WarpMyMind

Did you know that there are scientists who DO NOT believe there is any Global Warming happening on this planet? This subject is generally accepted as a proven theory, but it really IS NOT conclusively proven. Part of the reason we are handed this theory as if it were a proven fact is that the news media thinks it is better for their ratings to scare people. They're afraid that good news will make us get bored and change the channel. But if they tell us something scary, maybe we will stay tuned to their program long enough to see all the commercials. However, there may or may not be any truth in this theory of global warming. That's because Earth's climate goes through periodic changes. Sometimes the global climate will get warmer by a degree or so; and sometimes it will get cooler. We live in a fluctuating ecosystem. Comments are welcome. drydreamer

LOL, drydreamer, have you been watching the Fox News Channel? Or maybe reading "truthful" press releases from Karl Rove?

Sure, the earth goes through weather and temperature cycles. One such temperature downturn led to the extinction of the Viking colony in SW Greenland, the home of Leif Eriksson. Long-term temperature fluctuations are noted in Wales from before 1000 AD. See "A History of Wales," by John Davies (1993). Even as recently as the early 1880s, the eruption of Krakatoa affected world temperatures (lowering them) for several years.

No question about natural, and often unknown, causes for heating/cooling of the atmosphere.

At the same time, chemical reactions in the atmosphere, including reactions involving carbon oxide emissions (CO, COsub2), together with unaltered emissions, result in too much carbon dioxide (COsub2) and ozone at fairly low levels and too little ozone at higher levels. Hence, additional heat retention close to the surface and too little radiation absorption at higher levels. Near the poles, there are now holes in the ozone layer which didn't exist 20 years ago, and people in Patagonia have been warned at times to wear sunscreen all year long.
(I'm no chemist. If someone with greater knowlege--of whom there are probably 11,999 on this site--spots an error that impairs the sequence, I would welcome the correction)

Ordinary carbon can indirectly add to the COsub2 blanketing qualities that cause/contribute to global warming. A living tree is good; a rotting tree is, theoretically, a different matter. It absorbed the carbon from COsub2 while it was growing. What happens to that carbon when it dies?

Leaving aside pollution from factories, electricity plants, dying forests, and the like, the number of cars (and in the U.S. the number of vehicles that meet even lower standards...see pickup trucks, then see auto lobbyists, then see Congressmen who live verrrrrry well, and then see that great "pickup truck" known as the SUV) has risen and so have the emissions. Look at China and, now, India. All the pollution goes somewhere...and indendepent-minded scientists know where it's going and what it's doing.

How about an additional question?

Is global warming caused more by:

(a) industrial plants and vehicles emitting carbon, etc., ....or....

(b) sleek politicians emitting methane?

I think our government hides alot of information so not to start mass panic.

sandy82 wrote:All the pollution goes somewhere...and indendepent-minded scientists know where it's going and what it's doing.

Are these the same independent-minded scientists I remember telling me in the 1970s with such certainty that the Ice Age was coming back?

Sorry, I couldn't resist that one... :wink:

And seriously, I earn a good portion of my living editing for scientific and other journals. In the last 15 years, I've seen studies on everything from global warming to the Chernobyl exlusion zone to levels of heavy-metal pollutants in the roots of Belgian forests. And there's just as much spin and misinformation on this subject from the "global warming sky is falling" side as there is from the "global warming doesn't exist" side. Both camps should be treated with some healthy skepticism.

Whenever you have a politician or a reporter or an activist talking about this subject, it's a safe bet they're leaving something out, no matter which side of the debate they fall on. The arguments tend to focus more on political agendas (on both sides) then they do on the actual science, or on the actual effectiveness of any given proposal. How many debates have focused on whether Kyoto could actually accomplish what it was intended to do (even with the United States involved), for instance, rather than descending into name-calling and preening on both sides? Honest, serious people can disagree about whether Kyoto is the right way to go without being scientifically illiterate robber barons or Birkenstock-wearin', granola-crunchin' Gaia-lovers. It's always easier to caricature the other side by its most extreme members, though, than it is to realize there are intelligent people on both sides of this issue.

We're learning that nature is much more resilient than we've been giving it credit for. That doesn't mean there aren't serous problems, but it does mean there's a lot we still don't know. (Let me tell you, scientific "peer review" ain't all it's cracked up to be. Politicians have no monopoly on ego!)

Is global warming happening? From what I've seen, most likely. But does that mean we understand all the mechanisms involved? Hardly. I've seen more than one paper indicating that even if we reduced all our man-made greenhouse emissions to zero, we'd still be facing global warming (even if on a reduced scale). And I've seen *far* too many predictions of ecologic catastrophe that haven't come about. (Anyone remember the Club of Rome? :oops: )

Predicting the future is a tricky business, but I guess that's what makes it so fun... :wink:

morrcomm, that is a great post.

Don't get me wrong. I share your view almost totally. My natural predisposition is to tell the PETA people and, as you say, the Birkenstock crowd to shove it.

My natural inclination has been tempered by following closely the level of discourse (and candor) that emanates from this Administration. Why not ditch USDA regs and replace them with "My Pet Goat"? Or to get the right perspective: "My Bible-thumping and Corporate Tax-deducting Pet Goat."

As for Kyoto, my objections center on the miserable text that we initialed in the first place. By setting 1990 or 1991 as the base year, the Germans got to count all the Trabis and all the East German factories that were going to be eliminated anyway. The British got to credit open-pit mines and coal-fired utilities that either had been closed by the time of the negotiations or were firmly set for closure anyway. Did the US get credit for all the steel mills that were closed around Pittsburgh? No. That happened in the 1980s.

To spread the blame where blame is due, the draft Kyoto agreement was the fault of the Clinton Administration.

We never learn. In the mid-1920s, the Washington Naval Treaty set strict ratio limits on the number of battleships at least five countries could have. The US scrapped actual ships. Everyone else tore up blueprints.

As for man-made greenhouse gases, rank methane right up there. And when one considers 1.3 billion farting Chinese, one begins to see a genuine dimension of the problem!

Is whether the weather fluctuations are 100% our fault?

As sandy82 pointed out, weather fluctuations in the past are not uncommon. There was the mini-iceage in the 1800's that was one of the factors to the French Revolution. And there are numerous huge explosions from volcanoes in the history that have added their own pollutic form to our atmosphere.

But are we solely to blame for global warming? Or is it a combination of facts? Would we be experiencing a-certain-form of Global Warming now if we were 100% pollution free? I think so, yes.

However we are making it like a BILLION times worse. Maybe if our environment weren't the way it is now (stupid Ozone Layer! how DARE you keep the pollution and other hazardous gases inside our atmosphere!), maybe then we wouldn't have global warming.

But then we wouldn't be here either.

:twisted: I for one believe that global warming is taking place. I don't believe that we are the cause of it. To believe that we can affect the temperature of the planet to such an extent is the height of arrogance. Do we contribute to it? Perhaps in a small way we do but there is evidence of major climate changes in the past when humans weren't around. I tend to believe that it's just a natural cycle. As for the ozone layer I find it funny that the only holes in the ozone layer are at the north and south poles, right where the Earth's magnetic field funnels the solar particles. :twisted:

I think it should be noted in this discussion that the media gets a lot of mileage out of frightening headlines. How do we know about global warming or anything else? Usually because we see or hear it in the news media. Back in the days before electronic media, there were a lot of people who simply didn't know about many of the things that were going on. For example, records of weather disasters only go back so far; so there may have been destructive hurricanes that few if any people ever heard about, because no one survived to tell their friends about it!

There is a certain psychology to fear mongering. Because of religious traditions, many people have a secret suspicion that God is going to punish them somehow because of their mistakes and failures. So when the TV news anchor starts talking about a hurricane that's heading their way, a little voice in the back of their minds says "aw oh! Here it comes! Just as I suspected!" And of course, this suspicion that they have been having will then cause them to give the news their full attention. When the TV news person starts talking about global warming, the next thought we may have is "it's God's retribution." This grabs our attention and we are hooked. Which is exactly what the TV station wants, of course, because they are concerned about their ratings. But if the news anchor starts talking about the nice boy scouts who helped some crippled people in the bus station, we tune out! Why? Because after all, that could not be God's retribution - it's GOOD, not bad! So if we could just stop waiting for God to punish us, maybe we could carefully analyse what we are hearing and not jump to negative conclusions.

Does anyone remember the flap about 05/05/2000? Remember? Some guy wrote a book about how the world was going to come to an end on 05/05/2000 because of the planetary alignment that took place on that date, and also because of the amount of ice that had built up on the South Pole. :lol: He said that the gravitational force brought to bear on Earth by all the outer planets that were lined up, together with the extra weight of ice packed on the South Pole would cause Earth to role over on it's side with catastrophic consequences! :lol: As foolish as this idea may sound now, that book flew off the bookstore shelves as May of 2000 approached! It was that little voice in the back of our heads saying "here it comes - just as I suspected." But it did not come. Nor did IT come on the numerous other occasions when silly men predicted the END. They all made great money from their books, and now we have subsidized the handsome retirements of these guys who had the gutts to write down their foolish ideas. They're probably all basking in the sun on the beach at Rio, either laughing at us, or laughing at themselves. But if the joke is on us, we deserve it because we bought into the religious programming we were brought up with. I predict that in a hundred years we will all be wondering what the big flap was about global warming. drydreamer

No doubt that the earth goes through temperature variations based on natural or unknown causes. Isadora, I didn't know about the link to the French Revolution. Interesting!

No doubt that man, to whatever extent, is introducing into the atmosphere chemicals whose reactions and properties can contribute to warming. For those who grew up in retribution-based environments, I can understand that a first thought might well be that we're all being punished.

Here's a notion to ponder. If we can't tell when natural rises and falls are occurring or how long they will last, and if we don't know precisely how much humans are contributing to a rise, then at least two (actually many more in between) possibilities are out there.

1. If, in the natural cycle, temperatures are currently rising, then man's contribution to global warming looks negligible.

2. On the other hand, let's suppose the following. If, in the natural cycle, temperatures would currently be falling (if it were not for man-made pollution's contribution to global warming) then we may have a problem in the future.

There are two "bright sides" here. In the first instance, nothing to worry about. In the second, all of us here will probably be dead from other causes before the effects become genuinely dangerous.

In the meantime, morrcomm raised an interesting point about viewpoints, egos, and axes to grind. It's interesting to watch what nostrums are being peddled on all sides of the issue.

On July 20, drydreamer organized an interesting discussion around the question "Do You Believe in Global Warming?" Morrcomm seemed to be the best informed of the participants, due to interest, judgment and his having edited many scientific papers during the past 15 years.

In rummaging through Google News (no passwords, wide variety) this morning, I came across the following news story, dated today.

I may be wrong, but it seems that the debate has passed all the July 20 participants by. Below we have five right-of-center Republican senators, a centrist Democrat, and a 53-44 Senate resolution last month calling for "a national program of mandatory market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases." There seems to be little disagreement on the existence of Global Warming and the need for remedial measures. The debate as usual has progressed to the inevitable political question "Can't we find a painless cure?"

In one news story from its indexes, today Google News wrote:
Senators Struggle to Act on Global Warming

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 22, 2005; Page A03

After listening to some of the world's preeminent climate researchers yesterday, a bipartisan group of senators said they saw the need to take quick action on global warming but were struggling to reach consensus on what policy to adopt.

Several Republicans on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said during the two-hour hearing that they would consider adopting mandatory limits on emissions of heat-trapping gases but that they prefer the approach of promoting new technologies that do not contribute to the problem.

"I don't think the issue is whether we have a major international problem; the question is: How do we solve it?" said the panel's chairman, Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.). "I'm looking for a solution, but I'm not going to join the crowd that thinks it's simple."

Last month, the Senate adopted a nonbinding resolution by a vote of 53 to 44 calling for a "national program of mandatory market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases" that would not hurt the U.S. economy and would encourage other polluting nations to follow suit. The Senate defeated a bipartisan bill by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) that sought to establish a mandatory federal cap on heat-trapping emissions, and Domenici said he hoped his committee's climate change hearings would help lawmakers devise an alternative.

The scientists testifying yesterday, including National Academy of Sciences President Ralph J. Cicerone and Nobel prize-winning chemist Mario Molina, all said the world is warming at a dangerous rate, and that human activity accounts for much of the recent temperature rise.

"Climate change is perhaps the most worrisome global environmental problem confronting human society today," said Molina, a professor at the University of California at San Diego. Molina added that while experts are still uncertain about exactly how global warming will play out in future decades, "not knowing with certainty how the climate system will respond should not be an excuse for inaction."

Several committee Republicans, including some who had questioned climate change predictions in the past, said they agree the world has reached a scientific consensus on global warming.

"I have come to believe, along with many of my colleagues, that there is a substantial human effect on the environment," said Sen. Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho), who has opposed mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and voted against last month's "sense of the Senate" resolution on climate change.

Some GOP senators, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), went further. In an interview, Murkowski said that "there's an emerging consensus we've got to deal" with climate change, adding it would be "tough" to cut greenhouse gases sufficiently through voluntary programs alone.

"I'd rather we don't have to [adopt mandatory limits], but we know what happens when we leave it to our good judgment. Sometimes we don't see the benefits," she said.

Some Republican panel members said they would be more open to the witnesses' call to arms if the scientists would embrace nuclear power, which does not release carbon dioxide as coal-fired power plants do. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) lectured the climatologists from the dais, saying that installing solar panels "might be nice for a desert island, but that's not going to work . . . in America."

Cicerone replied that nuclear power "has tremendous potential. People just want to see it done safely."

It remains unclear how quickly lawmakers would be willing to act on climate change proposals. Domenici said in an interview that he plans to bring in a group of global warming skeptics to testify, and he would prefer requiring that American companies install cleaner technology, rather than setting specific targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"They're not saying we have to do something tomorrow morning," Domenici said of the scientists.

I don't care. I still don't believe there is a serious problem with Global Warming, and politicians are not always correct in their assessment of the priorities of different issues. Most often, their personal agenda's, or the agenda's of their constituents are foremost in their minds. But if the readers of this discussion still wish to be controlled by fear, they are welcome, and their congressmen will be very grateful for the attention.

And why was this thread moved to the Philosophy, Religion & Politics Forum? Does EMG agree with me that religion has precipitated this flap about global warming by trying to scare us with stories of divine punishment? If so, thanks for helping me make my point! drydreamer

The thread was in the old location when I posted this morning.

drydreamer, I don't care about the issue at all. We'll be dead before it's a problem...if it is a problem. The most interesting items are that:

(1) conservative Republican senators are now agreeing in principle (but not in detail) on an issue that used to be the preserve of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer, et al.
(2) the Republican-controlled Senate took time off from its favorite issues to pass a non-binding resolution addressing "mandatory market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases."

My focus here, drydreamer, is slightly different from yours. Namely: whether or not Global Warming exists, the two numbered items are facts worth remembering.

I'm happy for you if you think you made your point. I genuinely mean that. This life contains few enough perceived successes.

drydreamer wrote:I don't care. I still don't believe there is a serious problem with Global Warming, and politicians are not always correct in their assessment of the priorities of different issues. Most often, their personal agenda's, or the agenda's of their constituents are foremost in their minds. But if the readers of this discussion still wish to be controlled by fear, they are welcome, and their congressmen will be very grateful for the attention.

And why was this thread moved to the Philosophy, Religion & Politics Forum? Does EMG agree with me that religion has precipitated this flap about global warming by trying to scare us with stories of divine punishment? If so, thanks for helping me make my point! drydreamer

I voted yes. I won't have much to say on this, because I clearly know nowhere near as much on the subject as you do, and when I don't know much I try to keep my mouth shut...

But here's my two cents:

1. We are logging forests faster than they are growing. Plants are our source of oxygen, so I think that this is a bad move on our part.

2. The human race is growing. The population of Earth is growing exponentially. Our oxygen consumption is also therefore growing exponentially.

3. Due to cars, factories, whatever... Our Carbon Dioxide output is also increasing exponentially. (Among with other harmful gases I'm sure).

So, unless anyone can tell me those three poitns are wrong, I figure that the Human race needs to change it's gameplan, or lose. We are destroying the environment, while we increasingly need it. This is not smart.

I'm not sure so much about global warming, but I think that the Human Race has a terrible tendancy towards strange optimism when it comes to areas where money is to be made. Many are not willing to accept global warming (real or not) because it means that people will have to change their lifestyle, possibly for the worst.

When the truth is depressing, it's amazing how some people refuse it.

-Linja

Linja wrote: I'm not sure so much about global warming, but I think that the Human Race has a terrible tendency towards strange optimism when it comes to areas where money is to be made. Many are not willing to accept global warming (real or not) because it means that people will have to change their lifestyle, possibly for the worst.

When the truth is depressing, it's amazing how some people refuse it.

Well said. Succinct and right on target.

If people in America have to change their lifestyle, I suspect that for most people the quantity of life will change more than the quality of life.

How many television sets does a person need? How many people genuinely need a gas-guzzling SUV, complete with airplane-style, DVD-fed viewing screens for the middle and rear seats?

In the U.S. in 1950 the size of the average new house was smaller than 1,000 sq. ft./93 sq. meters. In some areas of the country today the size of the average new house is considerably more than twice as big. New houses of 4,000 sq.ft/370 sq. meters are not unusual. Average family size today is smaller than in 1950.

How much bituminous coal is used to heat/cool these places? How many trees to build them?

sandy82 wrote:(1) conservative Republican senators are now agreeing in principle (but not in detail) on an issue that used to be the preserve of the Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy, Teddy Kennedy, Charles Schumer, et al.
(2) the Republican-controlled Senate took time off from its favorite issues to pass a non-binding resolution addressing "mandatory market-based limits and incentives on greenhouse gases."

That was an interesting article, sandy. Thanks for posting it.

I'm not sure how much of a real shift this represents, though. It's easy to vote for a non-binding resolution that doesn't cost you anything, and I'd wager at least a few of those votes were rather cynical -- especially after voting down the McCain/Leiberman bill. ("See? I voted for this nonbinding resolution even though I voted against McCain/Leiberman. Don't call me an enemy of the environment, Sierra Club, when your PAC money supports my opponent next year!" :wink: )

Around the same time, too, the House was spending its time debating a non-binding resolution condemning a cartoon character from decades ago that recently resurfaced on a set of Mexican postage stamps for being racially offensive. Another easy vote with no real effect on things, for better or worse. (Don't even think about suggesting that the House might have more important issues to spend its time on, though. Like maybe trying to figure out how to raise minority literacy rates, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil, or keeping Darfur from being forgotten in the public's mind. That set of stamps must be stopped!!! :twisted: )

Senators in both parties aren't exactly known for consistency, either, when it comes to matching their votes with their rhetoric. How many Rust Belt Democrats, for instance, have spent years flogging Bush relentlessly (and maybe even rightly) for not putting up the Kyoto Treaty for Senate ratification, but secretly thank their lucky stars each night they don't actually have to go ahead and vote against it now, because the effect it would have on the industries employing voters in their states would put them out of office rather quickly?

I'd be really interesting to know more about the hearing itself, too. Did they have anyone testifying that global warming wasn't occurring, or that man-made emissions weren't accounting for all of it? Even someone who could be easily dismissed? There are hearings, and then there are hearings... 8)

And there are responsive posts, and then there are posts where you get carried away because you'd rather not be working instead. Guess which one this was... :oops:

morrcomm

LOL, morrcomm, you have described perfectly the Kerry Syndrome:

"I think I used to vote against that...until I voted for it."

The entire Congress is famous for voting "for" in committee, "against" on the floor. Or the variation: "for" the authorization; "against" the appropriation.

What would interest me here, and perhaps you have access to the answer. Comparing like with like, has the Republican-controlled Senate ever before adopted a resolution that mentions the existence of global warming; and have an equivalent number of Republican senators been so straightforward in their comments.

sandy82 wrote:What would interest me here, and perhaps you have access to the answer. Comparing like with like, has the Republican-controlled Senate ever before adopted a resolution that mentions the existence of global warming; and have an equivalent number of Republican senators been so straightforward in their comments.

I want to say yes, though maybe not in quite this format, but I honestly don't know. Some Republican senators have been, definitely, but the number at the same time and in the same place is something else again.

Thanks, morrcomm. I'll go with the following formulation:

<<Is global warming happening? From what I've seen, most likely. But does that mean we understand all the mechanisms involved? Hardly.>>


As they say, plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery. :)

sandy82 wrote:morrcomm, that is a great post.

Don't get me wrong. I share your view almost totally. My natural predisposition is to tell the PETA people and, as you say, the Birkenstock crowd to shove it.

My natural inclination has been tempered by following closely the level of discourse (and candor) that emanates from this Administration. Why not ditch USDA regs and replace them with "My Pet Goat"? Or to get the right perspective: "My Bible-thumping and Corporate Tax-deducting Pet Goat."

As for Kyoto, my objections center on the miserable text that we initialed in the first place. By setting 1990 or 1991 as the base year, the Germans got to count all the Trabis and all the East German factories that were going to be eliminated anyway. The British got to credit open-pit mines and coal-fired utilities that either had been closed by the time of the negotiations or were firmly set for closure anyway. Did the US get credit for all the steel mills that were closed around Pittsburgh? No. That happened in the 1980s.

To spread the blame where blame is due, the draft Kyoto agreement was the fault of the Clinton Administration.

We never learn. In the mid-1920s, the Washington Naval Treaty set strict ratio limits on the number of battleships at least five countries could have. The US scrapped actual ships. Everyone else tore up blueprints.

As for man-made greenhouse gases, rank methane right up there. And when one considers 1.3 billion farting Chinese, one begins to see a genuine dimension of the problem!

Hmm, PETA...People Eating Tasty Animals? I believe it is all cyclical...man more then likely didn't cause the last warming trend. :wink: Nature has been in control of the thermoatat for eons, and will more then likely take the reins again if we succeed in wiping ourselves out. Personally I believe that we will figure out how to control things before we exit the building.

Interestingly enough, there is serious talk among scientists with the space program about terraforming Mars! For those of you who don't know, terraforming means to change an alien planet into a world like "Terra," or Earth as most of us call it. And guess what one method would be? The introduction of greenhouse gases! Yes, it's really true! Greenhouse gases are actually NEEDED on Mars because the atmosphere is way too thin, and the planet is too cold. The primary greenhouse gas that is available there is CO2, but it is locked up in the rocks and soil of Mars. There are ways to get the CO2 out of the ground and into the air; and this would quickly make the atmosphere much thicker, and would cause the atmosphere to retain much more heat. Even though people cannot breath such an atmosphere, the CO2 would build enough atmospheric pressure that people could walk around on the surface of Mars without space suits, and needing only breathing masks. Then the excess CO2 could be scrubbed from the air by planting lots of trees and vegetation. Plants love CO2, and they produce oxygen which would then be added to the atmosphere. After about a hundred years, we wouldn't need the air masks anymore. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, and could assist in the function of thickening and heating the atmosphere; but it has the drawback of not being compatible with plants, so some other method would have to be used to reduce the atmospheric methane levels. But maybe since we are so good at producing greenhouse gases, we just need to take our expertise to Mars! drydreamer

gurlbidesign wrote:

sandy82 wrote:morrcomm, that is a great post.

Don't get me wrong. I share your view almost totally. My natural predisposition is to tell the PETA people and, as you say, the Birkenstock crowd to shove it.

My natural inclination has been tempered by following closely the level of discourse (and candor) that emanates from this Administration. Why not ditch USDA regs and replace them with "My Pet Goat"? Or to get the right perspective: "My Bible-thumping and Corporate Tax-deducting Pet Goat."

As for Kyoto, my objections center on the miserable text that we initialed in the first place. By setting 1990 or 1991 as the base year, the Germans got to count all the Trabis and all the East German factories that were going to be eliminated anyway. The British got to credit open-pit mines and coal-fired utilities that either had been closed by the time of the negotiations or were firmly set for closure anyway. Did the US get credit for all the steel mills that were closed around Pittsburgh? No. That happened in the 1980s.

To spread the blame where blame is due, the draft Kyoto agreement was the fault of the Clinton Administration.

We never learn. In the mid-1920s, the Washington Naval Treaty set strict ratio limits on the number of battleships at least five countries could have. The US scrapped actual ships. Everyone else tore up blueprints.

As for man-made greenhouse gases, rank methane right up there. And when one considers 1.3 billion farting Chinese, one begins to see a genuine dimension of the problem!

Hmm, PETA...People Eating Tasty Animals? I believe it is all cyclical...man more then likely didn't cause the last warming trend. :wink: Nature has been in control of the thermoatat for eons, and will more then likely take the reins again if we succeed in wiping ourselves out. Personally I believe that we will figure out how to control things before we exit the building.

Nothing to add. I enjoy seeing full posts copied and re-copied, for no apparent reason.

drydreamer wrote:Interestingly enough, there is serious talk among scientists with the space program about terraforming Mars! For those of you who don't know, terraforming means to change an alien planet into a world like "Terra," or Earth as most of us call it. And guess what one method would be? The introduction of greenhouse gases! Yes, it's really true! Greenhouse gases are actually NEEDED on Mars because the atmosphere is way too thin, and the planet is too cold. The primary greenhouse gas that is available there is CO2, but it is locked up in the rocks and soil of Mars. There are ways to get the CO2 out of the ground and into the air; and this would quickly make the atmosphere much thicker, and would cause the atmosphere to retain much more heat. Even though people cannot breath such an atmosphere, the CO2 would build enough atmospheric pressure that people could walk around on the surface of Mars without space suits, and needing only breathing masks. Then the excess CO2 could be scrubbed from the air by planting lots of trees and vegetation. Plants love CO2, and they produce oxygen which would then be added to the atmosphere. After about a hundred years, we wouldn't need the air masks anymore. Methane is also a greenhouse gas, and could assist in the function of thickening and heating the atmosphere; but it has the drawback of not being compatible with plants, so some other method would have to be used to reduce the atmospheric methane levels. But maybe since we are so good at producing greenhouse gases, we just need to take our expertise to Mars! drydreamer

A great series of books on the terrafomringof mars is by Kim Stanley Robinson. The books, in order, are "Red Mars", "Green Mars," "Blue Mars" and "The Martians." I am currently reading Blue Mars. The books get a bit drawn out, but they do present a lot of information on how global warming can be generated artificially.

I have read the trilogy, Red Mars-GreenMars-Blue Mars, and one interesting thing about Kim Stanley Robinson is that he is actually a scientist who writes fiction on the side. Most of the really good SciFi writers are real scientists these days, and they use a lot of real science in their writing. Terraforming is something we actually know how to do; but we just can't afford the space program that would be necessary to carry it out. Believe it or not, it would even be possible to terraform the moon! Crash an ice asteroid about 500 miles in diameter into the moon, and all the ice would be vaporized, creating an instant atmosphere! Yes the moon's weak gravity would not be able to hold it; but guess how long it would take for the air to bleed away into space: 100,000 years! That's much longer than all of recorded human history on Earth! So even the moon could be changed by the hand of man - that is IF he could get the program through congress! LOL drydreamer

I've only just read this topic and I CANNOT BELIEVE this!!!
The electric car has already been developed but not released (it's been bought out by oil companies to protect profits).
Parts of the polar ice shelf have already melted off and sea levels are rising because the ice caps are melting.
British (I don't know the figures for other countries, sorry) summers are getting hotter by about a 1/4 degree celsius each year.
BMW (may actually be some other manufacturer - could be wrong) have already developed hybrid cars that only use petrol for faster speeds and electricity for lower speeds.
Organic fuel that uses crops for lower CO2 emissions has been developed.
Companies are considering storing waste gases at the bottom of the sea to halt the effects.
All this evidence and you STILL think global warming isn't a problem - no, worse - that it DOESN'T EVEN EXIST???!!! If it doesn't exist then it seems that people are wasting a HELL of a lot of money on something nonexistant.
As for the media circus INVENTING it for shock tactics - that would be more along the lines of a Sudan1 problem. The press in Britain alleged that products containing Sudan 1 were dangerous as Sudan1 is a carcinogen and thousand of British stores had to alter their inventories accordingly. It was true - Sudan 1 IS a carcinogen, but it comes in such minute amounts that you'd have to eat several hundred jars of curry powder in one sitting to face a slight risk of contracting cancer. THAT is a media press circus, not global warming.
You'd have thought wouldn't you, that if these 'scientists' were certain global warming doesn't exist they'd be on their phones right now;
'Hey guys, this global warming business, it's just a load of hot air -yeah neat joke, huh? So, like basically you're all off the hook; politicians, oil companies, car companies, everyone. What's that? You wish I'd told you sooner? What, before you spent millions securing that electric car, and building a hybrid car? Oh, sorry, it must have slipped my mind...'
Or alternatively, maybe these scientists enjoy seeing their fellow man sweat for a living (metaphorically).

loony28, as for your comment, that we are not the biggest contributors - are you serious we breathe CO2 out (yeah okay, so do a lot of things), we run power stations, factories and cars which churn CO2 out so fast it seems it doesn't know where to go, we manage farms with cows on that fart methane and we're constantly chopping down rainforests that we need to soak up CO2, too many times without even planting replacement trees. To say we are the main contributors isn't bigheaded at all, it's the honest truth. What's bigheaded is to feel it's not our responsibility to clear up after ourselves.

And sandy82, I normally find your comments to be the most logical, neutral and pacifying ones on the board, but to say that we shouldn't worry about global warming now saddens me. What about our children? Even if you don't have children, future generations will be affected by this. Maybe not the direct next generation, granted, but your bloodlines (if you do have kids) could be affected by this.

In this rant I may have come on like a hippy, but I didn't mean to. I'm not vegetarian, I don't wish everyone could just get along and I admit war can be necessary. I even consider the possibility that the use of the A-bomb was justified. As for the G8 summit and Africa, I agreed with Bush (for the first and probably last time) that helping Africa is down to trade, not calling off the debt and letting dictators scoop up the money.
However, although I am used to some fairly selfish, angry and pathetic posts in these forums (ah who can forget that evangelical weirdo of a month ago) this topic has been the first that has actually upset me. To refuse to help lessen the blow of global warming is selfish enough (just by catching a bus if it's possible, instead of driving) but to refuse to believe it exists beggars belief.

But like sandy82 says, who cares?
Soon oil stocks will run out, people will NEED electric cars and that will both lessen our reliance on the middle east, meaning less of a terrorist threat (poor Bush, no more terrorists to fight) and less contribution to the greenhouse effect.
Of course by then coasts will have been submerged in freezing water, but at least you'll be able to drive your SUVS - until the fuel runs out.

BobbyS, what can I say? You found the two lines I threw in because I was tired of the low level of the debate. Here's what I said:

"...I don't care about the issue at all. We'll be dead before it's a problem...if it is a problem. The most interesting items are that..."

That was a rhetorical ploy leading to two facts that the nay-sayers couldn't ignore. And if they would admit to two facts, maybe there was hope for a third.

Frankly, I shouldn't have done that, even though I was trying to put across a trace of reality. The other several hundred lines I wrote were more accurate and honest.

You are right, and your fellow UK subjects (I have trouble with citizens of a kingdom) are right. Much needs to be done.

Some things could have a profound impact, and they would be revenue-neutral. Here's one. All gasoline stations would charge $5.00 per gallon of gasoline. The difference between the actual price (now about $2.75 for 87-octane regular) and the $5.00 would be credited to the purchaser and refunded in a lump sum once a year. Since the personal savings rate in the US is now down about 0.0 percent, the present payment of $5.00 would sting. But the annual refund, in the hundreds of dollars, would probably be spent on a new washing machine or refrigerator. Merely by changing the time and frequency that money is received, one could change the way the money is spent. Fewer automobile rides, and more efficient new applicances. Nobody on the right of the spectrum could claim that their taxes were being raised.

Why won't we do that? Who would buy an aircraft carrier, aka SUV, or a Hummer?

I could go on. You were right, Bobby, while I was trying to be clever. Yours was the better choice.

Wow, guess I'm kind of eating humble pie now... :oops:
Sandy82, you made very good points, I just got a bit carried away when I saw some of the stuff written in the forums.
I agree that your plan of charging $5.00 for petrol and giving annual rebates would achieve the desired effect and whilst I would be happy to go along under a similar plan, I fear those opposed would consider it a bit of a dictatorship.... :lol: Also, there'd be unavoidable problems or questions concerning the government's handling of the rebates.

So whilst I could have kept a cooler head in the post, I still stand by every <other> point I made.

Look yall make good points on both sides of the issue, the earth takes care of herself, with oil spills in the oceans it makes bugs that consume the oil(just as a IE). The climate has always gone up in down, IE, the ice age that killed all of the dinosaurs. :( We as humans may have some impact on “global warming” it is minimal at most, electric car wont help unless we stop using coal and oil to make electricity and start using nuclear power, with would cause gas price to go down :D and extend the “limited oil supply”, but to do that we would need to get rid of the nature nazis and other hippies type people here in the USA. I know this don’t make sense to a lot of people, but I will end this with this saying “ It is fun to try to destroy earth to prove we can not” (stolen from the Kingdude Mike Church on Sirius sat. radio 142)

Fascinating post. I really mean that.

Would it be possible for you to promise us that you never attended school in the U.S.?

I also feel sorry for the dinosaurs. Imagine: an entire species wiped out.

I bet you're against gun control. So am I. But I'm in favor of registering computers.

snidia wrote:Look yall make good points on both sides of the issue, the earth takes care of herself, with oil spills in the oceans it makes bugs that consume the oil(just as a IE). The climate has always gone up in down, IE, the ice age that killed all of the dinosaurs. :( We as humans may have some impact on “global warming” it is minimal at most, electric car wont help unless we stop using coal and oil to make electricity and start using nuclear power, with would cause gas price to go down :D and extend the “limited oil supply”, but to do that we would need to get rid of the nature nazis and other hippies type people here in the USA. I know this don’t make sense to a lot of people, but I will end this with this saying “ It is fun to try to destroy earth to prove we can not” (stolen from the Kingdude Mike Church on Sirius sat. radio 142)

Several times in this thread, some have wondered why intelligent people find it so easy to discount global warming. It's a good question, and one of the answers has to be rhetoric like the below:

"When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming."

Believe it or not, that's the second line of an op-ed from the Boston Globe (dated August 30, 2005). Hard to take seriously anything else he writes on the subject after that. The entire piece can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

Somehow, I completely missed two feet of snow falling on my home. But it's in the Boston Globe, so I guess it must be true... :wink:

morrcomm wrote:Several times in this thread, some have wondered why intelligent people find it so easy to discount global warming. It's a good question, and one of the answers has to be rhetoric like the below:

"When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming."

Believe it or not, that's the second line of an op-ed from the Boston Globe (dated August 30, 2005). Hard to take seriously anything else he writes on the subject after that. The entire piece can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

Somehow, I completely missed two feet of snow falling on my home. But it's in the Boston Globe, so I guess it must be true... :wink:

I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles. But I do remember the measurable snowfall in LA. It was a lead story on the various evening news programs. It was noticeable, and noteworthy, in the upland areas on the fringes of LA, now covered with cookie-cutter tract houses. In certain sections of the metro area, there was no trace of snow at all.

LOL, morrcomm, if we relied on an op-ed columnist in the Sulzberger-owned Boston Globe, nobody would believe the earth exists. After all, his Other Paper gave us that renowned journalist, Jayson Blair.

Usually, the Globe manages to find better "filler" than someone named [Who Is] Ross Gelbspan [?], author of "The Heat is On" and "Boiling Point." But it was late August, heading into Labor Day; and Boston was treated to the column you mention--which blames global warming for both torrential rains and severe drought.

The titles of Gelbspan's two tomes sound like paperback porn. :wink: I'm an optimist. I hope that by mid-September he will return to the same level of recognition as his books.

sandy82 wrote:[I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles.

But you're not Ross Gelbspan. And you'd have at least ten people here serving as better editors and fact-checkers than he apparently had. :wink:

Snow isn't unheard of in this area, either. Glendora, just outside of LA, had a huge snowfall in the early 1900s, for instance. I don't think Ross knows about that one -- but I'd love to see what he would say caused it!

sandy82 wrote:

morrcomm wrote:
Several times in this thread, some have wondered why intelligent people find it so easy to discount global warming. It's a good question, and one of the answers has to be rhetoric like the below:

"When the year began with a two-foot snowfall in Los Angeles, the cause was global warming."

Believe it or not, that's the second line of an op-ed from the Boston Globe (dated August 30, 2005). Hard to take seriously anything else he writes on the subject after that. The entire piece can be found at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

Somehow, I completely missed two feet of snow falling on my home. But it's in the Boston Globe, so I guess it must be true... :wink:

I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles. But I do remember the measurable snowfall in LA. It was a lead story on the various evening news programs. It was noticeable, and noteworthy, in the upland areas on the fringes of LA, now covered with cookie-cutter tract houses. In certain sections of the metro area, there was no trace of snow at all.

LOL, morrcomm, if we relied on an op-ed columnist in the Sulzberger-owned Boston Globe, nobody would believe the earth exists. After all, his Other Paper gave us that renowned journalist, Jayson Blair.

Usually, the Globe manages to find better "filler" than someone named [Who Is] Ross Gelbspan [?], author of "The Heat is On" and "Boiling Point." But it was late August, heading into Labor Day; and Boston was treated to the column you mention--which blames global warming for both torrential rains and severe drought.

The titles of Gelbspan's two tomes sound like paperback porn. :wink: I'm an optimist. I hope that by mid-September he will return to the same level of recognition as his books.

morrcomm wrote:

After morrcomm's editing, the remaining snippet appears to contradict what else was said when sandy82 wrote:I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles.

But you're not Ross Gelbspan. And you'd have at least ten people here serving as better editors and fact-checkers than he apparently had. :wink:

Snow isn't unheard of in this area, either. Glendora, just outside of LA, had a huge snowfall in the early 1900s, for instance. I don't think Ross knows about that one -- but I'd love to see what he would say caused it!

Morrcomm, you're right. I'm not Ross Gelbspan.

He's unimportant. So is the LA snowfall of January 2005, which did occur--enough so that children living in higher-altitude suburbs were able to throw snowballs. Both are distractions from the larger issue of global warming.

I wouldn't cite Gelbspan for or against any proposition. Irresponsible, and as a phenomenal lightweight, he doesn't significantly alter the scales, whichever side he sits on. Frankly, he sounds as though he is a "useful tool" of some group or another. Glib, glossy, and dishonest.

Interesting you mention Glendora. If memory serves, that used to show as your place of residence next to each post. At least until July 30 at 2:12 pm MDT. I'm sure you used it after that, but that's when I got tired of being the fact-checker on my PC.

Chronological files are hell.

sandy82, taking much too seriously my post about an op-ed writer giving the impression that two feet of snow had fallen all over the sprawlingly massive place known as LA, wrote:

After morrcomm's editing, the remaining snippet appears to contradict what else was said when sandy82 wrote:I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles.

But you're not Ross Gelbspan. And you'd have at least ten people here serving as better editors and fact-checkers than he apparently had. :wink:

Belive it or not, I was trying to pay you a compliment, Sandy -- that you're much smarter and more careful with your words than Ross Gelbspan is. Sorry I didn't manage to phrase things clearly enough to get that point across.

sandy82 wrote:Interesting you mention Glendora. If memory serves, that used to show as your place of residence next to each post. At least until July 30 at 2:12 pm MDT. I'm sure you used it after that, but that's when I got tired of being the fact-checker on my PC.

Why yes, I do still live in Glendora. I'm still married, too, by the way... :wink:

.
Liked the indignation. Not as "righteous" as I had expected, but just as self-serving. :wink:

Actually, I enjoy dissecting your writing techniques. The first piece set up a straw man to get a laugh at the expense of credible people concerned about the environment. The phrasing was good: "some" contrasted with "intelligent people." The flaws in the logic float by...because the rhythm and structure are workmanlike. The typical reader does not stop and realize it: one of the answers for why some question global warming does not "have" to be the sort of hyperbole coming from Ross Gelbspan. Why not refer to the legitimate concerns raised by BobbyS, instead of retrieving the "rhetoric" of Gelbspan? BobbyS is a much more eloquent and reasonable spokesman on the dangers of global warming than what I've seen from Gelbspan. The fact of the matter is that you wanted a buffoon. You didn't want an earnest colleague. You wanted a vehicle, and you found Gelbspan. But even what he actually said turned out not to be wild enough for you: focusing on location alone, Gelbspan did not say that snow fell all over the LA area. He said that snow fell in LA. (A tree grows in Brooklyn, but there's still room for streets and buildings.)

The second piece wrenched one sentence out of 11 and had the effect (I can't prove intent) of reversing the meaning of what I had said. And in the third you say you were paying a compliment. A genuine delight, and with the same editing techniques. (In my previous post, I purposely included every word of all four posts up to that point. Any reader can note the contrast, for this post and its predecessor should both be on page three.)

The compliment! :lol: What a gem! I hope many, many people are smarter than Ross Gelbspan. While we're at it, I also hope that many people are more empathetic than Geoffrey Dahmer. If either hope is unfounded, we are all in serious trouble.

You churn out some wonderful stuff from the standpoint of superficial effectiveness; and if I valued propaganda techniques, I would give you high marks. You also score well for irrelevant effrontery and feigned derision...if such qualities are being given positive recognition.

Unfortunately, what you write and how you write it show no intellectual or interpersonal honesty. Some of both may be lurking somewhere, but it has never been apparent to me...or to some others who read closely.

When I have the time, we can go over clarity and candor in writing.

You apologized to me for your not being able to phrase things clearly enough to get your point across to me. A great back-handed dig. It's like the teacher apologizing to the slow second-grader because she has been unable, even after ten tries, to get him to remember how to spell even very simple words. It's a useful technique...scorn cloaked in counterfeit concern...and it's used often enough that it must have a name. Morrcontempt.

Let me apologize to you, with equal sincerity, for not having the insight and acumen to see whatever sterling aspects may reside in your character.

Be honest, morrcomm. :wink:

(Especially in the next 4-6 months.)

- - - - - - - - - - -

Below is the prior post to which my current post responds. This prior post does not, in my view, accurately reflect the contents of the thread.

morrcomm wrote:

sandy82, taking much too seriously my post about an op-ed writer giving the impression that two feet of snow had fallen all over the sprawlingly massive place known as LA, wrote:

After morrcomm's editing, the remaining snippet appears to contradict what else was said when sandy82 wrote:I can't say the snowfall was linked to global warming or that there was two feet of it or that it fell over the entire city of Los Angeles.

But you're not Ross Gelbspan. And you'd have at least ten people here serving as better editors and fact-checkers than he apparently had. :wink:

Belive it or not, I was trying to pay you a compliment, Sandy -- that you're much smarter and more careful with your words than Ross Gelbspan is. Sorry I didn't manage to phrase things clearly enough to get that point across.

sandy82 wrote:Interesting you mention Glendora. If memory serves, that used to show as your place of residence next to each post. At least until July 30 at 2:12 pm MDT. I'm sure you used it after that, but that's when I got tired of being the fact-checker on my PC.

Why yes, I do still live in Glendora. I'm still married, too, by the way... :wink:

I wondered why you removed the name of the town, and I'm sure the real reason has much more to do with you than with me. By the way, the HS people may well take considerably longer than you might expect.
.

sandy82 wrote:NWC

Be well, sandy... 8)

I think it would be foolish not to believe in global warming. With that said, I don't believe any of us will have to worry about it in our lifetimes. I had a dream about what will eventually happen and basically nature will fight back and win.

By the way, what the heck does NWC stand for?

I have to say Im with Makidas on this one.I think Ive said it somewhere before ,but Mother Earths fighting back ,and shaking us of her back like the parasites we are.
Oh yes and what does NWC mean?

makidas wrote:I think it would be foolish not to believe in global warming. With that said, I don't believe any of us will have to worry about it in our lifetimes. I had a dream about what will eventually happen and basically nature will fight back and win.

Makidas, I think that in the main you and Missypuss are correct. Global warming is real; and the visible, serious problems are probably decades (or more) in the future. I hope that is a fair paraphrase. I don't want to put words in your mouth.

BobbyS made a number of excellent points, and many should be taken as fair warning to us. Prophetic.

When a city and a nation were unprepared for what could happen, we had...and have... a New Orleans. The following is no joke: the Department of Homeland Security has a "National Defense Plan" and one of the 15 specifics in the plan is how to deal with a Category 5 hurricane. DHS wrote up detailed scenarios and released them last winter. Apparently nobody paid much attention to the scenarios--not even the department that wrote them. How long have we known that New Orleans is a low-lying city? Since before we bought the place in 1803. And then the director of Federal Emergency Management Agency said on Tuesday that the breaches in the levees would be closed "in relatively short order."

That's the sort of advance planning and happy talk we don't need--in any situation.

The first step is usually the admission that a potential problem exists, even if the possibility is presently considered remote. Planning and logistics exercises are cheap, compared to the alternative. We should be looking at dual-use reforms that are beneficial whether or not global warming looms next week or next century. Greater fuel efficiency and further reductions in exhaust emissions are interrelated steps we need to take. If we don't care about the atmosphere, we can help save our wallets. And if we stop to think that the energy market is now global, we can slow our contribution to rising energy prices in Europe and elsewhere in the world.

It seems a straightforward concept, but the Administration seems to have trouble comprehending it. New fuel-efficiency standards for personally owned vehicles have been proposed. And what's the proposed fuel-efficiency standard for SUVs weighing more than 8500 pounds/3860 kilos?

No standard. No limit. No apparent concern for tight energy markets--at least, not when it comes to the very largest SUVs.

LOL, Makidas. You ask about NWC. As I told Missypuss yesterday in one of a number of PMs, sometimes it's a filler and sometimes it's not. Apparently someone felt compelled to make an erroneous guess and spread his supposition across the planet yesterday. When was that? I could check. The interpretation was interesting, however illogical.

The joy of acronyms. Anything from Not Worth a Crap to Nice Weighty Commentary. Actually, in this case it means Not Without Consultation.
.

missypuss wrote:I have to say Im with Makidas on this one.I think Ive said it somewhere before ,but Mother Earths fighting back ,and shaking us of her back like the parasites we are.
Oh yes and what does NWC mean?

Missypuss, have you ever seen the old cop/mystery series called "Columbo"? I think Peter Falk was the principal actor. He wore a rumpled raincoat, pretended to be slow-witted, and always asked the best questions on the way out of the door. These days, much of the worthwhile television here comes with a "Made in the U.K." label.

I share your unease that Mother Earth will start shaking us off her back, and I hope the tremors come later rather than sooner. Having been through four minor earthquakes, I don't want to see/feel the metaphorical equivalent of a large one!

You're in very good company with Makidas. I really enjoy reading his posts. He's direct and plain-spoken, and that's a high compliment in my book. If I remember correctly, those are qualities that you value as well.

I haven't decided on a time yet, but I've already started planning the trip through the West Country. Concentrating on the double-barreled parishes--perhaps even in the winter.

There are plenty of double barreled parishes all over the west country Sandy..!!
Im sure you will enjoy your visit just as much as youl have fun trying to understand the funny west country dialect....
Cider is pronounced "Zider"
Boys are "Bays"
and Girls are "Maids"
Depending on wether you are a holidaymaker in Devon or Cornwall, you would be known as a Grockle or an Emmet.

Question : Shall America sign the Kyoto protocol ?

Answer : Don't ever dream about it boy. Even Kerry wouldn't have done it.

Why : Most of the americans are arrogants and self-sufficients. Sorry to be rude about that. They prefer to drive in their ugly Hummers and protect their own economy and lobbies. And the rest of the world can go to hell.
Is New-Orleans in heaven now ? Well they thought it was in Africa.
I know that Katrina has probably nothing to do with the warming up of the planet. But the point is that America discovers now that the country is not protected by God. It's vulnerable too.

Let me tell you a secret : there is NO GOD ! Surprise ! ! !
Bush is playing with your bollocks ! But he's playing with mine too, and I cannot accept that (because I don't think W is sexy, otherwise...!). :roll:

Hmmn.... Slightly controversial and definately baiting....
Good luck with the fallout ..... :twisted:

LOL, Missypuss. Grockle/Emmet here.

I don't mind hearing someone address me with those particular names. But I don't want to hear what seems to be the name of everyone left in New Orleans: "Freeze!"

Some points of view can be useful and relevant, whether or not they are 100 percent correct. In some instances, the fact that the POV exists is a significant fact in itself.

GAYTTO, you have said what many need to hear. Many Americans don't realize that your point of view exists...or they may think it's a fringe notion of the far left. They don't know that a large number of Europeans (and Asians and Africans and...and...) hold similar opinions.

A couple of points to consider. How you use them, if you use them, may protect you from the irrelevant counterattack. You may not care about such responses, but they consume time and space. Why not pre-empt them?

For my part, I have not seen a civilian Hummer here in the U.S. The richest county in the U.S. is 50 miles from here, and I haven't seen any over there either. I have seen them in Europe. They make an impression when the driver (almost certainly a European) drives down a narrow street with about 20 cm. clearance on either side...then periodically gets out, knocks on a door, and asks the resident to move his car for a few minutes. I'm sure that Hummers are being sold here; maybe the buyers are in Texas and Wyoming. The good news is that GM has bought the Hummer company; so the vehicles probably won't last long. SUVs that weigh more than 3860 kilos exist in far greater numbers.

You're right and wrong on your next point. Many Americans do come across as arrogant, but they don't realize it. You probably see a certain American on television with some frequency. He is arrogant, but he's not representative. I hear, by the way, that he studies arrogance. (He now knows that it contains nine letters and begins with "A". That's progress, I guess. :P )

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are not advocates of self-sufficiency. The exact opposite. Hence, our huge trade deficit. Americans have almost no prejudice about where something is made. A trip to Wal-Mart, Bloomingdale's, or many auto showrooms will convince you of that.

I offer the following point, not to side-track the discussion or to deflect blame. My purpose is to offer a comparison and to give what I hope is a reasonable view of additional facts. If anyone wants to see arrogance and advocacy of sulf-sufficiency, go to Paris. Arrogance is an art form, unless you have something the Parisians want. In the waning days of World War II, the Mayor of Paris (or his equivalent) told an American general that his people needed corn more than anything else. The general asked if he was certain about that. Yes, was the reply. And in a short time, Paris was filled with American-grown corn.*

Self-sufficiency. The French are the authors of mercantilism, and they still think in those terms. That was one of several reasons why the proposed EU constitution failed in the French referendum. No globalizaton, no Polish plumbers. Self-sufficiency, even at quadruple the cost! In fact, the English and French parted company in their basic view of economics after Jean-Baptiste Colbert elaborated the theory of mercantilism for that modest and humble boss of his (did I omit arrogant?), Louis XIV. The traditional British view is that goods represent real wealth. The French view is that gold/currency represent real wealth. From that fundamental divergence, all sorts of differences derive. Incidentally, I side with the British: one can't eat French livres(f.), but one can eat American corn.

I may have mentioned this example of French arrogance to you before. I walked into the main store of Christian Dior in Paris and, without thinking, asked the saleswoman a question in English. Came the frown and the haughty reply:

"Pourquoi est-ce que vous m'adressez en anglais?"

My response came tumbling out with a smile.

"Je t'adresse en anglais, madame, parce que j'ai une mission civilisatrice."

She didn't like the pronoun and she didn't like the message. Unfortunately, I stopped there. The next sentence contained a contrast between parfum and sabon dans la belle France. :wink:

It was no accident that, for years, the only place in France that one could register a new Japanese car was in a Motor Vehicles office about 60 miles/100 kilometers southeast of Paris. The new owner had to appear personally, and the process was very time-consuming. You get the picture.

Kyoto. You've got it right. The US won't sign. And it shouldn't--but not for the reasons you may think. In a previous post, I mentioned that the miserable negotiating by the Clinton people was surpassed by the execrable PR of the Bush "Intelligent Designees." BobbyS, who is British, gives a clear picture, above, of the position the US put itself in. Need I mention that Kyoto does not cover China or India and their 2.3 billion people.

We all need an international accord that's well considered and comprehensive. Kyoto is like a current New Orleans levee: as it stands, it won't serve as a worthwhile foundation for anything further.

New Orleans. One should tread deftly. It turns out, according to the AP, that 80 percent of the households in the flooded areas own(ed) cars. That said, people often make bad choices; and they should not be left alone to suffer grievously from their errors.

I note in passing that the feds in charge of disaster relief are the same ones in charge of protecting the country from terrorism.

Give up the atheism ---> pray for us.

As I said at the outset, a fine post. Illuminating, controversial, intellectually honest, no game-playing.

And for the readers of this post. GAYTTO lives in a city where the typical resident speaks four languages without even thinking about it: Dutch/Flemish, French, English, and German.

*The corn. Americans are criticized for not speaking fluent French. My reaction is that when you ask for something, speak enough of whatever language to make yourself understood. The French official asked in English for corn. In British English, that's wheat. In Scots English, it's oats. In American English, it's maize. The Frenchman wanted wheat for making bread. Instead he got maize/corn on the cob. The French made the nastiest, yellow bread out of the corn...and some of that bread is in a Paris museum to this day. Perhaps the French used the cobs for other purposes. :)
.

Sandy82, your posts are always amazing. Sincerely, it's a pleasure to read your comments.

I didn't want to be rude or controversial, I was a bit (!) upset yesterday in my last post. Thinking that we're all going to crash, and there is no pilot in the plane. Maybe that Kyoto is probably not the best answer to the global warning, but damn, something has to be done. But nobody cares.

The americans readers here are, I hope !, enough open MINDed to see clearly that I meant nothing personal against them (I really not sure about the construction of this sentence).

A few months after the 9/11, I met a guy from Boston who was visiting some relatives here in Brussels. I asked him :
"Do you like your President ?"
No answer.
I asked him again : "Do you like your President ?"
His answer was : "No, I don't like him, but that's the President"

Really I don't understand that point of view.
What's the point to be blind and to shut up when the f... President is leading the country and the rest of the world to the chaos.

Is that a new way of live : "The american way of disaster" ?

I don't have personaly nothing against americans and I'm going to come back in th States in 2006. I don't like the US GOV, that's different.
But your would be astonished to see how "the rest of the world" is considering your country.

I agree with Sandy82. USA is not totally responsible. The emergent countries in Asia will need more and more natural ressources in the following decades. And nothing will stop them. I wonder how it will end.

Vive le Roi, Vive la République !

GAYTTO wrote:A few months after the 9/11, I met a guy from Boston who was visiting some relatives here in Brussels. I asked him :
"Do you like your President ?"
No answer.
I asked him again : "Do you like your President ?"
His answer was : "No, I don't like him, but that's the President"

Really I don't understand that point of view.
What's the point to be blind and to shut up when the f... President is leading the country and the rest of the world to the chaos.

I've had situations like this with my in-laws from abroad. We've all had to learn how to phrase our questions a little differently than usual to make sure our real meaning was coming across. The guy from Boston could just have been acknowledging the reality that Bush was the president and the man we would all need to deal with to get anything done over the next few years. He might have given a different answer if he had been asked "Do you agree with your President?"

.
"O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An' foolish notion... ."

"O would some Power, the small gift give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us,
And many a foolish notion... ."

"To A Louse" (1786), verse 8
----Robert Burns (1759-1796)

GAYTTO wrote:I didn't want to be rude or controversial, I was a bit (!) upset yesterday in my last post. Thinking that we're all going to crash, and there is no pilot in the plane. Maybe that Kyoto is probably not the best answer to the global warning, but damn, something has to be done. But nobody cares.

The americans readers here are, I hope !, enough open MINDed to see clearly that I meant nothing personal against them (I really not sure about the construction of this sentence).

A few months after the 9/11, I met a guy from Boston who was visiting some relatives here in Brussels. I asked him :
"Do you like your President ?"
No answer.
I asked him again : "Do you like your President ?"
His answer was : "No, I don't like him, but that's the President"

Really I don't understand that point of view.
What's the point to be blind and to shut up when the f... President is leading the country and the rest of the world to the chaos.

Is that a new way of live : "The american way of disaster" ?

I don't have personaly nothing against americans and I'm going to come back in th States in 2006. I don't like the US GOV, that's different.
But your would be astonished to see how "the rest of the world" is considering your country.

I agree with Sandy82. USA is not totally responsible. The emergent countries in Asia will need more and more natural ressources in the following decades. And nothing will stop them. I wonder how it will end.

Vive le Roi, Vive la République !

GAYTTO, thanks for the compliment and for your forthright comments and observations. I have quoted your entire post, with the exception of the first line, for two reasons. (A) Two copies are preserved. (B) I don't want to be seen as having indulged in shifting your tone, emphasis, or content by editing. I know many may disagree, but I consider routine removals from someone's written posts to be almost as bad as unacknowledged additions. One reason is that we here, for the most part, are not professional writers; and we may not view each paragraph as a self-contained unit. (As you may know, professional journalists usually write an article in such a way that it will still convey a coherent story if cut at the end of any paragraph. Journalists expect to be edited by the "guillotine slice," as circumstances warrant. Laymen don't write that way; and removal of paragraphs may affect the entire meaning of what they originally presented.)

As you point out, I think many Americans would be astonished to know what people elsewhere think of this country--or, more particularly, this country's current leadership. The kindest thing I can say is that there's so much information out there. A realistic addition to that observation is that many pay little attention to what is there. I see enough commentary, personal and published, from enough different places that I can't escape knowing what others think. The great thing, in relative terms, is that it's all free.

I admit that I did not learn the details of last Thursday's Manhattan shopping spree from domestic sources. I was alerted to the activities of Condoleezza/Imelda by a friend currently in Hong Kong. Ms. Rice did receive a brief notice in an op-ed piece web-sited and presumably published in The Houston Chronicle on Sunday, September 4:

Who on Earth could have known that New Orleans' sinking levees were at risk from a strong hurricane? Anybody who bothered to read the endless warnings over the years about the Big Easy's uneasy fishbowl.

In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Not only was the money depleted by the Bush folly in Iraq; 30 percent of the National Guard and about half its equipment are in Iraq.

Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.

Where's Ms. Rice? She's coming. There's more.

Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA — a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association — admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.

Was he sacked instantly? No, our tone-deaf president hailed him in Mobile, Ala., on Friday: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

It would be one thing if President Bush and his inner circle — Dick Cheney was vacationing in Wyoming; Condi Rice was shoe shopping at Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue and attended Spamalot before bloggers chased her back to Washington; and Andy Card was off in Maine — lacked empathy but could get the job done. But it is a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency that could make this administration implode.

When the president and vice president rashly shook off our allies and our respect for international law to pursue a war built on lies, when they sanctioned torture, they shook the faith of the world in American ideals.

When they were deaf for so long to the horrific misery and cries for help of the victims in New Orleans — most of them poor and black, like those stuck at the back of the evacuation line Friday while 700 guests and employees of the Hyatt Hotel were bused out first — they shook the faith of all Americans in American ideals. And made us ashamed.

Who are we if we can't take care of our own?

The e-mail from HK and the piece above piqued my interest. I did a search in Google News, which often brings up thousands of "hits." But this time I was armed with the magic, limiting word: Ferragamo.

Here's the reference. Some of the items are worth reading. I hope all the links still work.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=Ferragamo+Rice&btnG=Search+News

One value of vituperation is that it's an antidote to happy talk. For vituperation, Jimmy Breslin is hard to surpass:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/nyc-breslin0904,0,7335766.column?coll=ny-business-utility&track=mostemailedlink

For those who don't like to push buttons, Condi Rice reportedly spent thousands of dollars on shoes in Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue in Manhattan on Thursday, September 1--when it was abundantly clear that people were on rooftops in New Orleans and that corpses were in the risen water. Another shopper screamed at her in Ferragamo's: why was she loading up on expensive shoes when people were dying in New Orleans. The shopper was quickly hustled off by armed guards. Rice, in contrast, hustled off to play tennis. The New York Daily News has a fairly detailed summary, including her trip to Broadway and the theater district. Two days later (having been re-oriented) she was in Alabama, solemnly assuring the residents that President Bush is not anti-black.

[GAYTTO, une hypothèse. Would a sitting Flemish foreign minister visit Antwerp to assure the residents that the Walloon Prime Minister was not anti-Flemish? Or, to rephrase, would the Belgian Prime Minister think that was a suitable mission for his foreign minister? to discuss the PM's ethics and values, at government expense, with a domestic audience? My guess is that the answer would be No. Which raises the next question: by extension, was Ms. Rice more likely to have been chosen for the Alabama trip on the basis of her foreign policy expertise and her present position ... or on the basis of her race? No reply necessary. I did read some summaries of her "foreign policy" trip to the Confederate States. Nowhere did I see prominent mention that she had enthusiastically explained to the Alabamians her continuing efforts to bring equal access, equal treatment, and equal justice to the poor and ordinary citizens of Egypt.]

I can't vouch for the accuracy of every word in every referenced article, but I can say that the cumulative impact reminds me, in reversed insight (why didn't the dog bark?), of Abraham Lincoln's words at Gettysburg in 1863.

"...so that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth."

The cumulative impact is that the current leadership here [government, in the British sense] may have originally come "from" the people, but Lincoln's other prepositions/ propositions about it are, for the present, seriously in question.

End of Part I

.
Part II

GAYTTO, I will take your observation one step further. Many Americans would be astonished to see how lots of their fellow citizens are viewing the country...or at least its current leadership. But some Americans may not be forthcoming (perhaps even to their compatriots), for which see below.

As to your conversation with the American from Boston several months after 11/09/01 (which is how the rest of the world would write that date--at least that part of the world that uses genuine Roman letters and supposedly Arabic numerals.) The basic outlook in northwest Europe and the outlook embodied in North American English are close. In addition, your English is good. You knew exactly what you were asking. He knew it, too. He knew exactly what his reply was supposed to mean. He could have phrased it better. He was thoughtful, but not sufficiently articulate.

While the basic outlooks in French and English are very close, each language has its own connotations and each represents cultural and historical attitudes of which even the speaker may be unaware.

Here are some of the reasons why I think you got the answer you did.

1. Timing. Only several months after 9/11, the country was still deluged with Ray Charles, on radio, singing "America the Beautiful," and television networks were still showing the pictures of the plane crashes. The psychological effect was "unity."

2. The U.S. has only two nationally elected figures: the president and vice president. We don't have the useful division that most first-world countries have: a head of state and a head of government. In the UK, people can rally 'round the Queen while despising a prime minister. Americans don't have that luxury. Here, one has to separate qualities and functions within an individual. The process, like the individual, is imperfect at best. Like it or not, the president is the symbol of national unity here. As Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon said, "I'm the only President you've got." 8O

3. From the end of World War 2 until the midst of Vietnam, there was an unwritten rule here that politics stopped at the water's edge. Discussion and compromise on foreign policy, but no acrimonious public divisions to be bruited around the world. Senator Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican, was one of the architects of the policy. He, Harry Truman, and others set the tone. The idea was that Stalin was more of a threat than the members of the other political party. The UN, aid to Greece and Turkey, the Marshall Plan, NATO, SEATO, CENTO, the Berlin airlift, the FRG (whose Constitution was written by American and British political scientists), the Korean War, the European Coal and Steel Community (which the U.S. fully supported), US troops in Lebanon in 1958, the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, even (at the time) the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

An American overseas may not have an active knowledge of those events, but the associations and attitudes that surrounded them linger inchoate in people's minds. Americans will fight over politics at home, but many will not criticize the country or the government when overseas.

4. With the three items above, I hope I have provided some meaningful context for the American's answer to your question.

"Do you like your President?"

"No, I don't like him, but he's the President."

[GAYTTO, I think I see where your rendering of the quotation came from. An accurate and exact, non-English memory of his English words. "Non, je ne l'aime pas, mais c'est le Président."]

As to the choice of words--like, support, favor, crave, whatever--the choice can be very important when dealing with someone from a very different culture, whose native language can carry all sorts of cultural baggage that Westerners know little about. In some third-world countries, great importance is attached to pleasing your conversation partner. Telling the truth may count for less, or nothing at all, depending on location and circumstances. People from cultures marked by centuries of oppression generally are better approached more cautiously because a direct question can trigger associations with authority figures, which mean the police, which can put the person on guard and can damage rapport. In many places east of Greece, your direct question could provoke fleeting but pointed fears of bodily harm or death.

And then there are questions of hierarchy and implied power. These considerations used to be pivotal in Europe when small farmers tended to be tenants of large farmers. Lots of respect for hierarchy can flow from that one relationship. As late as 1800, there were relatively few places, even in western Europe, where serfdom had been overturned...or had never existed. England, Scotland, the Low Countries, France, Westphalia, Norway, most of Switzerland. I suspect that as late as 1900 the psychological links and resulting standards of behavior were still strong. In 1900, people probably wouldn't have asked your question, and the American would have had no question to answer.

As time has passed, modern communications have brought the English-speaking countries, settled from Britain, closer together once again in terms of language, usage, connotations--although the growing congruence is harder to see when certain personalities block the view. Flat/apartment, hood/bonnet, DIY, "twenty years on"/"twenty years later", etc. French and English ideas are relatively close because so much of the language and history are shared. There's probably a 90-percent chance that a traditional four-syllable in English came from French or Latin--excluding modern "built" words in science and technology, which often are manufactured from ancient Greek.

Similarly, Dutch and English are close in outlook. Many of the short words are similar. Not to mention all the "-ion" French words that the Dutch made their own with "-ie." The history and the attitudes are similar. Both developed north of the language line, and (who could hope for a better source :wink: ) extensive research by McDonald's shows that both languages have evolved in an eat-to-live culture, rather than the Latin live-to-eat atmosphere of long meals and a deep and genuine concern with the quality of preprared food.

At the moment, many Canadians are upset with US Government policies and practices, on everything from lumber exports to double standards on Mad Cow Disease. But, in the longer run, the closeness of Canadian and American English is impossible to deny. Shared experience, constant exposure. Even shared background. The original core/critical mass of the anglophone population of Canada came from what is now the United States--individuals and families unhappy with the radical notion of a republic. Hence, an additional reason for the near identity of accents between English Canada and the closest American states. Later, English Canada received many Scottish Highlanders and so did we. Misunderstanding of word meanings and questions between educated Canadians and Americans of long standing are rare.

Canada and the U.S. take in a large number of immigrants. Depending on their country/culture of origin and their level of education, increased care may be needed in choice of words. There could be not only a language barrier, but a cultural and/or religious and/or educational gulf as well. A rule of thumb: the greater the care that is needed, the greater the socio-economic-cultural-educational gulf is likely to be.

There are certain languages, for instance, in which the concept of feeling "personal guilt" is unknown. Even some fluent English speakers from these languages/cultures don't under the notion. To them, you're guilty only if you get caught by someone in authority. I once spent over an hour trying to explain to a fluent English speaker from such a background the difference between "feeling" guilty and being "adjudged" guilty.

She was convinced that "feeling guilty" meant "feeling arrested." A university-educated American professional, born in the Third World of Third World parents. Cultures die hard. (One notes that in some European countries, it is the second generation of immigrants from particular regions that cause the authorities most concern.) Conversations are careful.

If you get into such a situation, you can imagine that you will face difficulty in explaining such differences as ought/should/must and dois/devrais/faut-faudrait. Another category to be careful with is hypotheticals. "What if....?", "Let's suppose....", "Assuming, for the sake of argument, that... ." Better to leave those alone until you really know someone and/or their cultural credentials well.

The notion of "let's suppose...." is at the heart of the scientific method. For example: if radiation can be used to treat cancer and if certain chemical compounds can be used to treat cancer, what if a combination would be even more effective? Thus, a hypothesis is born, and it can be empirically tested.

What if there's no "what if" in a given culture? What quantity and quality of research can take place? I suspect that we're on the frontier of triangular research that will link genetics, culture, and individuals. In some cultures, children don't play "let's pretend." If that hypothesis-bearing neural pathway is not established before a certain age, can it be imprinted later?

I am guessing that since the Bostonian was only visiting in Brussels, you and he were probably using English. Under the circumstances, I think you used an ideal word and question: Do you like your President? Just as opinion polls are careful about word choice, the use of "your President" rather than just his name might tend to elicit a slightly more favorable response.

My feeling is that "agree" can be a sticky word. Agree on what? In addition, "agree" is one of the unusual words on which educated British and educated American English part company. In American English, "agree" when followed by a noun is almost always intransitive: one agrees on something, to something, with something or somebody. Each preposition has a slightly different meaning. In British English, people can agree proposals. If you had been looking for an alternative to "like", you would have been wise to go elsewhere. I note that in standard French, agréer--like the British "agree"--can take a direct object. In the sense of "approve" or "accept."

If the equivalent of "like" works in French and Dutch, the chances are high that it would work in English. You chose well.

My bet is that many Americans, speaking informally, might have asked, "What do you think of Bush?"

My supposition is that if you asked the same question of the same Bostonian today, you would get a rather different response. :-)

When all of us speak, we carry a great deal of hidden, even unknown, cultural baggage around with us. In some senses, where we stand depends on where we sit. Of potential significance in this globalized world, where he stand can equally depend on where we used to sit. In certain circumstances, it is an issue with which governments are increasingly, if not pleasantly, familiar.

GAYTTO, this has been a thoroughly enjoyable exchange. I hope that you won't think poorly of the Bostonian. He was a culture-bearer, expressing the mainstream spirit of the immediate times in which he spoke.

And a quick note. The next time a global-warming agreement is negotiated, I hope the American side contains people who grew up in New York City, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Chicago. People who spent their early years in rural Montana may not have a deep, visceral reaction to air pollution.
.

Wow!;)

sandy82 wrote:Part II - NWC

Sandy, you never fail to entertain. Be well, my friend... :wink: