according to the figures you quoted in your last post). You may be right that producing grain to rot would waste more, but that is a lousy argument. It is like choosing between coke and speed. If I can't choose something productive, choose nothing at all. If there is no market for something then don't make it.
No market for ethanol??? Tell that to the Americans. 4 bucks a gallon plus an energy policy that is rivalling the space race tells me there is a market for ethanol.Then why are you not using this wonderful cheap fuel in your farm equipment ? Take away the subsidies and it cost more than $4 to make. Make the consumer pay the real price (no subsidies and the same tax as gas) and nobody will use ethanol again.
The Alberta oil subsidy is not a dumb idea, it provided the startup to get the infrastructure to produce more oil and attract investment in order to pump it out in the first place. Same with ethanol.I disagree that the subsidy was a good idea. But thats beside the point. The subsidy was used to jump start a technology that had the potential to be profitable.
Corn ethanol will never be a suitable fuel. Its not a matter about how you refine it, its a matter of the energy in the plant.
Why is paying ADM a waste of money, the better they do, the better my stock portfolio is. If your concerned with ADM making a fortune, invest in the company.Because you are paying them to waste money!. What does Canada get for its 2 Billion ? Why not take that 2 Billion dollars and pay farmer to bury a few million Canadian Tire power boxes in their fields. Canadian tire stock will go up, farmers will make money.
Why not spend the money to try to come up with a viable technology. Cellulose ethanol will be a game changer once it is perfected. Why not spend the money there.
As for underestimating Dion, I am underestimating his logic. I am being punished for doing my part to improve the environment.Making ethanol is not doing your part to improve the environment. As for other things farmers do.......I think the tax should be aimed at those people who have the ability to change. I really don't know enough about farming to say how farmers can improve fuel consumption, but if there is little they can do, there is little point in taxing them under a carbon tax plan. (which again, is too blunt an instrument). I would support an idiot tax. Want to buy a Hummer, here is your tax. New home built with poor insulation - here is your bill. Just bought a tank water heater -here you go. Want to use those old light bulbs ? Its gonna cost you.
-
It'll be pretty tough to keep burning fossil fuels if we really do run out. Won't the problem have taken care of itself then?
I think that is what may happen unless we get better technology. We can get Americans to live like the French, but they make up such a tinny percentage of the world population, it won't matter.
Its going to be hard to explain to some guy in Africa he has to give up his pedal bike to prevent global warming.
-
And I refuted your points - point by point.
Then you are misunderstanding the points. If you look at the context of my statement that I responded to your points one by one, it was a response to your statement that I always "appeal to authority". I appeal to authority because every time I point out a fundamental flaw in your logic, you miss the point. Your quote two competing theories to make your points. You make statements that show you don't understand the theory you are quoting from. It takes me time to sift through the latest anti-AGW myth. An appeal to authority is much faster.
I did not mention this, but, the most recent solar research (see anything by Leif Svalgaard) suggests that the sun's irradiance has not only stayed constant for the last 30 years - it has also not likely changed over the last million years.This is a major problem for climate modellers b.................
Didn't the "Great Global Warming Hoax" argue that global warming was caused by increased solar irradiance ??
Didn't many of the people you quote advocate that position ??/
Didn't AGW types argue there was no significant effect from solar irradiance ???
Now you are saying that being proven right (AGAIN ) is a problem for AGW supporters ??
Really? The IPCC was set up in order to advise governments on anthrogenic climate change. i.e. it biased towards exgarrating the role of anthrogenic climate change because that is why it is exists. Without anthrogenic climate change there would be no IPCC. I don't see how anyone could describe the IPCC as "unbaised".Conspiracy theories are not evidence. One section of the IPCC was meant to address the cause. They could have blamed solar radiation, farting cows, volcanic activity. They chose carbon dioxide.
The peer reviewed process is deeply flawed and should never be used as final arbitrator on the "truth". Real world experiments and real world data are the only arbitrator of truth.Any organized scientific process that does not support your views seems to be flawed. If the peer reviewed process is so flawed, why is it deemed so important in the academic world. In terms of prestige and promotions ?
Certainly a handful of people think its flawed, usually because they didn't get tenure because they had not written enough. I don't watch hockey with a fan of a certain hockey team, cause each game he will point out how the ref cost his team the game.
Actually, we could forget about the bun fight over the science and just discuss this one because I disagree with it. I do agree that we need to reduce our dependency on oil, however, I believe that it will be impossible to get rid of oil without reasonably priced electricity - an objective that will be impossible if coal is rejected as source of electricity. The idea that wind, solar or other renewables could supply our electricity needs is a cruel joke.You missed nuclear.
-
I'm sure this article has shown up in many posts but I'll post it again. It's an open letter to the United Nations on behalf of many, many renowned scientists:
Link: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/s....html?id=164002
Signatories include:
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
There are a handful of valid names on there...no where close to 50. I don't have time to google everbody, but
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist (social scientist?)
David Nowell, M.Sc. No Phd
Timothy F. Ball Nuff said.
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc. No Phd
William Kininmonth M.Sc No Phd
Rob Scagel, M.Sc. No Phd
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Not a scientist
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist;
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy Not a scientist
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, A
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director
Louis Hissink MS
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist (string theory ??)
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics Molecular Genetics ????
Bryan Leyland, An expert on hydro power (I had to google him)
Gary D. Sharp <- A fish guy
I suppose if I didn't have to go to sleep, I would google all those people to show that most are not climate experts, but I am getting tired of this.
You could probably find that many Phd's taking taxi rides around Toronto.
What I am looking for is people who have a relevant education who do relevant research.
An engineer and a scientist are two different things.
A Biologist is not a climate expert.
Emeritus Professor means retired (or in Dr Ball's case it means you have made another accidental addition to your rsme)
Some guy who spent his life researching protein folding has no expertise in climate modeling, even if he has a Phd in chemistry.
-
Because you can't debate the facts so you make endless appeals to authority and expect people to take your POV seriously. The issue with the IPCC and the hockey stick is well documented and IMO, only the willfully blind insist that no mistakes were made on the part of the IPCC. You don't have to be a climate scientist to understand - but you do have to stop insisting that scientists are these non-political infallibale gods. They are human like the rest of us and make mistakes and have agendas.
I have spend a silly amount of time showing the errors in your logic of you and your confederates. I have spent hours reading and picking apart the latest "proof" that AGW is false. I researched the list of "400 prominent scientists who disagree with AGW". I have read many of the abstracts of the "1500 peer reviewed articles against global warming". I looked into many of the "peer reviewed scientific journals" they were included in.
I responded point for point for the article that started this thread. I have dusted off old textbooks from school.
I have researched the absorption spectrum of C02. I have analyzed photos of the arctic showing what appeared on the surface to be a dramatic increase in ice cover since the 80's. I looked into the equipment NASA has pointed at the sun. I read articles describing the distribution of the antarctic ice sheet.
I know more than I care to know about temperature and planets, the cycle of solar flares, the ties between Exxon and the anti-AGW community, Dr Bells resume, historic temperature changes, I have looked at pictures of poorly placed weather stations. I have watched the "Great Global Warming Hoax"
I have simply don't have the time to research every time someone puts some bit of crap on the internet.
A rediculous peice of circular logic. You can't say every group of scientists because you know it is not true so you add the caveat "unbaised" where you define the term "unbiased" to mean "agrees with AGW".I know its not true ? Then name the group I know about!. Unbiased means something I could recognize. Something that was not created for the sole purpose of being a group of anti-AGW scientists. A national organization, a professional organization, a UN committee set up to investigate the topic SOMETHING.
To give an example, the world is full of peer-reviewed scientific journals. Submissions to these journals are reviewed by experts in the field and publish what is deemed to be good studies. Most hard core anti-AGW stuff never got into these publications because they were crap. In response somebody set up a "peer-reviewed" journal that published only anti-AGW stuff. Instead of a committee of experts, the scientific papers were reviewed by a lady who had not taken a single science course since high school. Even though the journal is not recognized by scientists in the field, papers written in this are constantly called peer reviewed research by right wing politicians. That is the sort of thing I would call biased.
So? Scientific bodies are political organizations. Even then they are not united. A significant number of geologists are skeptical much to the consternation of the climate modellers.Okay. Here we can agree to disagree. You think the large number of organizations that have supported global warming have only done so because they are run by groups of people who want to deceive you. The Association of Petroleum Engineers have eliminated there anti-AGW statements simply because they are run by liberal tree huggers. George Bush has signed up because he is a closet liberal, same with Newt Gingrich and John McCain.
Good enough.
There is always a minority skeptical of everything. There are doctors who think High Blood Pressure is not really a cause of heart disease. Some think drinking your own urine is good for you. Some think vaccines cause autism. Some people insist that flouride (can't believe I forgot how to spell that) causes cancer.
Really? Have you looked at India's recent report? Here is what it says on p. 15:Link is dead.
So what will you say if it turns out that the skeptics are right after we have wasted trillions on a hopeless cause?Well, until we solve the oil crisis, the money will not be wasted. Global Warming is nothing compared to the threat of peak oil (bitch with peak oil is that the skeptics will be wrong some day). If the AGW mafia doesn't force us to become better consumers of energy, the markets will.
I don't know how bad Global Warming will be. From an economic perspective it will probably even benefit Canada . I do know, long term, we cannot use fossil fuel like we do.
-
I believe that the 2nd amendment is one of the pillars of democracy. The ability to protect are families and ourselves from individuals and GOVERNMENT is a sacred right. And its one I would die to protect. Gun control is a violation of my civil rights. Now I don't think people need fully automatic weapons to protect there families. But I don't think a semi automatic ar-15 qualifies as a danger to society either. If you look at the top 10 guns used in crime it does not even make the list. Anyways thats my 2 cents. Discuss.
I look at it from a cost benefit perspective as opposed to a moral one.
How many benefits has modern gun ownership brought compared to what would have happened under prohibition.
Even better, we can break it down by groups.
Do we have a net benefit from teflon coated bullets that can go through a police officers bullet proof vest?
What is the net benefit from automatic machine guns ?
What is the cost/benefit of a shotgun in rural Alberta. What is the benefit of a semi-automatic pistol in downtown Detroit?
I think we should weigh the costs against the benefits. I grew up in a rural area where people used to bring guns to school during hunting season and nobody thought about it (this was pre columbine). I don't see the harm of a hunting gun in a rural area.
On the other hand, a machine pistol with telfon coated bullets is silly.
Personally, I think we should allow long hunting rifles, license hand guns, ban silly weapons and "cop killer" bullets.
You could leave some of the regulation to the cities. If Toronto wants to ban all guns, thats their business. If some rural town in Alberta wants to loosen regulations somewhat, let them.
The government regulates what kinds of drugs I can possess.
The government regulates the car i drive.
The government tells me how fast I can drive
If the government can ban light bulbs and license dogs, I see what makes owning a bazooka so special (some guy at the NRA said people should be allowed to own them on principle)
-
As you can probably tell from the length of my posts, I'm a lawyer.
Anyhow, in my trial practice class, a law professor used to say that the most powerful conclusion is one a juror makes after you give him no other choices. I think the best way to make the "heartbeat away" argument stick is not to actually articulate it, but to dismantle her and let the people at home think "holy sh_t! this is the woman who's one heartbeat away from the Oval Office?!"To a point. I think you have to be really worried about tearing her apart like they did Quayle. She seems like a very likable and competent person. She has a very compelling story. She will no doubt appear on The View and charm people.
An attack dog like Joe Biden tearing her apart in a debate might backfire. "I knew Hillary Clinton, I worked with Hilary Clinton - you are no Hillary Clinton" would be a disaster.
Mind you, all they would have to do would be to quote from right wing blogs. The "She isn't even qualified to be governor comment from that Republican from Alaska would be a start.
-
If McCain wins the election - which is what I expect - Obama and H Clinton become minor footnotes to history (as is the case always with the losing side in a Presidential election) and Sarah Palin immediately becomes a major figure in the struggle for women's rights.
With her opinions of birth control and abortion, she will be thought of as a figure for womens rights ?
I suppose Clarence Thomas is going to be though of as a major figure in the civil rights movement ?
-
You would have a hard time providing 50 people that would your meet the criteria and support AGW because (as you say) climate science is a very narrow field. The overwhelming number of scientists expressing their opinion of AGW do not have the expertise that would allow them to determine whether the models are useless or not, yet this does not stop them from insisting the models must be correct and using them to justify all kinds of claims. OTOH, many scientists who have experience with numerical models in unrelated fields are very skeptical of model reliability.
This criteria woud eliminate a number of pro-AGW scientists such as Mann and his collaborators. Here is an excellent summary of the tale of the hockey stick: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/200...esus-paper.html
Due to time constraints, I have decided not to argue pseudo scientific bullshit with you anymore.
Just let me point out:
There is not a single unbiased group of scientists anywhere in the world that agree with you.
There is not one major scientific society that doubts global warming (The petroleum engineers just gave up)
There are numerous scientific organizations that support it.
There is not a single country that opposes the concept of global warming.
There are many that support it.
If you want to argue one of the above points- go ahead. If you want to argue that every one of these groups are controlled by AL Gore go ahead.
Since I am not a climate scientist, I will defer to the scientific community when deciding what to do.
-
In another thread debating this issue it was pointed out that it takes 7 barrells of oil to make 8 of ethanol.
Thats not gain. The energy density of ethanol is much less than diesel. You could travel farther on the barrel of oil than you could on the 8 barrels of ethanol. Energy density of crude is maybe 50% more or so. So 7 barrels of oil would equal 10.5 of ethanol in terms of energy. (yes, its more complicated than that but this is the readers digest version)
In another thread debating this issue it wasCorn shows a gain in energy production, before it was made into tortillas and given away, now it's worth something and helping meet energy demands.
If there is no market for something, it shouldn't be made. The tortilla give away was dumb idea, but not any dumber than the biofuel idea.
My time's not being wasted, my time out in the field is now profitable. This was a much better way to address the financial situation of family farmers. Instead of 4 billion dollars going to grain farm programs which didn't do anything, 2.3 billion is being spent and jobs and better returns are all over the place.According to your own figures above: You take a 7 barrels of oil and turn it into the energy equivalent of 5.5 barrels of oil. You no doubt spend a lot of time and energy doing this. You may make a profit at it, but in terms of Canada as nation, you are doing worse than wasting your time. You are being paid to waste energy.
With gas prices they are today, ethanol would have been productive to start right now without subsidies, the US and Canadian gov't just was proactive.GOOD!, lets let private industry solve the problem and end the subsidies!!
Does an Alberta oilfield subsidy in the 1990's not make sense?No! My point is , ethanol is a bad idea. You can argue all you want that there are dumber ideas, but that doesn't make yours (ethanol) less dumb.
If we want to grow are own energy, we should be spending our money trying to make it produce a clear energy gain and be profitable. Every dollar we pay ADM to waste money and energy could be better spent trying to find a way to convert cellulose into fuel in an economical way.
-
Thousands of scientists disagree with the AGW hypothesis. No, they don't all agree with this particular scientist, but that's how science works. People test and falsify each others ideas to find the real answers. It's the polar opposite of how the AGW proponents work. They came up with the conclusion first, then fabricated the evidence to fit the models they came up with, then shout down anyone who actually wants to challenge their conclusions.
Can you name them ? The US senate published a list of 400 "prominent" scientists who disputed global warming. That list turned out to be garbage.
Could you even give me 50 people who:
Have a Phd in a relavant science (chemistry, physics, mathematics etc)
AND
Have done relevant research (Science is a very specialized. A guy may have spent his entire life trying to figure out how electrons orbit a hydrogen atom - this does not make you a global warming expert)
AND
Have not committed some form of academic fraud.
AND
are published in peer reviewed scientific publications (by a peer reviewed publication I mean one which is recognized in the scientific community. A bare minimum would require someone with a science degree as editor )
-
You are assuming that the sun can only affect climate directly via changes in irradiance. The solar-cosmic ray link proposes that changes in the sun's magnetic field affects the climate. The sun-cosmic ray theory is accepted as a valid theory by the climate science community - they only claim that its effect has not been proven to exist. I realize the scientist quoted used the term 'irradiance' but it is a short article and I am not sure of the context.
There is a huge hole in your logic here. The small minority of people who cling to this solar magnetic field idea say it changes climate because it causes changes in cloud cover. Mars does not have clouds of water vapor. IF you held to this "solar magnetic field" idea, you would be expecting Mars to stay the same, not warm!
If the solar effect is indirect then the magnititude of the warming will depend on how this indirect effect plays out on each planet.Again, indirect means a change in the atmosphere. Mars does not have an earth like atmosphere.
An non-argument unless you have evidence that the rest of the planet is warming. If you don't have such evidence then you cannot claim that the poles are not representative of the planet.What I am saying is that it is not a good way to measure temperature. Anti-AGW types say we cannot measure the temperature of the earth despite all are equipment. Why are a handful of photographs of the clouds a few years apart proof of anything.
BTW - the entire catastrophic GW theory is depends heavily on climate sensitivity estimates dervived from polar ice core data which are assumed to be representative of the entire planet. So if you want to reject the 'mars is warming theory' because the poles are not representative then you will have to reject the catastrophic GW theory too.You are measuring - very indirectly - the amount of ice on mars over a short period of time. Ice core samples (and nobody calls this perfect data either, just we don't have ice core samples from Florida) are taken over a very long period of time.
Science is not a democracy. Anyone who upsets the status quo will find his arguments rejected by the majority until the supporting evidence is to much to ignore. In this case, proposing that the sun is affecting the climate on other planets is not a radical concept even if it has political ramifications on this planet.Sigh. All these guys with Phd's are so much dumber than you are.
This is what is called a red herring. The green house effect is not being disputed.By some anti_AGW types it is. In other forums of have tried to explain it to people and they have demanded some sort of proof.
In this case, I was pointing out that the scientist who posted this is far outside the scientific mainstream on other points.
My pet peeve with this debate is what I call "uncertainty denial". i.e. the tendency for proponents of a pet theory (alarmist or sceptical) to claim a certainty that simply does not exist given the data available. The alarmist claims cannot be proven and there is no data that conclusively supports their predictions of catastrophic future warming (the data that does exists suggests warming is proceeding at a much slower rate than would be expected if the alarmists theories were correct) yet alarmists insist that they have proven their case and that trillion-dollar government investments are required.Thats what the cancer stick companies said for years. That is what the absestos industry said. Thats what they said about PCB's. Its right in the play book.
-
I completely disagree. Comparing the inexperience of a possible VP, to the inexperience of a possible President, is a debate the McCain campaign is comfortable having.
Here is a test. Go look at all the liberals who were critical of Biden as unfit. Then go look at all the non-social conservatives who have criticized Palin.
To have this sort of debate within your own party AFTER you have made the pick has unprecedented. Even Quayle did not garner this sort of reaction at the start.
To turn your biggest advantage into a weakness is suicide (to quote one conservative commentator)
If I could vote there, I would vote for McCain, but I sure hope he takes his vitamins.
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...rs-warming.html
This is an interesting article from National Geographic.
The article states that this is the view of one scientist whose views are rejected by the rest of the scientific community. This is part of the "warming planets myth".
The warming planet myth is the idea that it is somehow the output of the sun that is responsible for global warming.
The "proof" of this is that other planets in the solar system are getting warmer as well.
Here are some of the reasons why this is rejected.
1. NASA has all sorts of instruments pointed directly at the sun that measure solar output. Aren't they a much better measure of solar output than a measurement of the ice caps on mars. Why don't they show fluctuations showing what the anti-AGW crowd refer to ?
2. Some planets in the solar system are getting colder.
3. The temperature measured is only for a certain part of Mars. Mars could actually be getting colder. If you take the temperature of certain parts of the earth over time, they will actually be getting colder. Its the average that counts.
4. How many planet scientists has this guy got to agree with him ? Most planet scientists unconnected to the AGW debate talk about dust storms (weather) or planet wobble as being the cause.
5. This guys view of the effect of CO2 on climate rejects most science on the subject going back to the 1800's. He rejects most of the "greenhouse effect" - the only thing preventing most of the earth turning into a giant ball of ice.
Also, lets look at how the anti-AGW crowd would look at this type of evidence. They say that are vast array of satellites and ground weather stations are not enough to measure the climate properly on earth, yet they feel that a handful of pictures of the ice caps of Mars are PROOF that the whole planet is warming. They feel that climate models run by supercomputers are totally inaccurate, but restaurant napkin calculations can prove their "warming solar system" model.
-
Palin is overwhelmingly considered to be a poor choice... among people who are already enthusiastic Obama supporters.
Whoever he chose, would have been absolutely the wrong choice.
Well, I am pro McCain, and I think the pick was a (potential) disaster. You are right that the Obama camp would have probably said whoever was chosen was not a wise pick, but this time, they are right.
Why pick a candidate with such a glarring weakness and no real strengths ?
-
It doesn't have to be justified....she meets all the constitutional requirements to be vice president and president.
By that logic, the average hobo on the street corner would be an acceptable choice (as would many members of the Taliban).
Somehow, I think the bar should be set a little higher.
-
CTV: Liberal MP to sit as Green
Welcome news. Welcome new federal party. There's no excuse now to have Greens excluded from the debates. New and hopefully, fresh air is much welcome in the stale federal politics.
They are picking up a MP that the *Liberals* rejected for ethical reasons. He is joining the Greens because nobody else will take him.
Garth Turner would have fit, this just looks like hypocritical.
-
I would agree with what you are saying if you produced something of value with crops that go towards fuel. I don't think the family farmer is the bad guy here- its the large companies like ADM (the same people that destroyed the US family farm through price fixing in the 70's) are.
The problem is that for every BTU of ethanol you produce, you consume a BTU of diesel. Some studies show this is negative, some say its positive, but nobody shows that corn ethanol produces a large gain in energy. We are not making energy, we are converting diesel to ethanol.(while wasting vast amounts of good farm land and farmers time).
If you want to address the financial situation of the family farmer, this is not the way to do it. If you want to address the fuel shortage, this is not the way to do it.
If ethanol can be run without a subsidy, then fine, but until then, it makes no sense.
-
...says the rube with his tits caught in his racist wringer.
Lets recap here. I said Clarence Thomas was not a qualified jurist. I pointed out that he had only one years experience as a judge (among other things).
Instead of presenting one iota of evidence that he was a qualified jurist you keep calling me racist (and "rube", I think there was also some other sort of insult in another thread as well)
Are your arguments/mind so weak thats all you can come up with ?
-
And this is the fatal flaw in the Republican strategy: 'we need a woman.....and with our limited reservoir of qualified women and minorities, any woman will have to do!'
There's a huge gap in qualifications between Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and she better be as smart and charismatic as Republican mouthpieces are now claiming, to avoid falling flat on her face during a debate with Joe Biden.
The Republicans have a track record of promoting their relatively few minorities into jobs that they aren't able to manage: Condoleeza Rice, Clarence Thomas, Alberto Gonzales, or the attempt to put Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court come to mind.
They have lots of qualified women available. Thats what drives me NUTS!. What causes very smart, very experienced politicians like the first Bush and McCain to screw their chance at being elected but putting a ball of fluff on the ticket ?
(note, when I say "ball of fluff" in regards to Palin, I am talking about her resume) She seems like a very bright, very personable lady. She has an 80% approval rating or something as a governor.
This would have been a reasonable pick if McCain were desperate, a "hail Mary" pass if you will. But the score is getting tighter and its still early in the game.
-
For being "white"? I don't think so....your racist ranting has been exposed.
Yea....I guess the "white" people would know.
You choice of straw men is as stoopid as your choice of names (bush_cheney).
-
What's with this "we" stuff? Will Canada bomb Iran with hockey pucks?
"we" as in the west (I thought that was obvious) Unilateral bombings may or may not be effective, unilateral sanctions can't. It would be very difficult to totally stop the Iranian nuclear program with bombs. The only way to stop them is to stop them from selling oil (of course, just like bombing their is an ugly cost).
Gun Control
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
This is not 1776. There is little chance of our government becoming a dictatorship. If it did, there is little chance that you are going to be able to do anything about it. (did you watch the war in Iraq?)
Does that same right apply to members of the Crips or Islamists ?
How about the other pillars from the era of the American Democracy. Slavery and powdered wigs. Gun ownership to protect you from the government is just as outdated.