Don Hudson Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Mitch - wha'y'all know thar ain' no rednecks in Canada...ain'nuff sun... Check Pilot; Would it surprise you at all if I agreed with what you posted? Maybe not. In fact, most of what I write is about blindly swallowing what others think and how such offends individual thought. Where we may differ is in your statement, "I just prefer to look out the window and then go outside to only find that nothing is different from any other year I've been alive for the last 61.", for what should be obvious reasons - there is much that geology and archeology can show us that took much longer than our respective 61 years travelling around the sun. After all, our precursors (to be clear, not our ancestors) are in the fossilized remains of the pre-Cambrian life explosion and they are all extinct. Re, "follow the money", absolutely agree with you. And I also do not disagree that left-wing agendas include their own brand of pork-barreling politics and appropriation of public fears to legitimize narrow causes. Why would greenies, left-wingers, commiepinkos and wing-nuts be different from anyone else? We all sing and keep time to our own tunes. That is, in fact, the precise point I am making in the quoted passage regarding the manufacturing of fears and solutions and is exactly what the snake oil salesman does from the back of a train, just like politicians used to do and indeed, it IS a scam. My interest and my bias is in keeping the question open, and, more directly, asking the question, "do we feel lucky?" I don't think the question is either rhetorical or has a money'd agenda. If the world's food supply is indeed at risk, I'm sure we'll find a way, or nature will find a way, to resolve the problem. It's a fine line I know but I don't intend to play both sides - I don't "lobby", I argue strongly in favour of curiosity. Your last statement is, quite frankly, of extreme concern - to me and many. It is an accurate statement and reflection of our current ability to "do" reality online and in media, without ever looking outside. In fact, I would submit that this factor is one that has yet to attract appropriate investigation in modern computeized cockpits and human factors accidents but that is another thread entirely. Large bus windows provide the "moving video" from which passengers may "see" our national parks, it's wildlife and their habitat. They park, snap afew digitals, take a pee, yak about the economy and their portfolio and get back on for the next "video". DVD players in family vans to keep the urchins entertained - my god! You're right of course: Enquiry about the world is done online or through reality television and through advertisement. People can name more products than they can birds, wildflowers or trees and they can remember more jingles than they can facts about ecology - a corporate "success story" if there ever was one. There are those who get sore legs from actually walking in the wilderness but our policymakers and students of society will take what's online quite seriously and not ask hard questions. The dialogue's the thing, not being right, or concluding by answering the question because nobody knows the answers - we can only watch the trends and interpret in the best way we are able, dismissing the obvious hegemonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check Pilot Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Tharr's No hatin' the lefties from us righties Mitch, us righties just unnastand the incurable mintal dizzeze ilnuss that liberals suffur frum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check Pilot Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Thank you Don for a very well thought out response to my ranting. I have been watching this thread since it started and your well thought out inputs, while at times disagreeing with mine, gave me time to reflect on my own opinions about our world. It didn't make me change those opinions but it did, for just a bit of a moment, make me wonder if I was mistaken in my perception of the big picture of the world. After a bunch of "Senate time" for sober second thought and a bit of Johnny Walker Blue Label, luckily I'm still here with my original beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 7, 2009 Author Share Posted February 7, 2009 Check Pilot; And here's t' a dram 'r two an' the conversation.... Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 If'n you righties are gonna start hatin' all us lefties so bad we gotta all find ar scatterguns t'defend arselves.... then how's the folks who mops up gonna know who wuz the rednecks? Interesting. I wonder who would win a war if it ever came to the right vs the left.. might make for an interesting topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 Been lots of them. Look at history starting with Spain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadji Ramjet Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Geez, how did y'all get from global warming being either the biggest calamity mankind has ever faced or the biggest scam since the tulip bubble burst, to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrlupin Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Good day Hadji, I just had a look at the Argo Project. What an interesting project!! Thanks for pointing me to that. Do you know of a site, which has some of the data that has been gathered so far? I know the project isn't very old but every site I have been to, has separate data for the 3000+ floats that are drifting around. I could not find much, even google, gives me sites where the floats are explained, how they are calibrated etc but "results" are un-findable for me right now. I imagine that the project being so young, the base levels for temps and salinity are still being established? Éric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Reply from a conservative commentator on the first 2 weeks of Obama. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/21184/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Glen Beck is a dumbass who panders to his audience the same way the pill popping sex tourist Rush does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maverick Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Oceans are cooling according to NASA January 21, 10:41 AM by Justin Berk, Baltimore Weather Examiner Warming of the oceans stopped and reversed in 2003 Two separate studies through NASA confirm that since 2003, the world's oceans have been losing heat. In the peak of the recent warming trend, 1998 actually ranked 2nd to 1934 as the warmest year on record. John Willis, an oceanographer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, published his first report about the warming oceans. The article Correcting Ocean Cooling (see below) published on NASA's Earth Observatory page this week discussed his and other results. willis used data from1993-2003 that showed the warm-up and followed the Global Warming Theory. In 2006, he co-piloted a follow-up study led by John Lyman at Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle that updated the time series for 2003-2005. Surprisingly, the ocean seemed to have cooled. He was surprised, and called it a 'speed bump' on the way to global warming. A second, independent study was conducted. Takmeng Wong and his colleagues at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Virginia came up with the same results. Wong studies net flux of solar energy at the top of our atmosphere. From the 1980s to 1990s his team noticed increased amounts net energy when comparing incoming solar energy to what Earth radiates and reflects. Since then, the solar flux has remained the same. Other studies have suggested that the sun's output has decreased in the past few years. Wong's take is that melting arctic ice is responsible for the cooling of the oceans. I contend that if that were the case, why did it take until 2003 to show cooling, after a few decades of warming? Also, the UKMET office showed that Earth's temperatures have been cooling for the past five years. Since 75% of the planet is water, that would make sense. Just last week, I wrote about the arctic sea ice returning to 1979 levels just 1 1/2 years after the fear of the biggest summer ice retreat in 2007. But what about the basics? Ocean temperatures do experience a 'lag' or delay in heating and cooling. That is why Ocean City's surf temperatures are chilly during Memorial Day weekend, but warm significantly by Labor Day weekend. The average Northern Hemisphere's peak heat (air temp) is in mid-July, while the Atlantic Ocean's peak heat (water) is in mid-September. The ocean temperature peaks in mid-September coincide with heightened hurricane activity. So, could these reports indicate that melting cools the oceans and has a negative feedback on warming? Is this just a speed bump in the general trend of warming? Does this 'surprise' almost sound like they are dissapointed that the warming trend has not continued so far? Or is this just part of a natural cycle, such as the seasons, but on a larger scale? With regard to cycles, we have only been sampling and studying a small part of Earth's history and have perhaps jumped to conclusions about the impact of carbon dioxide (there are more potent gases such as methane that don't make headlines). What do you think? What about the 'surprise' of the scientists? Please share in the comments section below. http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-W...cording-to-NASA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGT Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I was wondering where Glennie went too. I guess he had a falling out with CNN and had to switch to Fox News. surprise-surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Glenn Beck is a great guy and has a great show now on FOXnews. He was a little out of place in the old bastion of main stream media. Got his radio start in Bellingham and Mount Vernon Washington. Chock has a right to his wrong opinion of Glenn Beck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Check Pilot Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 chocalicious, You seem to think Rush Limbaugh is some kind of right wing deviant. He's not. What he has become now however, is the number one hated enemy as seen by the "anointed one" - Obama. Not the Senate and not the US House as a number one enemy, but RUSH LIMBAUGH - an entertainment broadcaster. Never before has a sitting President gone after and attacked someone that disagrees with the President's position like Obama has. Rush Limbaugh is now the only real voice for conservatives any more. Lefties that dislike the conservative point of view will use their vitriolic attack on anyone that doesn't want to subscribe to the government "cradle to grave" mentality and Limbaugh is one of those saying what has to be said about the current social "reform" that's about to be unleashed on Americans and sooner or later us in Canada. It's the same tired old "The government has to take care of me" syndrome the lefties always espouse. The current President of the US is so far to the left that he's willing to give the world free rein to carry on with their own agenda of defeating all of our normal values and our society. He's cozying up with the nutbar crazy and suicidal Taliban by appearing on their TV channel. He's hoping to make those terrorist crazies stop hating the west. That won't work. They'll just keep on hating us and bombing, shooting or trying to hijack aeroplanes anyway until we come around to their evil way of thinking and living. Please give some credence to the folks like Limbaugh that are speaking out in protest of the stupid choices that Obama is making. And finally chock,you do not gain any merit points from me for pressing into Mr. Limbaugh's personal problems in the past, which he managed to overcome. That is a personal attack which was unwarranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zipped Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Amen and amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 You seem to think Rush Limbaugh is some kind of right wing deviant. He's not. Well he sent his maid out to buy drugs for him. Congrats to him for overcoming his addiction. I am sure he has always been so accomodating with others with addiction problems. What he has become now however, is the number one hated enemy as seen by the "anointed one" - Obama. Not the Senate and not the US House as a number one enemy, but RUSH LIMBAUGH - an entertainment broadcaster. No he hasn't. Rush's sense of self importance may have him thinking that (or it could be the oxcontin). Obama has more pressing issues to deal with, and is dealing with them. Never before has a sitting President gone after and attacked someone that disagrees with the President's position like Obama has. Obama made one comment about Rush - something about Republicans not listening to him if everyone is to get along - and everyone jumped on it, ignoring the greater context of how it was said. If that is the historical precedent of "never before has a sitting president gone after someone that disagree with the president's position" than the ditto heads are even more deluded than normal. Rush Limbaugh is now the only real voice for conservatives any more. Lefties that dislike the conservative point of view will use their vitriolic attack on anyone that doesn't want to subscribe to the government "cradle to grave" mentality and Limbaugh is one of those saying what has to be said about the current social "reform" that's about to be unleashed on Americans and sooner or later us in Canada. It's the same tired old "The government has to take care of me" syndrome the lefties always espouse. Nobody is looking or talking about cradle to the grave. The last 8 years have left a huge pile of crap to clean up. Fear is the only thing people like Rush have left. As far as being a conservative voice...that is just sad. A voice to who? Rush does not engage in any real debate or ideas, just spews vitriol back to his listeners who lap it up. He is a talented entertainer but not a thinker or leader. The current President of the US is so far to the left that he's willing to give the world free rein to carry on with their own agenda of defeating all of our normal values and our society. He's cozying up with the nutbar crazy and suicidal Taliban by appearing on their TV channel. He's hoping to make those terrorist crazies stop hating the west. That won't work. They'll just keep on hating us and bombing, shooting or trying to hijack aeroplanes anyway until we come around to their evil way of thinking and living. No he isn't. Learn some facts. The Taliban channel you are talking about is the same one Bush was on several times; From the CBC: Former U.S. president George W. Bush gave several interviews to Al-Arabiya during his time in office, but the wars he launched in Iraq and Afghanistan prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world. The channel is seen by some in Washington as more balanced in its coverage than its Qatar-funded rival Al-Jazeera, which the previous White House administration complained had an anti-American bias Please give some credence to the folks like Limbaugh that are speaking out in protest of the stupid choices that Obama is making. What choices are that? The ones who have put the US in this mess? And finally chock,you do not gain any merit points from me for pressing into Mr. Limbaugh's personal problems in the past, which he managed to overcome. That is a personal attack which was unwarranted. Rush is a racist scumbag. I pity the people who take his word as gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fido Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Choc: You sure hate a lot of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have a low tolerance for fear mongerers, race baiters, and ignoramuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 so who's left? Mother Theresa? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chockalicious Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 so who's left? Mother Theresa? Chris Hitchens hates everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Part 2 complete and the obvious answer is here as I have said before plus some more...biofuels and specifically algae as I have heard Dagger mention before. My belief in corn is out the door. That's fine. As well geothermal and others such as wind, sun and tides. No need to ground all the airlines as this will lead to massive CO2 decline. Someday Jet fuel will be priced like it was in the sixties, aviation will be exempt as it is only 1% of emissions and maybe one of those Convair 880's will be brought out of the desert and I will get to fly one. The biggest obstacle. Oil industry and their paid off politicians. But one of my biggest hopes is that Obama will be the difference and truly make his mark on history. If anyone can, it is he. Side benefits.....our money stops going to the Middle East(back to camels for them), Venezuela(Hugo Chavez back to prison) and Russia(back to being weak and hopefully broken up) and a long term boom for the civilized world. Canada and a few other respectable countries will be somewhat hurt but it is worth it overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canus Chinookus Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 If it wasn't for agriculture lobbyists, corn would never have been 'in' the door. It was an obvious disaster from the beginning. What's the answer? Beats me, seems as though there isn't an alternative that packs enough energy/unit that oil has, and is eco-friendly, emmisions friendly, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hadji Ramjet Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sugar beets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest woxof Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 Dyers solution might make sense. Seems like there is a reasonable possibility combined with much m ore nuclear power which helps Europe become energy independent after being cut off from their natural gas source this very cold winter for them. Another reality wakeup call. Its a combined effort with so many reasons to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Hudson Posted February 10, 2009 Author Share Posted February 10, 2009 Check Pilot, re your comment; It [my post] didn't make me change those opinions but it did, for just a bit of a moment, make me wonder if I was mistaken in my perception of the big picture of the world. A friend with whom I spend many hours discussing issues which might fall into the artificial categories of left and right, (it is he who calls me his commiepinko friend! ) discussed Barack Obama and his approach to the current crisis. I reminded him of my earlier comment, with which he actually agreed surprisingly, that since the 50's and ramped up in the '70's, economic policy of so-called "right-leaning" governments has resulted in the "privatization of profit and the socialization of risk", (now the socialization of private failure). My point was, those who hold more conservative views would often conjure images of the "unwed drug-using single mothers with a dozen kids and drug addicts, sex perverts, those lazy teenagers and other welfare cheats" to make their case against social welfare, while at the very same time hypocritically ignoring corporate welfare and now welfare for CEO's and other executive level managements (legalized larceny in my view but that's just a left-wing radicalism, isn't it?). How do you sort this dialectic out? Is this a capitalist system or is it not? Private failure is still failure and should have nothing to do with government - those are basic tenets of the beliefs held by "the right", and the little catch-phrase above holds true. Many fans who find a home in Limbaugh, Colter, O'Reilly, Geraldo see much to criticize in Obama's present strategy. I would like to ask you then, since you have both read carefully what I consider views which express an emminently moderate stance in my postings on the subject and have labeled Obama in extremist terms, not that Bush was ever so of course, what your present views are from the right, regarding corporate/business welfare. To me, a consistent view would be, "Let'em fail". Let them go bankrupt, let them walk, let them perish on their chosen sword. Economic policy is economic policy, otherwise, you are all just pretending. What would you do to address the present crisis, which, you cannot deny, is a historical reality that the present administration inherited from those administrations from Nixon, on. What do you do with the heartbreaking stories of CEO's losing their swimming pools and third homes in France? How does Limbaugh see this unfolding? What are his solutions? What of the truly unemployed and what of those already in food lines - I guess those with children in such places are welfare bums are they? I pose this as a serious question - what would "the right" do? Cut'em all loose? And if not, why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.