x

Don't Try This at Home

9:50 AM -- The 2007 Darwin Awards race has a new front-runner, to judge from this LA Times story:

    A man who authorities say appeared to be driving while using his laptop computer died Monday when his car crossed into oncoming traffic and collided with a Hummer.

    California Highway Patrol officers found the victim's computer still running and plugged into the cigarette lighter of his 1991 Honda Accord.
Wow. It was still running, post-Hummer. What's the crash-test rating on your laptop?

— Larry, Attack Monkey, Light Reading

Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:12:46 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home

We may have to make you an honorary "Fun Ruiner".


That would be a first. Offline, I'm the life of the party. ;)


1) "Frontier mentality" is about growth and change, not about stagnation. Its about the "Don't fence me in" free spirit.

2) Environmentalists and druids are all about "the world was perfect in year X". There are now too many humans on the planet trying for too much in the name of pursuit of happiness. They propose that it would be better to have more exotic plants and animals than it would be to have more humans.


Both of these views, if dogmatically adhered to, are equally flawed. Does "don't fence me in" mean there shouldn't be child porn laws, for example? Obviously, as a society, there is agreement that certain behaviors should be moderated or curtailed. The question is when and where to draw the line, and what role, if any, government should play in that process, depending on the issue on the table.

To your point, at the other end of the spectrum, it is ironic that some environmentalists who claim to be so passionate about saving the planet (and some animal rights activists too) seem to violently dislike their fellow human beings. In that case, who exactly do they think they are saving the planet for? It's bizarre.


But I suppose the SPs don't really want to think about what is under the covers, it wouldn't feel good: and to an SP, its all about how it feels.


Um, isn't this the exact pattern of non-thinking, fact-ignoring emotionalism that has resulted in the Iraq debacle? I'm pretty sure that was not an SP initiative. Hopefully, we can all learn from this "don't really want to think about what is under the covers" mistake and approach the climate change issue more sensibly.

Both ends of the political spectrum -- from neo-con knuckleheads to liberal egg-heads -- seem equally prone to ignore facts and rigorous objective analysis when it is philosophically inconvenient. Why? Because it "feels good" for the dogma dogs to pat each on the back for upholding their doctrine. Conservative idiots and progressive idiots are equally idiotic. Let's lock them all in a room and let them fight it out for the next decade. While that exercise in futility plays out, maybe the reasonable majority of the population with a clue can get some real work done.
sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:12:51 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Thanks for clarifying, CLG. I agree about not posting first graders grades on the bulletin board. And for the record, games of tag are encouraged at Quaker schools.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:12:51 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "So, you don't object to competitiveness if it's of an athletic nature only if it's of the intellectual variety?"

I did ascribe to the view that child's play should be child's play with only enough supervision that bullying is prevented.

I also ascribed that the purpose of early art class was to emphasize encouraging children to enjoy art and deemphasis on comparing their works to that of the masters. An elementary art class room that is filled with masters art insteead of the art of the students is not, IMO, appropriate. I think I also talked about encouraging children to sing by giving them plenty of opportunity and praise for their willingness to sing and zero judgement to their technique or skill.

Friendly competition (without bullying) on the playground is expected. Art and intellectual pursuits are supposed to be more about more reserved (internalized) competition: I.e., posting every first graders grades on the bulletin board is not something I would ascribe to as positive. (Does my view remind you of Quaker approach?)

At higher grades, art and intelligence competitions (such as chess team, debating team, Destination Imagination teams) are very much appropriate for those that voluntarily want to partake.

CLG
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:12:52 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "Do you really think there are many SPs who are NASCAR fans? I always thought that was a red state pastime."

I was talking about the publishers/editors/writers of SI being SP.

Atheletes tend to be very competitive which typically goes counter to the SP crowd that want to ban playing tag during school recess.

You are absolutely correct that NASCAR is more a red state pasttime.
sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:12:52 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home re:"Atheletes tend to be very competitive which typically goes counter to the SP crowd that want to ban playing tag during school recess."

Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I'm sure you will :) -- but I seem to remember the subject of intellectual competitiveness coming up during the thread about art teachers. I seem to remember that you ascribed intellectual competitiveness as being a SP characteristic. So, you don't object to competitiveness if it's of an athletic nature only if it's of the intellectual variety?

I'm on deadline today and don't have time to go back and find the exact post, so forgive me if I'm remembering this incorrectly.
sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:12:53 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home re: "They even had the gall to talk about NASCARs attempts at being green: hahahahahahaha"

Do you really think there are many SPs who are NASCAR fans? I always thought that was a red state pastime.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:12:54 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Now you SP's have gone too far:

Cover story in SI regarding Global Warming!
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c...

Major league sports is all about carbon emission in the pursuit of frivolous entertainment. Airline travel, highway congestion all in the pursuit of empathizing with atheletes by physically getting together in large stadiums and arenas. Mostly by the rich or upper middle class: or the middle class that don't save to send their kids to college.

They even had the gall to talk about NASCARs attempts at being green: hahahahahahaha

Auto racing has done more to get american drivers to buy more vehicles and engines with more power than they need with the resulting less fuel efficiency than any other factor in car purchase decisions. Ahh, but NASCAR plants a few trees: give me a break!

The article also mentions golf courses as being "green" - as the water tables out west are being sucked dry- very environmentally friendly?

But I suppose the SPs don't really want to think about what is under the covers, it wouldn't feel good: and to an SP, its all about how it feels.

CLG
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:12:55 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Michael,

There you go trying to get serious again.
We may have to make you an honorary "Fun Ruiner".

Lets start with:

1) "Frontier mentality" is about growth and change, not about stagnation. Its about the "Don't fence me in" free spirit.

2) Environmentalists and druids are all about "the world was perfect in year X". There are now too many humans on the planet trying for too much in the name of pursuit of happiness. They propose that it would be better to have more exotic plants and animals than it would be to have more humans.

3) One could argue that the Social Security system that the US government put in place and resulted in more homes as the grandparents no longer lived with their children was eco-unfriendly. Should their be a sur-tax on non-essential air-travel? Should you consider changing your vacation plans based on its eco-impact?

4) One could also argue that dependent deductions as eco-unfriendly: The poor and middle class should not have children because they can not afford to offset their eco-impact. The rich can stay smug because they can be carbon zero by writing a check.

5) "Yes, but if eating a little less meat, which would save them money, seriously moves the needle environmentally, then why not consider it? Voluntarily, of course." One could say the same thing about alcohol and cigarettes. These "social change" ideas always start off voluntary, but over time the left typically wants to compel behavior by the force of law.
Do you consider Kyoto a set of "voluntary" changes?

6) No one has the scientific proof of the long term cause and effects of human initiated carbon release. Climate in large part is a very complex thermal dynamics problem. Can any one tell me the total thermal caloric content of the Earth and how it has varied in the last billion or 50 thousand years? Do most people really understand that in historic geoclimate terms we ARE still in an ice age?

7) Its amazing that progressives have enough historical perspective to accept seasonal change: the thought of them considering 60 year cycles or 40K year cycles would just hurt their brains too much.

CLG
Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:12:56 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Granted, PETA is the fundamentalist psycho contingent on the liberal side of the aisle. However, their point intersects what PO was saying: let's identify the real sources of climate change and attack those first which provide the best return. If it is animal agriculture, eat one less BK Stacker a day instead of trading in your SUV. Not too painful.

Indeed, to go back to one of CLG's original points:


3) The poor and middle class cannot afford to payoff others to get to a "zero carbon sum" without seriously impacting their disposable income.


Yes, but if eating a little less meat, which would save them money, seriously moves the needle environmentally, then why not consider it? Voluntarily, of course.
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:12:58 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Ah Yes,

Next on the menu at Whole Foods Market is Free Range Panda, Free Range Monkey.

AHHHHHHH Soylent Green is PETA!!!!
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:12:59 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home
Awesome observation, Trict!

But to get on the menu, it has to either taste good or at least be interesting.

So far, its has proved impossible to domesticate Panda.

Maybe farmed Panda could be used as an ipecac substitute.

;)

CLG
trict 12/5/2012 | 3:13:01 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home ENDANGERED SPECIES
If people really want to save animals from vanishing they shuold put them on the menu! Note, we have no shortage of cows? On the menu. Chicken, on the menu. Now elephants and Rhinos are in trouble and they are not on the menu! The answer seems simple to me. We have lots of the stuff we eat!
Now where is that Panda steak I ordered?
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:02 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Wait one dog gone minute here.

I thought PETA stood for: People Eating Tasty Animals.

Dang it, too late to stop payment on that membership check I sent them!

www.petakillsanimals.com

Boy do I look stupid now. Sheesh!
trict 12/5/2012 | 3:13:02 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home
Feed PETA members to animals, eat the animals. Or just eat PETA members. (tastes like chicken)
Better yet covert PETA people to bio-diesel, burn them in your gas tank, lower dependence on foreign oil, (unless we have to start buring foreigh PETA members) on the way to get a burger.
(And if possiable run over a few animals on the way to the burger stand)



CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:03 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home http://www.drudgereport.com/fl...

PETA TO AL GORE: YOU CANG«÷T BE A MEAT-EATING ENVIRONMENTALIST
Tue Mar 06 2007 17:08:05 ET

The Most G«ˇInconvenient TruthG«÷: According to U.N., Animals Raised for Food Generate More Greenhouse Gases Than All Cars and Trucks Combined

Norfolk, Va. G«Ų This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux G«£fried chickenG«• as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that GoreG«÷s film, An Inconvenient TruthG«Ųwhich starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for G«£Best DocumentaryG«•G«Ųhas failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

-+ The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report G«£LivestockG«÷s Long ShadowG«ŲEnvironmental Issues and Options,G«• the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.

-+ Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

G«£The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,G«• says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. G«£The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that heG«÷s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.G«•


I've already solved this with the typical first order analysis done by progressives: I eat meat so they have to kill cows and prevent their farting. QED. And in the words of Bill Maher: "and that's a fact"

CLG
PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:09 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "I've read the IPCC reports too. "

Then you're aware that the warming trend correlates more closely with restoration of O3 in the atmosphere than with the presence of CO2. And that 1998 was less of an anomaly than suggested, given the facts of 1992 and the fallout from Mt. Pinatubo.

You're aware of just how many "conclusions" are drawn without any basis given.

Yes, atmospheric CO2 is a significant issue. And you can go ahead and stop exhaling it if you so choose, to help recover the environment. But I'd rather follow the science and know what's important first.
Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:13:10 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Unfortunately, there is not yet agreement on what the problem is that needs to be solved. But facts are cricital to that discussion, and reducing alarmist rhetoric on all sides may enable a more adult discussion.

Some of the questions below are discussed in various IPCC reports; conclusions are much harder to come by.


Seems as a society we have difficulty with nuance. :)

Both science and common sense indicate environmentally something is seriously amiss. I've read the IPCC reports too. Hopefully, in this country, we can get beyond the need to waste scientists' time proving there is a problem (i.e. deep-six the denial) and redirect scientific and policymaking efforts toward best diagnosing its causes and remedies.
Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:13:10 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home The US has the military and economic power to cause change. To quote Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "With great power, comes great responsibility".

Very true. My spider sense is tingling.


Larry wants the US not to lead: let some other country or organization do it. Well, we all know what happened to Uncle Ben.


Not deciding is still a decision. Look at what happened to Uncle Ben (http://www.unclebens.com), ending up as an instant-rice salesman after all his effort.

The caveat about humility is key, of course. Leadership need not imply a presumption of superiority.

mu-law 12/5/2012 | 3:13:13 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home I suspect that the driver confronted the futility of his own exitence upon learning that an academy award was bestowed upon the masterpiece that was the theme of Al Gore's movie.

I Need to Throw Up


mboltin 12/5/2012 | 3:13:15 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home CLC....

Thanks for the reply>

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"

I see you grasped my point. It reminds me of the saying:

"Never argue with idiots. They will just pull you down to their level and win by experience"

You win.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:15 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home mboltin,

Since you've only posted here twice, I guess it was presumptious of me to assume you read through the thread before you posted. If you did, you would have realized that my laughter was primarily directed at Larry Monkey and not you.

And we shouldn't fight: Remember we are all a day closer to dying out from Global Warming!

CLG
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:16 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Sure Larry- Let's let the UN or France lead the way for a while.

The US has the military and economic power to cause change.

To quote Peter Parker's Uncle Ben, "With great power, comes great responsibility".

Larry wants the US not to lead: let some other country or organization do it. Well, we all know what happened to Uncle Ben.

Like it or not, the world requires the US leadership. Without it, we can rely on the corruption of the UN to keep the status quo: not moving populations to democratic rule nor human rights. Expect more use of terrorism to accomplish political goals and causing destablization.

Larry- You failed to recognize why I brought dinosaurs in the conversation and laughed about it and yet less that 10 posts later the importance of the fact was revealed. Have you ever won a game of chess? You do not seem to have the depth of rational thinking to look beyond the obvious. Does your brain hurt when you try?

CLG
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:13:16 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Larry is NEVER sarcastic. :-P, whatever that means.
The point:
Are we the Moral Leader because we can kick the crap out of everyone else? Heil Us!
Does the World want or need a Moral Leader? And if they did, would it be us?
Granted, we got Rocky XII, we got Britney, we got McDonald's, and let's not forget Oprah...
But still, let me answer that question: No.
Truth to tell, I don't think we're the most screwed-up country in the world. But we needn't give ourselves airs about being the Light of the Future.
Jeez... I mean... We're still debating Global Warming. No one else is. No one. Gosh, we're special!
Evolution? Let's not "go there," as the kids said in 1989.
It ain't easy being The Empire.
Let's give ourselves a big Invisible Hand.
PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:17 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "ideologues on both the left and right seem more interested in defending dogma than in solving problems"

Sadly, this appears too true. Unfortunately, there is not yet agreement on what the problem is that needs to be solved. But facts are cricital to that discussion, and reducing alarmist rhetoric on all sides may enable a more adult discussion.

Some of the questions below are discussed in various IPCC reports; conclusions are much harder to come by.

Why is CO2, with a Greenhouse Warming Potential of "1" and a concentration rise of about 40% over the past 200 or so years, considered to be so much more important than CH4 (methane), assigned a GWP of 21 and having a concentration rise of about 230% over the past couple centuries?

What happens if we adopt a carbon credit trading scheme and find that it leads to a net increase in the creation of GHGs (because it's so much more profitable to add scrubbers to remove some of the byproducts of that production).
http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/p...

What happens if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars to remove atmospheric CO2, then find that CO2 played a much smaller role than otherwise thought? Or that developing nations increase their CO2 output and we have not only spent a lot of money, but have to deal with the full effect and costs of climate change regardless?

What is the most effective way of removing CO2? Scrubbers? Harvest forests for burial and replanting?

Why haven't we even published a "heat energy budget", adding up the heat-energy created in both the short and long term from solar, terracentric, animal, and anthropogenic sources? So far, the IPCC has concentrated soley on a solar budget and anthropogenic influences on that budget. Can we prove that those influences are the only ones that matter?

I would encourage everyone to read the IPCC reports. They're long, but fairly easy reading. And they show just how much work remains to be done. The SPM (Summary for Policymakers) of the AR4 (Fourth Assessment Report) is available, as is the TAR (Third Assessment Report).

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/online....
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/WME...
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:13:18 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home ...or brilliant parody?

"We will likely need to pull in our horns as the worlds moral leader because collectively we've lost our will and and have already lost our manufacturing prowlness needed for substantail war."

The Geek continues to top itself.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:18 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home LiteRock-
Nices posts.

What makes Americans different is our "frontier" mentality that served us well for over 300 years.

In the mid 70s we got oil conscience and required 28 mpg portfolios of automobiles. Detroit and the auto unions were on a trajectory to go bankrupt by the mid-80's: in comes the loophole of SUVs and Detriot and auto retirees got a 25 year repreive based on Americans gluttonous tastes.

Would we have been better to plug the SUV loophole before it got started so Americans could buy lower cost smaller more fuel efficient foriegn automobiles faster and we could have the federal government paying the auto unions retirements?

We've replaced the American auto industry with Google advertising and Starbucks coffee.
We will likely need to pull in our horns as the worlds moral leader because collectively we've lost our will and and have already lost our manufacturing prowlness needed for substantail war.

The primary reason Bush lost his mandate is that every single Islamist terrorist plot in the US in the past 4 years has been stopped without substantial lost of life. The American electorate has a very short memory: the smell of Starbuck's is fresher in the mind than the images of 9/11.

CLG
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:18 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home OK Larry, that post will cost you 2 Sarcasm Credits. :-P

CLG wrote:
What makes Americans different is our "frontier" mentality that served us well for over 300 years.

I am not exactly proud of how our Frontier Mentality has served us in many circumstances. One thing that I would hope to pass on to future generation is that humility is not the same a weakness. There is honor and reward in doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.


We will likely need to pull in our horns as the worlds moral leader because collectively we've lost our will and and have already lost our manufacturing prowess needed for substantial war.

See I think this is getting closer to where you and I differ in opinion. I think one of our big problems as Americans is the illusion that we have created for ourselves, that we are the worlds moral compass.

It gets back to that humility thing I mentioned. We as a nation have struggled with embracing that concept and now that we have helped to push the world beyond Communism and Colonialism, we fail to adjust.

We are just as oblivious to the realities and resolve of the people we are fighting as the British were toward the insolent colonists.

Opps, its Happy Hour thirty. Time to kill some more Brain Cells.

I'm Gumby Dammit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Cheers
trict 12/5/2012 | 3:13:19 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home I do not believe in human caused global warming.
(Its a load) BUT, I will fully support the activities that that belief spawns if we actually DO those things that are good for us. Burn less oil, especially foreign. Develop alternative energy supplies, NUCLEAR POWER WORKS, as do electric cars if you can generate the electricity; and stop sending billions of dollars to people who want us dead! Using less energy may require controlling our population growth, again a good thing. I am for it, and doing the smart things should not require a phoney "crisis" but all too often it does.
Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:13:20 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Arguably, the most important issue in addressing climate change -- or any other serious issue we face for that matter -- is reducing the hot air in politics, and discussions like these. Increasingly, ideologues on both the left and right seem more interested in defending dogma than in solving problems. We're all worse off as a result.

Schwarzenegger is spot-on with his "post-partisanship" crusade this year. As the Governator said this week at the National Press Club:


"The left and the right donG«÷t have a monopoly on conscience. We should not let them get away with that. You can be centrist and be principled. You can seek a consensus and retain your convictions. What is more principled than giving up some part of your position to advance the greater good of the people? That is how we arrived at a constitution in this country. Our Founding Fathers would still be meeting at the Holiday Inn in Philadelphia if they hadnG«÷t compromised. Why canG«÷t our political leaders today?"
Full text of the speech is at http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/s...

Interestingly, this week Schwarzenegger and four other Western governors inked their own agreement to stop waiting for the Feds and create their own plan to address climate change.

"This is going to signal to the federal government that if they don't create the lead, the states through these partnerships will create the lead," said [the Governator]. "We will create a cleaner environment ... and we will fight global warming. That's the bottom line." from http://www.azcentral.com/news/...

Of course, such moves are to be expected from a liberal, big government, anti-capitalist, tax-and-spend, tree-hugging egg-head like Schwarzenegger, no? He's such a girlie-man, after all. ;)

A follow-up commentary at http://www.realclearpolitics.c... noted:

Schwarzenegger's brand of centrism means two things -- shunning the extremes in search of common-sense, middle-of-the-road solutions to difficult problems and reaching out across the political divide to incorporate the best ideas your opponents have to offer while giving them credit in the process. We desperately need more of both, not just in California but all around the United States. If you want to know why our politics is broken in this country, this is the reason. We've reached the point where so much of the debate is all-or-nothing and dominated by the shrillest and most extreme voices, where people are afraid to acknowledge that the other side is even half right and where being a moderate is considered the equivalent of being squishy or indecisive. Meanwhile, political parties aren't interested in results or solutions, as much as expanding their reach and enhancing their fundraising by taking potshots at the opposition -- even on those days when there is no real disagreement.

Sound like the dynamics of this message board on occasion?

BTW, this is more than a "global warming" issue, it's about assessing the impact of climate change on our ecosystems, economies, health and well being. I'm no risk assessment expert, but it would seem the key axes involved are probability and magnitude. Given the magnitude in play with climate change, understanding and addressing its probability should be at the top of our agenda.

"These issues come into focus in a startling new report by futurist Peter Schwartz. He turns the usual discussions upside down: Rather than starting with detailed estimates of climate change (how much temperatures will increase; how much sea levels will rise; what new diseases will be spawned) he looks instead at systems that already are vulnerable to such stresses.

What Schwartz discovers with his stress-testing makes climate change even scarier: The world already is precarious; the networks that maintain political and social order already are fragile, especially in urban areas; the dividing line between civilized life and anarchy is frighteningly easy to breach, as the daily news from Iraq reminds us. We look at the behaviors of butterflies or migratory birds as early harbingers of climate change. But what about early impacts on human beings?

"The steady escalation of climate pressure will stretch the resiliency of natural and human systems," writes Schwartz. "In short, climate change pushes systems everywhere toward their tipping point."


From http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Networks being pushed toward their tipping point ... now that is a topic Light Readers should know a thing or two about. :)

-- Michael
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:20 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Michael Said:
Arguably, the most important issue in addressing climate change -- or any other serious issue we face for that matter -- is reducing the hot air in politics, and discussions like these.

Well said Michael. I could not agree with you more than as it relates to Politics and our elected leaders at all levels.

Your use of Schwarzenegger as an example is spot on. He is a fiscal Conservative and at the same time environmentally liberal. The key character trait is the penchant for positive action.

The reduction of hot air on chat threads like this is a mute point. human nature will not allow it. That is one of the reasons to have silly and mocking Blogs by the editors here so that we can blow off some of that hot air.

Did you ever stop to think that you guys might provide the outlet that keeps someone from going postal at work?

You guys at LR really need to give yourselves more credit.

One of the main reasons that the Democrats have not had any success since the reign of Bill is that they did not keep the democratic boat moving forward. With the drain plug out the boat continued to fill up with political bile.

Meanwhile Bush and the right wing spent 6+ years self destructing their own party at the expense of a bunch of lives. I attribute the recent Democratic wins in Congress more to that Republican self destruction than the Democrats doing anything great.

If the Democrats don't do anything stupid in the next ~18 months, then I think they will likely take the White House. Politics, like nature is a self correcting system.

Lets hope we can keep nature from killing us off as a part of it's correction.

I have studied many cultures and we could learn a great deal from the Native Americans our forefathers so willingly massacred.

So my question to you is, would you vote for Rudy G?
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:22 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home C'mon, DarkWriting- put down your throwing stones and tell us the right answer to the problem.

CLG


Pardon me CLGFR, May I take a stab at it?

Thank you.

It is clear to me that the SPFRs of the world are so steeped in emotion that it adversly affects their ability to be "deciders"

I say we encourage more use of fossil fuels so that I can have a higher standard of living and that way I can afford to buy more Carbon Credits.

This increased consumption in the US and especially India & China when tied with the inevitable X factor of terrorism (The inevitable disruptions in various parts of the Global fossil fuel supply chain) will eventually drive people toward alternative energy sources.

This includes our leadership on both sides of the aisle. There will be an outcry from the people. Untill the pain becomes so great that they cannot bear it any longer, the world and Americans specifically will just grumble and continue to take it like good little followers.

The eouropean settlers and now, the "Ugly Americans" will continue to pillage the earth because they can. The rest of the world will follow because it's in all of our nature to do so.

There are many things that are worse than CO2 emissions that humans are doing to the world. As CLG has clearly pointed out Global Warming IS NOT terminal.

P.S. Oh by the way his name is Oscar Hinojosa.
PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:22 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "There are probably less than a thousand climatologists that are even remotely using science to study global climate causes and effects."

It gets even better: although the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) for the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is awash in statistical terminology, statisticians were not invited to participate. Indeed, proper stastical analysis of the weather and climate data is very weak in the TAR (the full AR4 won't be available for several more months, but I'm not holding my breath for improvements in the analysis).

Sure, we all need to clean up our act, but the doom and gloom stories are not supported by the facts.
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:23 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "Sorry LR, I was referring to my own post about the free market which you took seriously, not about any of your posts."

In typical SP fashion, when asked what method to use to address a problem, DarkWriting suggests that "free market" is NOT the answer while not even hinting at what would be the right answer.
Hmmm, and they wonder why Republicans have been put in charge at greater numbers than their registration numbers would predict. Leadership means being a decider. But only deciding what is wrong is not leadership: Describing the direction to take is needed.

C'mon, DarkWriting- put down your throwing stones and tell us the right answer to the problem.

CLG
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:24 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "What happens if you are wrong? You'll say sorry as we all slowly die out?"

Larry, its my turn:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

See Larry- mbolton proves my point as to why I brought up carbon levels of the time of the dinosaurs. Many on your side of the arguement love the "we are all slowly going to die out" view of global warming even when there is clear scientific and historic evidence to the contrary and not a single shred of evidence toward the "we're all going to die" scenario.

Is Chicken Little your mascot?

To be called true science requires a theory and a testable predictable result that is repeatable.
Anything less than that is drenched in politics and hyperbole.
There are probably less than a thousand climatologists that are even remotely using science to study global climate causes and effects. Meteorological science has made great gains in the last 100 years: It will be at least another 100 years before we can trust climatologists as much as weathermen.

CLG
PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:26 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "... Surely it is better to develop non-polluting energy sources? ..."

Where do I suggest any different? Clearly, you haven't read the TAR "Scientific Basis" report, which is available online, and apparently you haven't even read the SPM for AR4.
mboltin 12/5/2012 | 3:13:26 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "The IPCC report(s) touch on many contributing factors, but then somehow "scientists" leap to the conclusion that only CO2 is really a problem.

Other, more powerful GHGs (e.g. methane) having increased concentrations by several times as much as CO2 doesn't seem to bother them. The tilt of the earth, changes in the earth's orbit, heat generated directly by energy consumption, direct heating (e.g. from volcanoes), and total atmospheric, oceanic, and landmass heat energy all get very short coverage: let's face it - there's no money in any of that."

Are you serious? You must be a "scientist".

I think the whole message from "the left" is that we should start thinking about pollution and it's effect on quality of life, if not life itself. Surely it is better to develop non-polluting energy sources? Or we can just argue that nothing has been proven and go on our merry way.

What happens if you are wrong? You'll say sorry as we all slowly die out?

What happens if "the left" is wrong? Cleaner air, fewer wars?
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:27 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Sorry LR, I was referring to my own post about the free market which you took seriously, not about any of your posts.

DW


Right...can't say that I took it very seriously. Your tendancy in the recent past toward distastful confrontation seems to have tainted the well.

Cheers
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:28 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Global Cooling?


While this generation of scientists have a different view than the 70's, they still have not addressed:
"Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery."

Global warming is predicted to kill up to 2-3 percent of humans. The next deep ice age could kill over 95 percent of humans. (And the wars over the remaining food will make Iraq look like a picnic),

So which is more important for scientists to get a good handle on?

If you are a short-term thinker (like most SPs) then you don't consider the next ice age.

Reminds me of the children's fable about the grasshopper and the ant.


CLG


PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:28 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "Haven't you seen the obesity rate in children? We already are growing very large. Maybe we can blame that on the environment."

Hmm. The average person generates about 100W worth of heat. But as the obesity rate grows, and the population goes up, the earth warms up!

The IPCC report(s) touch on many contributing factors, but then somehow "scientists" leap to the conclusion that only CO2 is really a problem.

Other, more powerful GHGs (e.g. methane) having increased concentrations by several times as much as CO2 doesn't seem to bother them. The tilt of the earth, changes in the earth's orbit, heat generated directly by energy consumption, direct heating (e.g. from volcanoes), and total atmospheric, oceanic, and landmass heat energy all get very short coverage: let's face it - there's no money in any of that.
DarkWriting 12/5/2012 | 3:13:29 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Sorry LR, I was referring to my own post about the free market which you took seriously, not about any of your posts.

DW
OldPOTS 12/5/2012 | 3:13:29 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Global Cooling?

Try this;

http://www.glennbeck.com/2006n...

OP
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:29 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "Donald Rumsfeld has a tear welling up in him right now. I don't think even Carl Rove could have come up with any better spin to justify man's persuit of war.

Shoot if we keep going at the pace we are, we won't have to worry about carbon credits or even asteroid."

Donald is enjoying his retirement patiently waiting for historical vindication.

Even today most deaths due to war are low-tech in nature: starvation, mutilation and pillage: but since they don't directly involve the great Satan of George Bush, they don't get any significant liberal media "news" time.

Its definitely arguable that high tech weapons have prevented more deaths than they have caused.
(But only if one is capable of looking beyond sensational first order effects: I guess that excludes most SPs.)

As a percentage of population, the last 50 years have had much less death due to war than any time known.

Imagine a world without soldiers or policeman to keep the criminal minds in line? John Lennon, a patron SP saint, sure did. Throughout history, it has never worked for very long.
Authority and cooperative threat of force goes hand-in-hand with defensible civilizations.
Paying extortion or changing your perspective about what is right or wrong based on the actions of a small percentage of terrorists is never a lasting strategy for a number one global power.

The left's love affair with the UN is a joke.
The UN charter says it supposed to be advocating democracy: how successful has it been?

I love the advocates supporting military "peacekeepers" of non-Americans for Darfur who also advocate getting out of Iraq.
Advocating paying Africans to risk their lives in Darfur to push the SP perspective of good/evil as long as it does not risk American lives: its sort of like paying someone else to offset your carbon use: you should feel guilty about it.


CLG
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:30 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home facetious: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant

DW


presumptuous: showing presumption or readiness to presume in conduct or thought; arrogant

Seriousness of an issue is in the eye of the beholder. My humor was deliberately appropriate and factual given the current discussion.

Expanding ones consciousness to try and understand others ideas and points of view will help in the long run. You don't have to agree with other's thoughts and opinions, but you should respect their right to have and express them.

Cheers

LR
DarkWriting 12/5/2012 | 3:13:31 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home facetious: Treating serious issues with deliberately inappropriate humor; flippant

DW
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:31 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Let's leave it to the free market, shall we?

DW


Regular Gasoline - $2.20 per gallon

West Texas Light Sweet Crude - $61.00 per barrel

Ford F250, V10, Crew Cab, 4WD PU Truck @ 10 MPG -$39,000

Making the majority of your income from Oil and Gas revenue - Priceless

Oink!
DarkWriting 12/5/2012 | 3:13:33 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home 12) What system should we use to get to choose who the carbon pigs get to be?

Let's leave it to the free market, shall we?

DW
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:35 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home CLGFR Wrote:

Aren't you all glad to know that when (not if) we are threatened by a future asteriod,it will in large part be man's pursuit of war that will have given us the tools to prevent the next extra-terrestrial cateclismic event from wiping out most higher life forms on the Earth?

Remember, it is always better to swerve to the right.


"You spin me right round baby right round, like a record baby, right round, right round."

Donald Rumsfeld has a tear welling up in him right now. I don't think even Carl Rove could have come up with any better spin to justify man's persuit of war.

Shoot if we keep going at the pace we are, we won't have to worry about carbon credits or even asteroid.

I think the biggest problem people are going to have with Global Warming and the associated sea level rise is the loss of their precious Left Coast. It changes the face of the earth. We adjust.

Hey according to Anthony Robbins, change is good! Embrace Change!! :-D

Cheers
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:37 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Larry- I sure hope your not driving when you read this. Maybe you should pull over...

The hyperbole of the Global Warming protagonaists includes the claim that human carbon activity will make the planet uninhabitable.

Even those of you with limited scientific understanding are able to comprehend that Earth was actaully inhabitable during the time of the dinosaur.

The dinosaurs were wiped out by an an extra-terrestrial event: an asteroid.

Aren't you all glad to know that when (not if) we are threatened by a future asteriod,it will in large part be man's pursuit of war that will have given us the tools to prevent the next extra-terrestrial cateclismic event from wiping out most higher life forms on the Earth?

Remember, it is always better to swerve to the right.

CLG

Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:13:37 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Looks like the editorial staff is contribution neutral and needs to buy some "Sarcasm Credits". Off Gassing isn't just for cows anymore. :-P

Dang, yet another inconvenient truth.
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:37 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Looks like the editorial staff is contribution neutral and needs to buy some "Sarcasm Credits".

Off Gassing isn't just for cows anymore. :-P

Cheers
rjmcmahon 12/5/2012 | 3:13:38 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Haven't you seen the obesity rate in children? We already are growing very large. Maybe we can blame that on the environment.

Blame it on calories intake more than calories expended. It's that simple. Doesn't solve the problem though. The following may be more helpful to anybody trying to address the issue.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/...
Michael Harris 12/5/2012 | 3:13:39 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home even the worse case scenarios of global warming never result in a world that is hotter or has more atmospheric carbon than the days of the dinosaur.

Phew, this must mean the human race is not likely to face a worse fate than the dinosaurs. All this climate change talk had me worried there for a minute. ;)



sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:13:39 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Haven't you seen the obesity rate in children? We already are growing very large. Maybe we can blame that on the environment.
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:13:39 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home But first we'll grow very large.
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:13:39 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "8) Almost no global warming advocates seem to know that the core of the Earth is hotter than the surface of the sun and that it is cooling. And that even the worse case scenarios of global warming never result in a world that is hotter or has more atmospheric carbon than the days of the dinosaur."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
sorry
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Lite Rock 12/5/2012 | 3:13:40 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home OMG! How did we go from some poor shmuck dying while mobile computing to Al GoreG«÷s electric bill.

Newswire: Huge Train Wreck Blamed on Secular Progressive Seen Pulling Chat Thread Switch. Pictures at 11.

Sorry, DUDE! I don't live in CA. Maybe s/he was at the Drudge web site choking down his latest lie (i.e. Gore's electricity bill).

DW


I really think the Catholic Church is missing out on a bonanza here. If they start selling indulgences again it could be a huge source of income. Take money from the right wing and the left wing, yeah that's the ticket. Call 'em "Angel Credits".

I wonder what OG«÷Reilly has to say about the whole subject? What say you Bill? "Ditto, I'm with you LR, they're all Pinheads!"

Cheers
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:40 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home
1) Millionares per capita cause much more pollution based on their materialistic tendencies than do middle class or lower income persons.

2) Rather than change their polluting habits many millionaires including Gore feel they can continue to pollute and feel good about it by just paying off others to reduce their own wasteful pollution.

3) The poor and middle class cannot afford to payoff others to get to a "zero carbon sum" without seriously impacting their disposable income.

4) Some millionaires choose to live modestly and leave a small eco wake. Billionare Buffet living in his modest home comes to mind.

5) Its likely that those who choose to use private/corporate jets to get everywhere do more pollution per capita than anyone else. (But their time, convenience, and presence IS more important than most people's, isn't it?)

6) On balance, Gore is much more energy conscience than most people. But... as a jet setting millionaire he uses ALOT of carbon.

7) Gore would do better to encourage virtual travel and meeting attendence (using the telecom industry) as a means to reduce and balance polution per individual.

8) Almost no global warming advocates seem to know that the core of the Earth is hotter than the surface of the sun and that it is cooling. And that even the worse case scenarios of global warming never result in a world that is hotter or has more atmospheric carbon than the days of the dinosaur.

9) Answer this set of questions:
Which people on the Earth should be given the opportunity to:
A) live and/or work in air-conditioned comfort?
B) drive a car to work (without a carpool)
C) fly to visit their relatives
D) fly to explore the world

10) The balancing of jobs to low-cost labor countries is expanding the number of people with the economic means to do 9 A-D as long as polution "taxes" are not included.

11) We who are already doing 9 A-D have no moral standing to tell upwardly mobile people in India and China to be less materialistic and wasteful than we ourselves choose to be or have already done in the past.

12) What system should we use to get to choose who the carbon pigs get to be?
DarkWriting 12/5/2012 | 3:13:40 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home His bill is high because he pays a premium for solar and wind energy. If you factor in the extra cost in kilowatt hours for this energy and given the added security, etc. for his home, he doesn't use any more energy than most homes of the same size. Once again, Drudge/Limbaugh/etc. use very misleading numbers to make something sound bad that isn't. In my opinion, knowingly doing this is a lie!

DW
sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:13:41 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "Maybe s/he was at the Drudge web site choking down his latest lie (i.e. Gore's electricity bill)."

ABC News.com is reporting that his utility bill is $30,000 per year. Gore has said he buys carbon credits to offset the amount he travels.

I like Gore and I voted for him in 2000. But buying carbon credits feels a little like cheating somehow. It's like saying, I'll tell everyone else to conserve but I'm not going to bother practicing what I preach.
PO 12/5/2012 | 3:13:41 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Has anyone actually submitted this to the Darwin Awards site yet? A quick search reveals nothing.
DarkWriting 12/5/2012 | 3:13:41 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home Sorry, DUDE! I don't live in CA. Maybe s/he was at the Drudge web site choking down his latest lie (i.e. Gore's electricity bill).

DW
CoolLightGeek 12/5/2012 | 3:13:45 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "I figure CoolLightGeek."

Thanks for thinking of me but Naah, couldn't be: DarkWriting is still posting.

Unless of course, another secular progressive has gone missing. Can't you tell which one by the group think system you have in place? The Borg could always tell.

;)

CLG
Larry, Monkey 12/5/2012 | 3:13:46 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home "So, if you had to guess, what would you say drove this guy over the divider, e-mail or porn?"

I figure CoolLightGeek.
sfwriter 12/5/2012 | 3:13:46 PM
re: Don't Try This at Home So, if you had to guess, what would you say drove this guy over the divider, e-mail or porn?
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE