News Briefs 14-11-2007

So many TDG updates lately. Whatever Greg’s drinking, I want some.

Thanks Kat and Cernig.

Quote of the Day:

To hunt a species to extinction is not logical.

Spock (Star Trek IV)

  1. Point, Counter-Point on Global Warming
    Good article. I, of course, side with the skeptics. The arguements were sound, while I feel the other side was reaching for excuses. And multiple references to the IPCC, a political organization, didn’t help their cause.

    But I’m sure plenty of others feel the counter aurguments were more believable. That’s fine. As long as they recognize the most important point this article demonstates: there is no concensus, the arguement is not settled, and no one should be a criminal for not believing that 100 years of human activity is killing the Earth (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071112/ap_on_sc/climate_change_conference;_ylt=AlPdBBJS8jlu_fFfBuQpslqs0NU).

    1. GW means Easy Money
      If anyone believes that they can prove that humans are the cause of catastrophic global warming, here’s the chance to earn an easy $US 125,000. The prize has gone unclaimed for 100-days.

      Bill

      ************

      Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
      Thomas Carlyle

      1. Proof?
        Oh, come on Bill. I’ve had enough of this rubbish with James Randi and the paranormal. You know very well that science can never prove anything conceptual to that extent.
        Even the IPCC only give a 70% probability, which is enough to offer caution. If you’re going to offer arguments, give arguments with a degree of credibility.

        I’m fanatical about moderation

        Anthony North

        1. Proof
          Science can prove thousands of conceptual things to that extent. “Science” by consensus doesn’t prove anything.

          Bill

          ************

          Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
          Thomas Carlyle

          1. Visit http://www.icecap.com
            You need evidence? ok …

            the founder of the weather channel says this:

            “It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.”
            __________________________________________________________

            [Freeman Dyson, one of the great physicists alive today, put it plainly enough in his autobiography:

            “…all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. … I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. … They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.”]
            http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/global_warming_as_pathological.html

            [““Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.”]
            By JPL/NASA, Pasadena, CA

            [“The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.

            So explained Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University, a giant in science over much of the last century whose accomplishments are perhaps unsurpassed for their breadth, depth, and volume.”]
            http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=bfeddc8e-90d7-4f54-9ca7-1f56fadc7c2b

            There are tons of evidence from scientists underground trying to get out the word that it’s a scam. You just have to look for it.

            Maybe start hearing the other side by going to http://www.icecap.us

          2. more evidence
            By Dr. Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia

            ”…Of the two future climate possibilities, dangerous warming or dangerous cooling, the evidence suggests that cooling will be the more damaging; arguably, it is also the most imminent threat. First, because there has been no measurable warming of global average temperatures since 1998; second, because this lack of warming coincides with empirical computer predictions for cooling and evidence for decreasing solar activity in the first few decades of the 21st century; and third because the current warm interglacial period has already lasted 10 000 years and will inevitably be followed by a glaciation.”

            http://icecap.us/images/uploads/200705-03AusIMMcorrected.pdf

          3. GW
            Hi Pragmatous,

            Just so we understand one another, I’ve been presenting evidence and claiming that anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming is a scam since the year 2001 on TDG. When such people as Cher began to support in the 1980s I began to doubt the validity. I am not aware of one single piece of evidence to support the thesis. IMO, the belief in AGW is a religion, based on faith.

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          4. yep
            we’re pretty much in agreement then.

            Being a partial scientists myself I always ask questions. That’s part of my job being a Network Administrator. I read up on science and understand the basics that goes on around the universe and the world. It comes with the job researching computer technologies.

            No one is asking questions and so that disturbs me. When no one is asking questions and just taking it in as fact – I question that. Why aren’t you asking questions? or Why aren’t you doing your own research as I have. Especially when there isn’t any hard evidence that global warming even exists.

          5. Founder of the weather channel?!
            Quotes don’t constitute evidence, Pragmatous. And Dyson might be the greatest physicist alive today, but he’s not a climatologist. Next you’ll be quoting George W. Bush.

          6. wow
            [quote=Rick MG]Quotes don’t constitute evidence, Pragmatous. And Dyson might be the greatest physicist alive today, but he’s not a climatologist. Next you’ll be quoting George W. Bush.[/quote]

            with what you said it works both ways.

            Quotes about global warming doesn’t constitute that global warming is real. I suppose you’ll quote from Al Gore next.

            btw i hate dubbya so i wouldn’t quote him. I voted for gore. i would quote scientists who understand the science however.

            So you’re telling me that a physicist (one who studies physics) doesn’t understand climate. ??? wow … Do you even know what physics studies?

          7. You missed the point
            My point was, Pragmatous, that being brilliant doesn’t make you omniscient. And Dyson will be the first to admit that much of physics is theoretical.

            You quoted opinions. Opinions don’t equal scientific evidence.

          8. riiiight
            my point was there is evidence that global warming isn’t what the media or Al Gore makes it out to be.

            Your point appears to be a red herring. I think it’s common sense that all science and ideas are theoretical. There will always be opposing viewpoints.

            The problem with global warming is that opposing views aren’t allowed unless you want to be labeled as a denier. Denier has been historically linked to those that have denied that the holocaust ever happened. Equating people who oppose global warming to neo-nazi’s and other hate groups.

            Those that refuse to accept global warming as fact are getting fired from their jobs and their lives threatened. That is happening.

            Without opposing views all you have is a religion. Religion can get out of control and people kill for religion.

          9. states trying to misdirect people?
            Air pollution kills more than 2 million people prematurely, according to the World Health Organization.

            states seems to have alot of blood on its hands, because emissions from them in last 40 years is unbelieveable.

            could it be they are now trying to get peoples attention on
            global warming so they wont focus so much on the numbers they been killing around the world and polluting more than there fair share of air space?

          10. wellll
            I read Dyson’s book. He has a legitimate point.

            I myself have a legitimate point as well: the people that use the climate model software will not give me access to the climate model software. There is no good reason for that. They sould let everyone know. Me, you, everyone.

            It should be public.

            I want to know, why am I not allowed ?

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          11. well
            The software isn’t cheap or small. need a super computer to run it i do believe. I might be wrong on that but i’m pretty sure thats the reason.

            the thing that’s important about science and why it’s the opposite of religion is this. Science deals with ideas. Science is never set in stone on faith. Questions are always asked and there are theories. The theories are then eventually tested, retested, and tested again. if you can test it and there is consistency then you got something. When you’re done testing you take what you have and discuss the theory. There are opposing views and supporting views. This is always the case. This is healthy in a discussion.

            in regards to global warming. No questions are asked. No theories raised. Nothing tested and retested and tested again for consistency. No discussions. No opposing views accepted. This is a problem. Without opposing viewpoints it just becomes a religion. Asking questions is pivotal to science.

          12. Global Warming
            This is an automatically generated anti-Bill post. It will appear every time Anti Bill posts about man-made Global Warming being wrong.
            There are two reasons why such a post is required:

            1. I suspect Bill’s hope is that constant repetition of the same argument will eventually bore people into not replying, and he ends up with no opposition.
            2. As the same arguments are used every time, it becomes tedious to have to continually write the same replies.

            Errors in Bill’s argument:

            1. Science cannot prove a concept absolutely.
            2. If a probability of man-made global warming is high, it is enough to suggest caution.
            3. Man’s effect on the atmosphere will be disproportionate to the normal cycles as it is not from the ‘natural’ system.
            4. Whether global warming is man-made or not, it IS happening.
            5. Measures to combat the effects of global warming would be the same whether it is man-made or not.
            6. As such, the argument is pointless in the first place.

            Measures and reasons why No 6 is so are:

            1. Climatic changes will be unpredictable and could have severe effects on infra-structure.
            2. To guard against this, no generation method should be such that it would pose a severe danger if damaged or flooded.
            3. Generation methods should be local or natural as climatic changes could cause severe problems regarding supply of raw materials.
            4. Climatic changes could easily shut down generation plants, so this effect must be minimised.
            5. Minimisation is best achieved by breaking up large infra-structures so effects are localised.
            6. The technology required is not yet ready because big business and governments are threatening the planet by holding on to big systems which they need to hold power.
            7. If enough money and resources are thrown at our technologists, the technology will be ready in no time. They are that good.

            This post has an in-built program to amend itself should Anti Bill come up with something new. However, the system is not holding its breath.

          13. Good one, Anthony
            Just what we need. hehe

            Do we all have your permission to copy & re-post this “auto-generated anti-Bill post” at will?

            Kat

          14. Oh Dear, AGW again
            This is interesting. Anthony has an anti-Bill, actually an anti-Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW), post. Anthony also has a hate on for nuclear power generation from another thread that he folds into his argument. Anthony distorts what I have said because he knows his arguments are weak or from ignorance.

            I am aware that the AGW argument frightens those that lack a scientific background or information. That’s exactly what the AGW argument is supposed to do is frighten people. You are supposed to be so frightened that you demand to join the effort to save the planet from AGW. But knowledge is power. Don’t be fooled by Chicken Little.

            Now I don’t know if Anthony is frightened or if he knows that AGW is a scam. So let us examine his argument and see what he has to say:

            [quote=anthonynorth]

            Errors in Bill’s argument:

            1. Science cannot prove a concept absolutely.[/quote]
            This is a true statement. In fact, neither science or a court of law or anything else can prove anything absolutely. Experiments are designed by scientists that could demonstrate that a thesis is incorrect. By this method, scientists can state that the evidence agrees or does not agree with the theory. The more experiments, models, or other evidence that scientists collect the more confidence they have in their conclusions. If Anthony picks-up his computer and tosses it, the computer will fall toward floor. Thousands of experiments have verified this concept. No one would argue otherwise. While this does not offer proof of gravity, the experiment does offer proof that an object will fall toward what seems to be the center of the earth. It is a demonstration of Newton’s Second Law of Motion.

            But Anthony is not being honest here. I have never argued that anyone could prove anything absolutely. In fact, looking back through the thread, with reguard to AGW, I said:

            “Science can prove thousands of conceptual things to that extent. “Science” by consensus doesn’t prove anything.”

            Let’s go toss Anthony’s computer again so that we can prove that concept once more. Scientists can repeatedly demonstate proofs. If enough evidence is collected to support their thesis they can convince others that their thesis is valid. But Anthony fails to offer any experiment or mathmatics or empherical evidence that supports the thesis. For instance, if the GW-pushers could show that the temperature of the lower troposphere is increasing that would constitute hard evidence to support the AGW “runaway greenhouse” thesis. But they can’t so they refute it. In fact, the satellite data shows that the satellite data appears to be dropping a bit.

            Anthony, do you have any evidence or data to support an AGW thesis?
            [quote=anthonynorth]
            2. If a probability of man-made global warming is high, it is enough to suggest caution.[/quote]

            Who says the probability is high? Anthony may not be aware that there are thousands of scientists that believe the Kyoto Accord is bogus. There are many that believe that GW-advocates are mis-representing data because they have been caught at it on occasion. Many believe that conclusions made based on their model are false because the model is inadequate. Anthony, why can’t Earthling at least find some information about what the IPCC model includes? According to Dr. Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and one of the advisory scientists of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the IPCC model did not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents…. None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate. I know why the IPCC won’t publish the details of their model, Now you know why as well, Anthony.

            And since Anthony brought-up the IPCC, there is that documentary that states that “The UN’s much vaunted IPCC report was heralded as closing the case on the argument of man-made global warming. But as the show explains, the IPCC’s conclusion was politically driven and they deliberately censored any dissenting scientists while still listing them as participants, leading many to threaten legal action against the IPCC to have their names removed from the report. Scientists who were invited to participate in the IPCC report expose the fundamental flaws contained throughout the document.” There’s an interesting video at this site as well, along with some other interesting details.

            One prominent member of the IPCC, Dr. J. R. Christy, said that he’s refusing his “share” of the Nobel Peace Prize that he was awarded because it was based on a misunderstanding of science. Dr. Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth. System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, (a real climatologist) is famous for his year 2000 address to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

            [quote=anthonynorth]
            3. Man’s effect on the atmosphere will be disproportionate to the normal cycles as it is not from the ‘natural’ system.[/quote]

            That’s a mighty bold statement for one to make, Anthony, if one doesn’t know what man’s effect on the atmosphere is. What is man’s contribution, Anthony? Is it enough to matter?

            Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor). http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html The anthropogenic contribution is around one-quarter of one-percent.
            [quote=anthonynorth]
            4. Whether global warming is man-made or not, it IS happening.[/quote]

            Anthony, Anthony, Anthony. First you tell me there are no absolutes; then you write words in ALL CAPS, as if shouting “IS” makes it true. Give me data, Anthony, not ALL CAPS.

            Just between us though, you’re fairly safe with this one, so I’ll help you out. We’ve been on a warming cycle since the end of the last ice age. But I never said otherwise. Another of one of those little deceptions on your part.

            Here are your data, Anthony. In fact, according to the data from the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) of land temperatures and the Comprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Data Set (COADS) there is a total of +0.5 °C from 1880 to the year 2000

            So, over 12-decades the planet has increased in temperature +0.5 °C. Chicken Little was right – let’s panic.

            [quote=anthonynorth]Measures to combat the effects of global warming would be the same whether it is man-made or not.[/quote]

            Now you can’t really believe that, Anthony. There wouldn’t be much point in worrying about anthropogenic CO2 unless it is causing some problem. It’s plant food.

            [quote=anthonynorth]
            6. As such, the argument is pointless in the first place.
            [/quote]

            I agree that your argument is pointless.

            I see no point in arguing the support of number 6 since we agree. Furthermore, it is repititive and boring.

            Anthony, I spent some time to show you that one does not need to fear AGW. If you want to argue, please do so with science, not emotion.

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          15. Such a lot of words
            Good morning everyone,
            Such a lot of words, Bill. Yet nothing much said of relevance. Some scientists say AGW is occurring, some not. Okay, let’s accept that argument. Let’s be generous and say it is split 50-50. We’ll go further – just for you. Let’s say only 40% accept AGW, and 60% do not.
            My argument would be the same. If something is agreed, by a large body of experts, to be theoretically possible, and, in its extreme, could have catastrophic repercussions, it is madness not to do what you can to stop it, and take precautions against the effects.
            You keep bringing science into it. That’s a red herring. Fear and emotion don’t come into it, either. I’m dealing with pure common sense.
            I’ll repeat it to save mis-understanding:

            ‘If something is agreed, by a large body of experts, to be theoretically possible, and, in its extreme, could have catastrophic repercussions, it is madness not to do what you can to stop it, and take precautions against the effects.’

            This is the crux of my argument. You haven’t yet answered it. All the rest is immaterial.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          16. CO2 is plant food
            I’ve answered you Anthony. I think you don’t understand the science and you are frightened. Chicken Little is the applicable analogy.

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          17. Oh dear, dear, dear
            The attempts at belittling go on and on. These I can take on the chin, but my head is beginning to hurt by banging it against a brick wall.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          18. software
            The software runs for a long time, it uses immense amount of computer cycles. That doesn’t mean that the programs are big. I can’t run it myself with all the data, but I can read it and see what it actually does. I can’t predict the results, i.e. what happens when you run these things. Neither can anybody else, that’s why they run these things for a long time.

            As for the software being cheap – that’s not really a factor. You can’t buy it off the shelf, it is made by people who work for universities (students typically) and some government organizations (like NASA, perhaps NOAA or euqivalents in other countries). It has no commercial value, so it should be cheap.

            And of course your last point is correct. A group of bureaucrats and politicians follows the advice of a group of scientists. Nobody else in the world matters in the decision making. Al Gore says “the debate is over”. That wasn’t an observation, it was a command – no more debate is allowed, mighty Al has spoken.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          19. Gore
            Hi Earthling,
            Regarding Gore, I’ve said elsewhere that what with an Oscar and Nobel Prize, if they ever make his film into a musical, he’ll get no Tony from me.
            I am always suspicious of consensus. Indeed, Bill’s Carlyle quote is one thing I do agree with. But everything has, at some time, an exception.
            Similarly, I dislike the way big business and politics is turning the GW debate to their own advantage, including attempting to stop debate.
            But, beyond the science, my point still stands:

            ‘If something is agreed, by a large body of experts, to be theoretically possible, and, in its extreme, could have catastrophic repercussions, it is madness not to do what you can to stop it, and take precautions against the effects.’

            It seems total commonsense to me.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          20. stopping things
            Of course there are many things that can be done that will improve the environment, and lessen CO2 output at the same time. So what can be the harm in doing these things?

            Well the potential harm is that we might be fixing the wrong problem. What if the cause for the warming is all the concrete and pavement in the big cities? It definetely changes the temperature in the cities, and downwind from the cities, quite independent from CO2.

            The arctic ice has been melting faster than usual. In part this is because of black dust particles from industrial sources. Is the ice melting because it is warmer, or is it getting warmer because the ice is melting?

            We need to keep looking at questions like these. We can’t stop looking, blindly follow a course of action set by bureaucrats today, for the next 50 years.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          21. Agreed
            Hi Earthling,
            I agree absolutely. I’ve never said anything about blindly following bureaucrats, and the constructive questions must continue to be asked.
            Similarly, the measures I’ve spoken of before can be taken into all areas of environmentalism, fighting pollution, cleaning up our living and working spaces, cutting down on needless transportation of goods.
            And I’m convinced, with the help of technologists, it can be done without severely interrupting our economies, and still allowing our lifestyles to thrive.
            I’m not into being a spoil-sport, stopping people doing what they want. I just think it can be done more cleanly and responsibly – if we have the will to do it.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          22. Following blindly
            [quote=anthonynorth] I’ve never said anything about blindly following bureaucrats, and the constructive questions must continue to be asked.
            [/quote]
            I thought that was exactly what you were advocating, Anthony. My error, I’m sure.

            However, no problem, Anthony. I shall continue to challenge those who preach Algore doomsday AGW without evidence to back it up.

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          23. Definitely your error
            Definitely your error, Bill. If you go back to when I first put my thoughts on TDG about GW I said how uneasy I was about consensus. If you go to one of my blogs, North’s Review (accessed rom Beyond the Blog), and search recycling, you’ll see how I take issue with how the public are being fooled to take full responsibility.
            The problem here, Bill, is that you get an idea in your head, and do not look wider. Someone who disagrees with you must be stereotypical, full stop.
            I repeat, I’m satisfied that AGW is most likely occurring and we must go forward with measures to account for this – and you’ve said nothing to dissuade me in thisa conviction. But that does not make me a ‘yes man’. You really should give people more credit.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          24. Be cool, Anthony
            Hi Anthony,

            My opinion is based on your anti-Bill post. You were foaming at the mouth. You did not understand the problem and you have total faith in the IPCC. You appear to be shocked that someone does not agree with the IPCC consensus. You stated it would be insanity not to pay heed to the IPCC. I answered each of your points in detail hoping to calm you down. It appears to me that these guys had you terrified. Lighten up; it’s not as bad as they would have you believe. We don’t even know if we have a problem. It’s a possibility. It’s more possible that it’s bogus.

            I believe that if one tries to solve a possible problem without understanding the cause of the possible problem, it can only result in expensive and wasteful failure. We need much more research by real climatologists and real atmospheric physicists.

            Further, consider this. A temperature increase of +0.5 °C from 1880 to the year 2000 doesn’t seem to be much of a problem. Would a similar temperature rise over the next 120-years be a bad thing? We’ve got plenty of time to ponder and discuss. Stay cool.

            Remember what the doormouse said……….

            Bill

            ************

            Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world.
            Thomas Carlyle

          25. Stay cool
            Good morning Bill,
            First of all, I don’t see the letters IPCC anywhere in my automated anti-Bill post. That was me speaking, not a consensus. Further, there is no anger or fear in me over this issue. If there was I’d be raising it all the time, yet, as far as I’m aware, I’ve never begun a GW debate on TDG – only responded.
            As for responding, you claim to see fear or anger in me. I don’t feel this. As for yourself, to me you come over as a closed minded zealot. I may be wrong, but I do tend to answer a person in the ‘mood’ with which they answer me. Perhaps you were seeing a reflection.
            As for the Anti Bill post, the structure was one of satire, not anger. Maybe you didn’t get the joke. As for the points raised, they have been worked out over many years and you certainly have not answered one of them satisfactorily.
            As for the stance I take over the GW issue, it is moderate, as Floppy recognises below. The next time GW news appears, I will be unlikely to begin a debate, but I will always join in, putting the record straight, as I see it.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          26. I understand…….Anthony
            prevention is better then cure, but first we need to know the possible problems and then the correct action to take to prevent the problem. To do this we need to know the correct cause of any possible problem.
            What I believe is happening here is a “smoke screen”, pardon the pun,. Hype and mass mind manipulation for profit and to keep a world in the dark. It is all to do with a “One World Govenment” movement.

            Just my thoughts at this moment, could change when new evidence comes to light.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          27. Hype
            Hi Floppy,
            I don’t doubt – never have doubted – that big business and government are hyping things to their own advantage. So what do we do? Deny the problem because of this? Surely, if the problem is real, this would be madness.
            I ask, simply, if measures can be taken whilst the jury is out, without seriously affecting economy or people, what is the problem with doing it?
            Yes, my solutions would damage big business, which I consider a bonus – provided engineers and smaller businesses can offer as good a service and proper solutions.
            I’m not a doommonger, I’m not a spoil-sport. I simply feel there are alternatives that are not being considered seriously, and they should be.
            As for knowing the possible problems, I recall similar arguments and prevarications concerning BSE in the UK. And we know where that ended up.
            Sometimes waiting for definite scientific evidence is foolish. This is maybe another such time. Especially when things can be done regardless, just in case. And as I’ve also said, whether AGW is occurring, or whether it’s a natural cycle, the obvious measures are the same.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          28. it’s a shame really..
            that this whole issue was not called something else….and we could of had a “movement” to enable “sustainability” rather then scare tactics of doom and gloom. I have no doubt that we have damaged the enviroment that has effected climate in local areas to a small degree but, not to the scale that is being force fed to us.
            We have dangerous floods because of over logging. More floods effect more people because they choose to build in flood zones. Bad storms effect any who build in bad storm zones. The more people effected, the more we think it is worse but it’s not. Only choice of habitat.
            I may not be a GW convertant but I do understand your position and respect your moderative stance.

            “Life can be whatever you want it to be, as long as you do what your told.”
            LRF.

          29. Sustainability
            Hi Floppy,
            If you go back to the beginnings of the eco-movement, it was all about sustainability, and a great slogan of tjhe time was ‘small is beautiful’. If anything, I still adhere to those initial values.
            Sadly, you’re right. The debate has been hi-jacked by extremists on all sides, including a government, media, and corporate attitude determined, I’m sure, to blow it up out of all proportion, thus causing the entire argument to collapse.
            I, for one, will continue a moderate stance, based on those initial principles. I think that’s what my auto-post was all about.

            Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

            Anthony North

  2. And in other news…..
    Certain people have become rather upset when I’ve tried to put the U.S. war deaths, as tragic as they are, into perspective. Specifically, how these deaths compare with civilian deaths rates in certain domestic categories as well as peacetime deaths of military personnel. Well, here’s a story from the Congressional Research Service that addresses the latter:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311644,00.html

    So, while losing people in this war as well as the thousands of wounded is terrible and we wish it wasn’t happening, it’s important to maintain perspective. Exaggeration, hyperbole, propaganda and hysterical rantings by those who oppose the war do not do anyone any favors and certainly don’t do anything positive towards winning this war and getting out. Of course, the goal of many of these people is a bit different: to get out and lose the war.

    1. All deaths are terrible
      Hi Anonymous,
      All deaths are terrible. That goes without saying. But there is a slight difference in terms of a tragic death by accident, and a death of a volunteer in a war zone, regardless of the terrible, disgusting, obnoxious politics that may have sent him, or her, there.
      Often, the former could have done nothing to avert tragedy. The latter could. And the fact that they still went has got to stand for something, or do we have only contempt for heroes these days?

      I’m fanatical about moderation

      Anthony North

      1. Always Another Perspective
        [quote=anthonynorth]…there is a slight difference in terms of a tragic death by accident, and a death of a volunteer in a war zone, regardless of the terrible, disgusting, obnoxious politics that may have sent him, or her, there.
        Often, the former could have done nothing to avert tragedy. The latter could.

        …do we have only contempt for heroes these days?
        [/quote]

        And the former serves no greater good, while the latter benefits millions. Those that volunteer understand that. Those that scoff, don’t. Those deaths (and I knew two of them personally) are the result of efforts done in a noble cause, regardless of the execution of the mission or the politics surrounding it. There are thousands of 9/11 clones who have died in two fronts at the hands of our soldiers instead of being free to make their way, unfettered, into free nations to kill innocents. Given the scope and magnitude of what has been undertaken in the last seven years, it is incredible to realize what a small sacrifice, as a society, the west and in particular the U.S., has had to make. Generally speaking, those that have sacrificed the least are the loudest critics.

        Sadly, many do have contempt for those that go. Those people can be found on Left, proclaiming defeat and calling for surrender.

        1. But…
          [quote=Anonymous] There are thousands of 9/11 clones who have died in two fronts at the hands of our soldiers instead of being free to make their way, unfettered, into free nations to kill innocents.[/quote]

          Possibly. But what of the thousands of little kids suffering from all the violence on those war zones, that will grow up with a big resentment for the west and could then be easily swayed to become part of a terrorist or insurgent group? For every insurgent taken down (either from Al-Qaeda or not) two of them will take their place in the years to come. Like trying to put down a fire with gasoline.

          And we should also discuss all the civilian casualties among the iraqui population, conducted by mercenary groups (ok, SECURITY services then) like Blackwater, that have been given carte blanche on Iraq by the State Department and cannot be accountable for any wrongdoings by iraqui laws. Is that a propper way to tell the iraquis that they are sovereign on their own land?

          They tell me they went to that war looking for WMD. They didn’t found any. They said then that it was a noble cause to take down a tyrant that tortured his people, a tyrant that was strengthed by the american government when he was their “ally” against the iranians. Funny thing that, to get rid of that tyrant, they seeked the aid of ANOTHER tyrant in that region: Pervez Musharraf. And the good friends of Bush, the saudis, are not exactly exemplary when it comes to democracy and upholding civil rights either…

          Having said that, I don’t have any grudge whatsoever against the fine men and women that are serving their country overseas, and I wish every single last one of them a safe return to their homes and loved ones.
          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

          1. Separate the forces from politics
            Hi Red,
            It is good that we separate the politics from the forces. Afghanistan, I think, was inevitable, Iraq was a crime – but in political terms. The forces, we should have gratitude for regardless.
            And yes I, too, have a personal angle. Ex-forces myself, I also have a son who has already been to one, and is soon to go to the other.

            I’m fanatical about moderation

            Anthony North

          2. emotional
            Here it was the weekend of the rememberance of the WW1 and WW2 soldiers.

            People who were fighting for a good cause.

            And I moved, as an adult, of my own free will, to North America.

            They ask for donations this week. They are not pushy, just stand there and give people the symbolic flowers

            Yet I cannot quite get myself to give, or to wear the symbols for the good guys, who dropped bombs on my mother. My mother came trough WW2 ok and without physical injury, she was a nurse. She saw lots of damage done to people. She didn’t talk about it much.

            This is not precisely the same topic, But let’s face it – the good guys did really really bad things.

            —-
            If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure.

            (Bill Clinton, and perhaps others)

          3. Manicheism
            We shouldn’t fall in the typical error of viewing such human catastrophies in manicheistic terms.

            Not all the things done by the allies were just -even if their cause was just.

            Neither were the german fighters all nazi criminals.

            I really liked that german movie “The Fall”, which showed the last remaining days of Hitler in his bunker. They tried to show his human side (yes, the man WAS human, not an incarnated monster) without making the audience feel any empathy for him. How could you feel empathy for a man who didn’t give a damn for the people who elected him as their leader?

            There are always two sides to each story. Clint Eastwood realized that when he made his last two master pieces: “Flags of Our Fathers” & “Letters from Iwo Jima”.

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          4. The good guys
            The mass bombings of Germany during WWII need attention. There is something terrible about modern mass warfare. It was first realised in the American Civil War. Previous to this, soldiers met on a field of battle, slashed each other to pieces, and the side that had the most left standing won.
            They won because there was no second front to beat them, and no way of quickly providing resupply of weapons and personnel.
            That all changed through industrialisation. Suddenly, a nation could provide a constant supply of personnel and weapons, and it became necessary to fight the war of attrition – i.e. destroy the youth, or the industry, of a country.
            WWI was a war of attrition aimed at the youth. WWII was mainly won on the Eastern Front, involving a war of attrition between some 600 German and Russian Divisions. The mass bombings of Germany were an attempt to add the industrial angle to this war of attrition – something first done by Germany on Britain.
            Those who had family in this, I can feel for. If it is any consolation, many in Britain felt it was wrong. I personally feel it was wrong. The architect of the strategy – ‘Bomber’ Harris – was the only leading war time Military commander in Britain who did not receive high honours.
            Yes, the good guys sometimes have to do terrible things. But the politics, etc, should not detract from the sacrifice of the thousands of brave guys who died doing it.

            All the philosophy in all the world is not worth the spilling of a drop of blood

            Anthony North

    2. Its Importent to Maintain Prespective.
      It sure is! Because if your not a red, white and blue American, your not human enough to live? Now if they’d only been Jewish instead of Arab. And I thought we ALL were created equal?

  3. Sumerian espresso machine
    LOL!

    Man, I had a huge fight with my boss. I really thank you for that. Things like that is what keep me sane… and refrain me from buying an AK-47.

    —–
    It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
    It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

    Red Pill Junkie

      1. Blue ghosts
        Glad someone noticed the other news. 😉

        What did you think of the blue ghost at the Ohio gas station? I noticed the video is a second-hand recording of the security footage on a computer. Photoshopped?

          1. It was weird
            If faked, it needed some other program, like 3D Max, and the use of some particle system animated.

            But it was spooky, particularly for the way the mass moved. It showed… purpose 8-(

            —–
            It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
            It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

            Red Pill Junkie

          2. oh nooooooo
            blue meanies!!!!!!!!!!

            It was aqua in color.. I have seen lots of smoke bombs and stuff come in what I think are man made colors. pink, blue, lime green etc..

            I mean really…what an odd color for any kind of phenomenon.

            doncha think?

            xo
            m

          3. Orange cloud
            I woke up one night last year and saw an orange cloud hovering next to my bedroom ceiling. As soon as I spotted it, the cloud zoomed out the window: which was closed. Looked like a smaller version of the blue cloud at the Ohio gas station.

  4. No one got the Star Trek reference?
    No one?

    I’m disappointed. Spock’s quote is from Star Trek IV, when the crew of the Enterprise go back in time to the 20th Century and rescue a whale. Thus the very shaky connection to Migaloo the pure albino whale.

    Ah well. Live long and prosper.

      1. Maybe good news
        If Labor wins the Federal election in a couple of weeks, Kevin Rudd has vowed to use the navy to patrol Australian waters and protect whales from Japanese fishermen. You can read Rudd’s plans here. I think it’s a good idea, it’s about time a government got serious about the issue and sent a clear message to Japan that hunting rare whales won’t be tolerated in Australian waters. Shouldn’t be tolerated anywhere in the world to be honest. Norway and Japan can whine all they want, it’s about time someone stands up to their bullying at the UN, and their piss-weak “scientific research” excuse.

        1. Migaloo
          What a beautiful animal, don’t you think?

          To kill such a wonder is much more than a crime.

          It’s a SIN.

          —–
          It’s not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me…
          It’s all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

          Red Pill Junkie

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.