|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The A’s want to build their ballpark and mall village on low-lying land west of Interstate 880, less than half a mile from a tidal channel. With ocean levels expected to rise as the globe heats up, the high tides that churn up that channel could turn the A’s ballpark into prime waterfront property—or into soup.
“You are talking about a meter rise of the sea level by the end of the century (around the bay),’’ said Will Travis, executive director of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which helps regulate shoreline construction.
But of course,
The A’s seem unfazed by the warming warning, saying they wouldn’t be proceeding with planning for a Fremont ballpark if they thought water was a worry.
Besides, said team spokesman Jim Young, “a century is a long way off, and I won’t be available for comment in a hundred years when it becomes a problem.’‘
100 years ago, Babe Ruth was already 12, the American League had existed for six years, and the Cubs had won their last World Series. Time goes by faster than people think.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (25 - 5:52pm, Feb 10)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6121 - 5:51pm, Feb 10)Last: billyshearsNewsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (12 - 5:43pm, Feb 10)Last: Tricky DickNewsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (43 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: lieiamNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (9 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: AROMNewsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors! (7 - 5:33pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (9 - 5:32pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (409 - 5:29pm, Feb 10)Last: Athletic Supporter leads the nation in driftersNewsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (292 - 5:23pm, Feb 10)Last: Moe GreeneTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (51 - 5:19pm, Feb 10)Last: Davo the MagnificentNewsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (38 - 5:04pm, Feb 10)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis! (17 - 4:43pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee ClapperSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (2 - 4:39pm, Feb 10)Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded kneeNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (23 - 4:36pm, Feb 10)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: Whatever Happened to the Spitball? (25 - 4:21pm, Feb 10)Last: Something Other
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
As a man who enjoys the wild, I have had close quarters with many a wild one.
Based solely on my lame, imperfect, completely amateur perception AND knowing that what a person writes is not always what a person means your second comment in post 89 is the dumbest godd*mn thing I have read on this or any other site, forum, blog, or alternative electronic messaging format.
HW,
I'm no farmer, but as a geologist I've spent plenty of time "in the wild". I've run across, and killed, my share of animals.
And the notion of valuing any animal life, in any quantity, over one human life, is incomprehensible to me. They're animals, not people. They're not citizens, and the government does not have a sworn obligation to protect their rights. We eat them, gluttonously.
Again, my view is simple.
Humans>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Animals.
Always.
Of course, I did buy gas this morning. Does that make me part of the evil Big Oil conspriacy?
I've seen Foley use a lot of crazy things as weapons, but I must have missed that particular match.
Now that's the kind of creative thinking we need to deal with global warming.
Your follow up doesn't jibe with your original comment. Now you are stating that human life is of greater value than animal life. That is very different than stating animals have no value.
All I am asking is for consistency.
And while I agree with you in general terms if I am stuck between choosing between my horse and most people, well, those folks haven't hauled my sorry *ss from here to there a 1001 times.
The last time there was sustained global warming (@1000 years ago), it was a net boon to mankind. The population exploded, there was expanded trade and exploration, bumper crops, etc.
The downside was that the better weather meant that the Normans and Mongols could go buck-wild.
Of course, humanity is a lot less mobile now, so the benefits gained from newly-fertile areas might be offset by the costs of having to abandon other areas. We have a lot more invested in the status quo than our ancestors did.
Sigh. It is a shame that all governments look at is the short term (now until the next election) as a rule thus making breakthroughs far harder to achieve. To me the end point is clearly - make it cheaper to be environmentally friendly than not to be. Then, and only then, will China, India, and other countries jump on board.
In many cases of environmental protection, property or means of earning a living are deprived from people in order to protect animals.
I agree with that, as long as you're protecting animals for the betterment of other people. But compelling a human to pay for the protection of animals for animals' sake is, to me, misguided. What if someone took your farm because it was necessary to protect an obscure endangered species? It's much easier to impose these rules on someone else; "Sure, I like otters...so lets make rules that protect otters!".
Truth in advertising. The "national health care" thread was ostensibly about John Kerry calling on the FCC to investigate MLB's deal with DirecTV. The "9/11 revisited" thread was ostensibly about the Sporting News opening up their archives. Here at least you know what you're getting into.
When did he take over the oval office? I agree that Kerry would have made an awful president, one of the worst ever. There are few things worse than living under his administration. Unfortunately one of them is living under the Bush administration.
Now that's the kind of creative thinking we need to deal with global warming.
Don't laugh; it'll probably be proposed in Bush's next State of the Union message. I originally got the idea from a guy named Abramoff, who for quite awhile seemed to be the Republicans' most prominent spokesman for tribal cultures.
Sadly, I'm not. My first response was going to be something like, "thinking like that will get you far in this admin."
Thank you for educating me. I thought plants did breath. So whatever goes through their noses doesn't reach lung? Next thing you'll tell me plants don't have noses, and I need to stop drinking so much. Anyway, see how much a plant likes an atmosphere without any CO2 in it.
Why couldn't you just be an evil guy who happens to buy gas from the evil Big Oil conspiracy?
Very interesting article. From the story:
"Another way to look at that," says Ted, "if we could capture all the energy reaching us from the earth in one hour and turn it into electricity we could power the earth for a year."
Why do so many global warming alarmists overlook the sun's effect on global warming?
I would guess much of the savings from our cheaper heating bills would be offset by our much higher cooling bills.
Not to mention the cost of relocating our coastal cities and towns. And changing ocean currents will not simply result in a small increase in mean temperature across the board. Some places may well get colder. Places we think of as temperate now may end up ravaged by tropical diseases.
It would be fantastically expensive to stop emitting carbon tomorrow. It would not be fantastically expensive to slow the rate of growth of carbon emissions, and then gradually reduce them. In fact, the country developing the technology to do so stands to make a huge pile of cash.
The cost of Kyoto and other carbon emission measures is diffuse amongst billions of people, while the cost of global warming is concentrated among a few Inuit. But nevertheless, its possible (and I would argue, nearly certain) that the cost of ruining the Inuit way-of-life, however you choose to quantify it, is less than the impact of greenhouse gas reduction measures integrated among everyone else on Earth. So the Inuit, Pacific Islanders, and other people with unique vulnerabilites to climate change, may get "sacrificed" for the wider good.
The cost of global warming is borne by more than a few Inuit and Pacific islanders. Something like a quarter of the world's population lives within 20 miles of the coast. We're talking more severe hurricanes and flooding around the globe. Ocean levels rising. By 2100, if not sooner, wheat will not be able to be grown in the Midwest, the Ukraine, or northern China. That will put immense pressures on the world's food supply. We can also expect an increase in tropical diseases, such as malaria and yellow fever, in areas where they are not now present and where the population hasn't built up any resistance.
Why do so many global warming alarmists overlook the sun's effect on global warming?
Do they? Is the sun any more intense now than it's been for the last couple thousand years? I don't mean the energy reaching earth. I mean is the sun itself any brighter than it's been for a long, long time?
The argument that we don't have to wait until the end of the century baffles me, do the predictions think that the sea level will stay consistent and then suddenly go up 3 feet? Also the sea level isn't a constant and in the bay is more unpredictable due to the large amount of water trying to fit through a relatively small opening to the open ocean. The tide + storm surge that used to be a once in a century (or record levels) mark could be reached much more often. This isn't a bath tub we're talking about here people.
Angels stadium is far enough inland.
By 2100, if not sooner, wheat will not be able to be grown in the Midwest, the Ukraine, or northern China.
Grow it in Siberia and Alaska then.
Equating the two extremes of this debate is pretty lazy.
when you say that, i really think you should specify which side is more irresponsible.
The Canadian:
Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
i agree with everything in #10.
these maps of flooded metropolitan areas are a bit manipulative. will global warming really happen so fast that human's 100 years from now won't somehow be able to prevent manhattan from ending up under water?
and if large chunks of the bay area are underwater, the a's would just move to sacramento or las vegas.
A poor tactic, and its continuation will be highly counterproductive. People can see through such things, or at least enough can eventually. Just makes it easier for the inevitable rebuttal.
The sun goes in cycles. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385
The research team had already in 2003 found evidence that the Sun is more active now than in the previous 1000 years. A new data set has allowed them to extend the length of the studied period of time to 11,400 years, so that the whole length of time since the last ice age could be covered. This study showed that the current episode of high solar activity since about the year 1940 is unique within the last 8000 years. This means that the Sun has produced more sunspots, but also more flares and eruptions, which eject huge gas clouds into space, than in the past. The origin and energy source of all these phenomena is the Sun's magnetic field.
Inventing self-sustaining nuclear fusion will accomplish the same thing and more, and that's more realistic than the idea that we could actually capture and convert 100% of the sun's energy that reach earth.
I've been to an island chain in Indonesia which has always had malaria and 50% of children die by age 5, mostly due to malaria. There is no resistance gained by the population. I agree with you that this could become a huge issue.
Can you post the citation for this assertion?
You sound a bit like Chicken Little here. I live in Kansas, and come from a family of wheat farmers. If we can't grow wheat in Kansas, we'll grow something else while they grow it in Montana. Or they'll develop a wheat crop that thrives in warmer weather. It is called adapting; that's what life is all about.
AS for the increase in tropical disease, I don't buy it either. Frankly, if environmentalists were so concerned about malaria deaths maybe they shouldn't raise such a stink whenever DDT is brought into the conversation. You want to stop malaria? Mosquito nets and sprays will do far, far more good than the Kyoto agreement.
Bingo. Yes, right now we're entering a phase called a "solar maxima" where the sun is indeed hotter than its been for several thousand years. At least one recent book has cited this as the main cause of global warming.
Whether or not that's a popular conception among climatologists, it seems that "warmer Sun = warmer Earth" is a pretty basic equation that must be having some not insignificant effect.
And I believe the earlier point made was that animals have no value except for what humans derive from them.
Inventing self-sustaining nuclear fusion will accomplish the same thing and more, and that's more realistic than the idea that we could actually capture and convert 100% of the sun's energy that reach earth.
but why do we need 100%, wouldn't we be able to rely only on energy from the sun if we could capture 1/8760 of it?
The Canadian:
Global Warming Could Kill 4.5 Billion by 2012
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/01/08/01291.html
LOL...so to support your argument, you cite an article in an obscure Canadian newspaper that has this article on its homepage:
Scientists confirm Extraterrestrial genes in Human DNA
Collaborative research from a gathering of exo-scientists postulate that there are genes from over 20 extraterrestrials civilizations in Human DNA. These exo-scientists have continued the work... Read More
Are you claiming that this newspaper is representative of the "global warming is a threat" side?
but wait, isn't citing some random example good enough?
after all, aren't we discussing "the most irresponsible people" on both sides of the global warming debate?
but wait, isn't citing some random example good enough?
after all, aren't we discussing "the most irresponsible people" on both sides of the global warming debate?
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!
"representative" of either side and "the most irresponsible people" on either side are obviously very different.
LOL. How much extra do you think it costs a farmer to plant soybeans or corn instead of wheat?
It was an absurd claim anyway. Wheat is grown from Texas to Canada in the United States. Global warming isn't going to change that.
LOL. How much extra do you think it costs a farmer to plant soybeans or corn instead of wheat?
It was an absurd claim anyway. Wheat is grown from Mexico to Canada in North America. Global warming isn't going to change that.
I find that view completely immoral. Do you think it's ok to kick a stray dog b/c it isn't providing anyone with any "value"?
but wait, isn't citing some random example good enough?
after all, aren't we discussing "the most irresponsible people" on both sides of the global warming debate?
Please, just stop.
Yeah, they'll see through it eventually, but by the time they do, you've usually already won two elections, started an unnecessary war in Iraq, and led the country to the brink of war with Iran. And thanks to term limits, you don't even have to worry about it anymore.
Damn....I thought I stopped the edit in time. For the record; I do know Canada is not in the United States. Yet.
Have you ever heard this album Uuaarrgh! Listen to song 2 (How could I've known) its a classic.
No, but I like the clip. I'm trying to think of a band that has a similar sound, but I'm drawing a blank. Sebadoh crossed with Green Day?
*blink*
I must have missed the part where he threatened to rid the world of Iran and, say, Palestine (or Syria, whichever little buddy you want to attach to Iran).
Europe has also stated (albeit with some typical wavering as of late) that Iran should not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Is Chirac leading France to the brink of war with Iran?
I mean, c'mon man, at what point do we get alarmed by a country that threatens the existence of the U.S. repeatedly and is apparently taking the necessary steps to make the deaths of millions a real possibility?
I'm not saying roll in the tanks tomorrow, but the idea that Bush is causing America's problems with Iran and not, say the crazy guy on the other side, is a sign that moral equivalence has rotted your brain to the core.
even if the scientists predict a much greater impact, does that necessarily mean something should be done about it? are climatologists the best people to make that determination? what expertise do they have?
it should be a group of well respected economists who can take that data from the climatologists and do a cost benefit analysis and then make recommendations.
climatologists and politicians are not as familiar with concepts such as social welfare maximization, opportunity costs, externalities, discount rates on future utility, etc.
You can expand that to causing destruction to anything unnecessarily.
By the way, note that the government regularly destroys stray dogs. Is this immoral? No, because reasonable people recognize that packs of stray dogs cause harm on society, and it's better to put thousands of stray dogs to death than to allow one person to get killed.
Everything derives value by way of its relationship to humanity. That's not a controversial statement, and it applies to stray dogs as well as anything else.
Depends on who you read. Scott Ritter. Joe Lieberman. Noted crazy wingnut Jerome Corsi. Other noted crazy wingnut Rick Santorum. The list goes on.
but the idea that Bush is causing America's problems with Iran and not, say the crazy guy on the other side, is a sign that moral equivalence has rotted your brain to the core.
Right, because that's exactly what I said.
it should be a group of well respected economists who can take that data from the climatologists and do a cost benefit analysis and then make recommendations.
climatologists and politicians are not as familiar with concepts such as social welfare maximization, opportunity costs, externalities, discount rates on future utility, etc.
More accurate: global climate models or economic models? Discuss.
And folks, that's called jumping the shark. Thanks for playing softball human.
My rendition of your statement, in rhetorical question form:
My rendition of your statement, in declarative form:
You again:
Your response:
Yes, it seems so.
well, it's not an either or thing. global climate models predict future climate change, economic models determine what if anything we should do about it.
Why would you care about causing pain to a living creature if that creature didn't have some value? (and euthanizing a stray is far different from kicking one for no reason.)
I mean, c'mon man, at what point do we get alarmed by a country that threatens the existence of the U.S. repeatedly and is apparently taking the necessary steps to make the deaths of millions a real possibility?
Doesn't it bother you that these are the VERY SAME ARGUMENTS PEOPLE WERE MAKING ABOUT IRAQ IN 2002 AND 2003, arguments turned out to be 100% wrong, and led us into a horrible quagmire? Don't you think there's a strong possibility that Iran doesn't actually pose any sort of threat to the US?
Difference is the French don't have any troops on Iran's border. Iran is giving support to some of the groups we are fighting in Iraq. I don't think Bush wants a war with Iran (at least not now, considering all the problems he's got in 'raq), and I don't think Iran wants a real war with us either, but we've been in a situation for a while now where one bad miscalculation could lead to a war.
I mean, c'mon man, at what point do we get alarmed by a country that threatens the existence of the U.S. repeatedly and is apparently taking the necessary steps to make the deaths of millions a real possibility?
By U.S. in this statement I think you meant Israel. I'm sure Iran would love to take us out if they could, but even having a couple nukes doesn't really give them that capability. I think they know that any nuclear attack on our soil, where we might lose a city, will result in wiping out their whole country.
All I am saying, is give peace (through superior) firepower a chance.
Nor do I, but I'll chime in. Global warming is associated with increased storm severity - resulting in greater runoff. You'd also have drier soils in some places, which could be blown away more easily.
Of far greater concern to soil quality, I'd think, would be the results of other human activities - land clearing, overfarming, irrigation techniques, etc...
Awaiting correction,
Der-k
yes, euthanizing a stray is far worse for the long term health of that individual animal than merely kicking a stray for no reason.
although we don't know what the animal thinks, based on the darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, i think any animal would prefer to get kicked, as it would still be alive and could still potentially pass on its genes.
Why would you care about causing pain to a living creature if that creature didn't have some value? (and euthanizing a stray is far different from kicking one for no reason.)
If the dog has no inherent value, then the only reason not to kick it is because it offends some human sensibility of cruelty. Lets say you are all alone in the woods, and instead of being offended by random cruelty you get a rush out of it. What's the rationale for not kicking the dog then?
I would submit that the dog does have some value, and it would still be immoral to kick it, and if you enjoy kicking dogs, you should still restrain yourself from doing so.
But I must confess I don't have a consistent value system. While I wouldn't kick that dog, I sometimes squash bugs, and I value the health and well-being of my cat over that of every human being on earth, except for my family. Yes, that means if I were put in a situation where I had to choose between the survival of Brian Kaat or any primate, I'd chose Brian every time. So don't ever put me there.
It should be noted that this IPCC report doesn't include data on the (increasingly rapid) melting of the Greenland ice sheet.
There is a related report, based on the scientific findings of the IPCC report, that will be released sometime in April. That report attempts to highlight the economic effects of global warming (both negative and positive).
Well said.
And just because Bush is a warmongering nut doesn't mean that Ahmednejad isn't also a nut. But the fact is that Bush has put us in a very vulnerable position. The Iranians have been nuts for 30 years, and I don't believe we've ever been as close to hot war with them as we are now, and that includes a major hostage crisis. You think the only difference is that Iran has expressed an interest in developing nukes? As if they were never interested in that before?
Based on the Darwinian concept of survival of the fittest, said animal has no choice in the matter.
Just being snarky - I am firmly in the anti-animal kicking camp.
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_NSNQSVV
non-subscribers should be able to see this:
http://www.economist.com/images/20040605/CSF043.gif
"This panel of eight included three Nobel prize-winners—Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago, Douglass North of Washington University in St Louis, and Vernon Smith of George Mason University. And the other five, who may collect a few more Nobels in due course, are also eminent in their respective fields—Jagdish Bhagwati of Columbia University, Bruno Frey of the University of Zurich, Justin Yifu Lin of Beijing University, Thomas Schelling of the University of Maryland, and Nancy Stokey of the University of Chicago."
"The challenge-paper on climate change was written by William Cline of the Centre for Global Development; Mr Cline is pro-Kyoto, and in fact favours even stronger measures to abate carbon emissions than the protocol requires."
The process may be somewhat flawed in this case, and the science may be different three years later, but this is the type of thing that needs to be done.
Perhaps you would like to reconsider your position, given that the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) says the wheat-growing areas of North America will shift entirely out of the United States and into Canada by 2100. Further, crops further north will still have to contend with shorter growing seasons even with the temperature increase, and aren't expected to be able to make up for shortfalls in crops planted closer to the equator. (I've also read, but haven't been able to substantiate anywhere yet, that the soils of the northern Canadian shield are principally rock, mostly under permafrost now, and nothing like the topsoil of the American midcontinent in terms of quality.)
So, yeah. That would be Bad.
More accurate: CIA weapons analysis, global economic models or PECOTA? Discuss.
Seriously, over the last 30 or so years there probably are a couple of times we should have gone to war with Iran. Now is not the time. They have a fairly healthy moderate population and the revolution is losing power. Provocation on our end can only unite these groups.
(Important to note that in areas such as Sibera, and the Central, Southern, and Volga districts in European Russia are experiencing record wheat growth over the last decade as their weather has improved and their farming technology upgraded. The real, and unarguably human-created topsoil catastrophies are occuring in South America. But the comment on topsoil was referencing just the effects on American industry, not global wheat production, so I digress.)
It's impossible to distinguish between naturally occurring global warming trends from those that may be caused by global warming, but the effect is the same. Whether or not you believe human action has had any effect on warming, given all of the additional economic and political benefits of going greener that go along with the ecological gains, a serious national energy shift should be happening now / should have happened a long time ago.
You're right - that did hardly need to be said.
Are you saying the best defense against the dreaded mosquito is billions of dollars per year in what will likely be a futile attempt to stop the earth from getting warmer? How about just stopping it at the source with insecticide and other preventive techniques?
But that doesn't fit the Chicken Little agenda...
Granted it's an understandable endeavor, but trying to erase the entire history of Jimmy Carter from the nation's conciousness is unlikely to be successful.
I think the doomsayers ARE causing more damage because it's difficult to overcome inertia. Unreasonable, exaggerated arguments make those on the fence or opposed to you likely to ignore everything you say. I'm not a fan of the drug war, but they seem to have gotten a little better by shifting from the "smoke marijuana, shoot yourself in the head" theme to the "smoke marijuana, become demotivated and boring" theme.
There are enough good reasons to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that we don't need to exaggerate the situation into imminent destruction of our coasts or Montana's average temperature becoming what Texas's is.
There is, I would imagine (I am not an expert on climate change), some well-reasoned argument that can be made to start with small but significant steps toward greater responsibility toward the environment. It's just hard to spot between the cracks of the extreme arguments.
yes but my point is that even if the negative economic effects of global warming heavily outweigh the positive economic effects of global warming (and we'll assume they will for now), that by itself isn't reason enough to do anything to reduce global warming.
yes but my point is that even if the negative economic effects of global warming heavily outweigh the positive economic effects of global warming (and we'll assume they will for now), that by itself isn't reason enough to do anything to reduce global warming.
Good reason to invade Canada now.
How do you define the "lunatic fringe"?
Sorry. Back to your political discussion...
Crikey!
To me, Global Warming seems like part II in ultimate test in humanity's advancement. Part I was when 6 countries (later more) in the world got the power to blow each other apart with nuclear bombs, yet refrained from doing so (with two notable exceptions). They blustered, they "fronted", they fired competing "warning shots" but ultimately they passed a test with obvious short term consequences. They made the right choice (even if they blundered to that conclusion), from the U.S. to Russia to Cuba to Israel to China. I mean, really, look at that list. Could you find 5 countries MORE likely to have itchy trigger fingers than those? And don't say North Korea or Iran, because we might soon find out. And yet, we seemingly survived by the skin of our teeth.
The second part of the test--Global Warming or, more accurately, Global Climate Change--involves a menace whose consequences are not so direct. The consequences of inaction are still significant, though. When the experts speak they cannot be ignored. The U.S. has an unfortunate cultural tendency to not respect experts. China, India and the U.S. have to shape up and reduce their emissions. If the first-world can develop the technologies, business models and science to reduce carbon emissions then humanity passes the second test.
It occurs to me that my analogy sucks, because there are other tests on the table, including terrorism, poverty, and AIDS (along with other diseases like diarrheas, malaria, tuberculosis, the threat of new viruses and increasing numbers of multi-drug-resistant bacteria), and to a lesser extent advancing fundamentalist religions, overfishing, and bigotry.
There seems to me to be a general fear in the world. Everyone seems to be afraid of someone. I mean this on a national level, but it also applies to many on a personal level.
the lunatic fringe would be anyone who mentions iran in response to a story on rising sea levels and the a's new ballpark.
We borrow it from our children.
I thought it was anyone who cites a small canadian newspaper that no one has ever heard of and that has absolutely no power to influence this debate to prove their point that the people concerned about global warming are irresponsible.
as the dude said: i don't see any connection to vietnam, walter.
anyways, i've said all i need to say on the subject of global warming in posts 160 and 179.
Given how limited our actual knowledge regarding the world and the intertwining of lief and ecosystems, the idea that preserving an ecosystem or a species has no possible value unless it can be immediately added up in dollars and cents is short-sighted.
The same really applies to global warming. There are a whole variety of possible detrimental effects, including many unforeseen ones, as the world heats up and changes in climate begin to cascade. I expect to be dead before the worst of it, and I am leaving no progeny. So the way I look at it -- My name's Paul, and this is between y'all. Have fun with it.
The idea that human life is the ultimate value, while it may sound nice, is somewhat belied by the fact that we have been slaughtering each other with gay abandon since, oh, forever, and continue to do so. I don't think most people really value any human life unless it is their own or somebody they know AND like. I can easily see most people valuing the life of an animal over any number the of faceless masses. This may not be the view of the Talmud, but there you have it.
The Inuit way of life may have some inherent value to them, and to the anthropologically minded, but does anyone really think that this way of life, or any way of life, is eternal? Cultures continually change and evolve in regard to circumstances and technology, and while primitive tribes engaged in subsistence hunting activities may be quaint to you, to me, given the advances in technology and knowledge, if they are still doing this to survive 100-200 years from now, something is wrong.
There may be more of a political future to nuclear power than you think. A lot of people who used to be adamantly opposed to the concept are re-thinking their view, in light of the practical alternatives.
I am probably one of the few people on this Board who has actually been to Tuktoyuktuk. Just a short plane ride from Inuvik. Just another strange little tourist trip with my brother.
The problem is not that Bush has led us to the brink of war with Iran. The problem is that, with his little misadventure next door, Bush has made it politically impossible to go to war with Iran -- and the Iranians well know it. There is no practical constraint on their activity now.
More accurate: global climate models or economic models? Discuss.
More dissembling: climatologists or economists? Discuss.
More accurate: CIA weapons analysis, global economic models or PECOTA? Discuss.
If you don't cut this out, I'm gonna drive down to Winston-Salem tomorrow and have a little chat with your tenure committee.
A quick scan through Free Republic's archives show links to past global warming articles from extremists like the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, followed by an avalanche of comments calling their research "junk science". Who're the extremists, those who do the research, or those who sit on their arses and clame "junk science" (several without even RTFA)?
And there you go. Reasoned debate from scientific journals, where the consensus of those who study the topic say the world is heating up, human activity at the least contribute to that warming, and something must be done ... and jackasses will sit around and call it junk science. Existing energy industries won't want to change from their profitable status quo, so they lobby the pols, nothing gets done, and all those folks in the science journals get labeled extremists for wanting to make changes.
I would consider the lunatic fringe to be around the 3-4% of the most extreme viewpoints on any particular issue. PETA is extreme. ALF is the lunatic fringe. The anti-abortion movement is a side of a debate. Operation Rescue is the lunatic fringe.
world heating up, check.
human activity contributing, check.
but how the hell are climatologists in any position to determine whether or not something must be done? how exactly does their area of expertise allow them to reach this conclusion?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main