Comments on: Night-time Unemployed Ten-Speeders

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:55:37 +0000

Done.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:26:46 +0000

Tory Bug I only mentioned the link because it has some good info. You see I do not like to read stuff that tells me what to think. I like to read stuff that encourages me to investigate and make up my own mind about things and I think most on the blog also like to be informed and make up their own minds. I did not intend a hijacking. Time for a new post King.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:21:18 +0000

Good chart! I put the end of the industrial revolution at about 1850. The diesel engine at 1892. The first airplane at 1903. The model T at 1908 and the assembly line at 1913. It looks like the slope of the line starts changing about 1915 but then the graph does not go back far enough to see if such a change has occurred before and when so we can look for reasons for that change. Since it is raining AGAIN and yard work is out AGAIN I think I will spend some time with a cup of coffee looking up some of that info.

By: Tory Bug

Tory Bug — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:05:06 +0000

I'll ask again, alchemist, why did you bring climate change theory into this? I still see nothing in the original blog by DK about climate change. I did read your post to the end, though I didn't click your link. It seemed unrelated to the subject at hand. Still does, though you've hijacked this discussion quite nicely, lol.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:54:27 +0000

Sea level has been rising for a long time, though it's doing so a bit faster recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:48:22 +0000

I'm watching sea level and so should everyone else.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:46:10 +0000

Everyone's posting at the same time. Cool.

Or warm. Take your pick (pun intended).

I do appreciate your input, alchemist.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:43:55 +0000

alchemist, I don't doubt science. I believe the earth did get warmer in the 20th century, by about .6C. What is in doubt is why. Is it anthropogenic or natural ? If it's anthropogenic, why is it getting cooler now, as CO2 increases ? I don't know the answer, as I've said several times on this blog. I just try to present the evidence that much of the scientific community (IPCC) seems to want to keep under wraps. Secrets aren't science. It seems impossible to even engage any of the IPCC scientists in a legitimate debate on the subject. That's troubling.

And we're about to make major political changes in our energy production based upon an unproven hypothesis, a hypothesis the IPCC itself didn't believe in only fifteen years ago or so. That also worries me. A lot.

And Holdren, a global cooling advocate of the 70's, is a global warming advocate now.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:30:56 +0000

Tory Bug

Read to the end — there is a link. I guess you did not read to the end or even click to the end — just some links that worthwhile reading in order to understand the issue.

King

I did read comments — just trying to broaden everyone's knowlege.

Roysoldboy

As far as "is climate change real?" It is simple — just watch sea level. Is it rising? If so why. Ask "why" 5 times and most of the time you will get to the root cause along the way. In case of sea level rise I will give you a hint — sea level rises because of melting ice and thermal expansion of water. The thermal expansion will not really begin until all of the ice has melted. Decide for your self — is climate change real and what is causing it?

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:26:07 +0000

Roy,
Sometimes on this blog, I just need to entertain myself. This was a fun one to write.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:23:58 +0000

alchemist,
The climate change link was pretty standard IPCC stuff. The author, Chris Mooney, also told a bunch of lies of omission and a couple outright lies. For instance, nowhere was it mentioned that the earth has been cooling for the last decade, which is what the science says, and which also proved the IPCC wrong about it's climate projections as soon as the IPCC made them (in 1999, I believe). As for Mooney's contention that Bush suppressed climate change info – the IPCC has been issuing findings all along, all throughout the Bush administration. They've never been a secret. Everybody knows about them. That isn't suppression. Bush just didn't act on them.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:17:05 +0000

Tory Bug, I thought while reading all that good stuff from the author who was defending Holdren that he had also, previously, written an article about climate change. He is a believer, from his article, and obviously alchemist is like me, not an Algorean.

I really do think I am right about his intent.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:15:00 +0000

alchemist,
I'm not sure I'd depend on the guy who wrote "The Republican War On Science" as the arbiter of truth when he is obviously attempting to whitewash Holdren and Ehrlich's earlier views, which have been proven wrong. If you read some of the comments following that article, you will find some refutations of his refutation. Holdren referred to his ideas of forced sterilization as unpalatable, but then said the alternative (population bomb) was even more unpalatable. That's not exactly a disavowal of the extreme measures described in his book. It's more like an endorsement. Holdren did not present the extremist views in his book as 'here's what we should never do.' He presented them as valid options, albeit under extreme circumstances (that both Holdren and Ehrlich believed were happening).

But I am glad to hear Holdren has abandoned his earlier abhorrent views. That's something, though it's not like he had a choice. I wonder if Holdren was one of those guys who believed in global cooling in the 70's too. Oops, he WAS:

http://masterresource.org/?p=101

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:14:45 +0000

King, this is one of your best efforts at thinking out loud about liberalism and how hard it must be to be one of them. I laughed aloud more than once just thinking about the old days with you arguing with old Rev Red. Thanks for the comedy.

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:13:17 +0000

I forgot before to say that that class also studied and fought over the "in vogue" weather stories of the day. You know, the coming ice age that was supposed to have been here about 10 years ago. That was a better class than I ever thought. We discussed climate change the ice age) and overpopulation all in a couple of months and some were actually taken in by it all.

By: Tory Bug

Tory Bug — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:11:04 +0000

Hey, alchemist, please explain to me what part of this blog relates to climate change theory. I'm having a hard time seeing it, but I'm sure that it must be there if you're talking about it. Thanks!

By: roysoldboy

roysoldboy — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:10:01 +0000

Alchemist, I read your links with much interest. I found Mooney to be the typical defendant of "science" as people on the left side of life tend to do for each other. I was especially interested in the comments to Mooney's article.

Let me add some of my own comments. In 1977 I had to attend summer school to maintain my teaching license so I took an interesting appearing class which used that Ecosystem book by the Ehrlichs and Holdren. It was somewhat large for just a few weeks of reading and discussion and most of the students were either recent graduates or undergaduates and I was in my 45th year of life and only had about three others that I could really identify with.

I found that book to be really scary since it seemed to be very much against the population explosion the authors seemed to be so worried about. They were so convinced that we would all be starving by now and, yes, they did say that forced sterilization was one of the possible means of forestalling that over population. That was the kind of talk we were hearing from the UN at the time, also.

Mooney also indicated that Holdren had been inaugurated in some "holy" British scientific society and I thought immediately of our very own most recent Nobel prize winner, Algore, so had to read that part of your link. It seems that Mooney is one of the serious believers in climate change and global warming so he surely is a believer in anything Gorean.

You have broadened my knowledge about something I thought I learned about 32 years ago and I thank you. China has instituted laws to hold down their population explosion and sure enough they have used methods that the Ehrlichs and Holdren suggested. They probably waited a bit too long but if global warming doesn't finish us all off they may see some good come from their dictatorial method to control population. Just think what we can look forward to here after the present administration gets its "shadow government" fully in control.

By: alchemist

alchemist — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:38:59 +0000

In the interest of truth I thought you might like to read something about John Holdren who you made the topic of one of your posts a while back and if you are really interested in investigating climate change you may also want to click on the link to the Obama Administration's report on climate change at the end of the info on Holdren.

http://www.scienceprogress.org/2009/07/hold-of-holdren-again/

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:47:14 +0000

Tom,
Thanks for the heads up. That'll help. I broke my flashlight when I crashed into the oak tree.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 05:45:29 +0000

Rev says, "it just seemed….I don't know…..like more bashing of the poor and vulnerable. Maybe it's just me, huh?"

Here I am, trying to put forth some most excellent new liberal ideas, and I STILL get the class warfare argument used against me. You just can't please some people. Way harsh, dude.

By: Fred

Fred — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 02:43:56 +0000

I am constantly amused by the back and forth between the supporters of Da King and The Reverend and I can`t help be drawn into the spectacle. It strikes me that your first two statements can be used with the same conviction FROM THE OTHER SIDE! It really is funny. The great experiment continues!

By: Tory Bug

Tory Bug — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:48:49 +0000

Dude, sounds like you've seen the light! But you forgot something. Since the government owns GM now, we should also all get a new, substandard car every 4-5 years. After all, everyone owes us. The rich will pay for it. At least until all their money is gone. Wait, I should know better. This is no time for reality!

Love the Rev's comment spam. We all need a little manufactured outrage in our lives, lol.

By: Tom B

Tom B — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:41:11 +0000

Try the Towpath Trail… It's open 24 hours a day

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:43:50 +0000

I'll give it a 7 out of a possible 10, for imagination….but you can't dance to it.

Most accurate sentence? " Maybe it's me."

Best turn of a phrase? "The Nazis were here to harsh my mellow."

Outside of that…..it just seemed….I don't know…..like more bashing of the poor and vulnerable. Maybe it's just me, huh?