 |
 |
   During a recession, should college presidents face the same pay cuts as CEOs?
 Forty years of writing from Taylor Branch, James Fallows, Katherine Boo, Marjorie Williams, Joshua Micah Marshall, and more.
 With help from Washington, the for-profit college industry is loading up millions of low-income students with debt they'll never pay off.
 The best recent memoir from republican Washington is a hoax. That should tell you something.
|
   |
|
|
November 27, 2006
By: CARBON DIOXIDE UPDATE....The latest on global warming:
Well, that should solve the problem of vote count foulups in Florida, anyway. —Kevin Drum 10:59 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (65)Comments
"Well, that should solve the problem of vote count foulups in Florida, anyway." *rimshot!* Posted by: urkel on November 27, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINKThe Global Carbon Project says that emissions were rising by less than 1% annually up to the year 2000, but are now rising at 2.5% per year. Can I blame Bush for this too? Because there are no coincidences. Posted by: craigie on November 27, 2006 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINKBut why worry about carbon, the basis of life, when we can have an armageddon and people wafting off into space while those durn liberals get flash fried and left behind? Posted by: Zep Tepi on November 27, 2006 at 11:09 PM | PERMALINKCan I blame Bush for this too? Because there are no coincidences. No, but you can the large amount of depleted uranium floating about over globe! Posted by: Zep Tepi on November 27, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINKI've invested in land in the Yukon for my hot house tomato farm and with all the money I'll make, I'll purchase beachfront property in Lawrence, Kansas. Posted by: Macswain on November 27, 2006 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINKHere is a serious issue that deserves real thought. Unfortunately the pundit class has decided that only liberals "believe in" global warming and only liberals want to do something about it. Conservatives don't "believe in" global warming and don't think we should make any effort to reduce the emissions of green house gases. In the collective minds of the beltway media/pundit class--global warming, Al Gore, liberal v. expanding gasoline consumption, Dick Cheney, conservative. This particular problem, like most of the problems we face, can be examined objectively. All the subjective liberal, centrist, conservative bs just gets in the way. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 27, 2006 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINKAre the diebold machines in low lying areas? Posted by: B on November 27, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKLast week's New Yorker had a very troubling article about the increasing carbon dioxide accumulating in the oceans, changing the ph to acidic. Posted by: Hostile on November 27, 2006 at 11:26 PM | PERMALINKIf you think about it, as the warmer part of the year grows increasingly longer so will the grass -- giving people the need to mow even further into the season and throwing ever more carbon into the air. Vicious cycle. Posted by: mow on November 27, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINKCarbon Dioxide is life, bitches. Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on November 27, 2006 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINKRon Byers: This particular problem, like most of the problems we face, can be examined objectively. No. In current political use, "Conservative" is just another name for "Postmodernist". Objective reality does not exist for such people. Posted by: alex on November 27, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINKIf it wasn't for that other carbon cycle, that long one, the geological one, we wouldn't have any problem. The Biological, or short, carbon cycle is pretty self balancing. But when the carbon that has been trapped by geology (oil, coal) is released into the atmosphere - well, guys, it's kinda a closed system and we have a whole lot of extra carbon trapped in our atmosphere. And that isn't fantasy. That's physics. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 27, 2006 at 11:41 PM | PERMALINKWell, that should solve the problem of vote count foulups in Florida, anyway. I don't want Katherine Harris moving inland. Seal the borders. Posted by: Oregonian on November 27, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINKNo. In current political use, "Conservative" is just another name for "Postmodernist". Objective reality does not exist for such people. Posted by: alex on November 27, 2006 at 11:32 PM I never said it "would." I said it "could" be examined objectively. Don't think for a moment that "Conservatives" are the only people who don't examine things objectively. At times we all fall into that trap. The snakeoil salesmen among us count on that facit of human nature. Posted by: Ron Byers on November 27, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINKFlorida has enough bugs and critters and epidemiological activity that we ought to just be able to seal off the entire state... Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 27, 2006 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINKOh Goody. Tom Waites is on Letterman tonight. Look for a spike of sucicides on tomorrow mornings news, cause Waites is definitely music to slit your wrists to. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 27, 2006 at 11:51 PM | PERMALINKWell, I'm gonna call it a night. Nobody will be in school tomorrow anyway; since it's deer season, so I'll just do some crossword puzzles, but they pay me to show up. Thanks for letting me come visit your playground. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 27, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINKThis result tends to confirm that we are not going to solve the global warming problem by cutting carbon emissions. Countries have been unwilling to make the sacrifices demanded by the Kyoto accord. Even if they had, the carbon dioxide would still be increasing. We have two realistic choices. Science might find a way to cool the planet that's less costly than huge cuts in carbon emissions. Or, we will have to learn to live on a warmer planet. E.g., we should learn better levee-building skills. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 27, 2006 at 11:56 PM | PERMALINKRon Byers: I never said it "would." I said it "could" be examined objectively. Methinks you take the joke too seriously. The idea of Conservatives as Postmodernists just struck me as funny (hey, I'm a riot at parties). Can I blame Bush for this too? Because there are no coincidences. First blame yourself Craigie. As to Bush, no, it's not his fault he refused to believe the science behind global warming. Cheney and Rove told him it didn't poll well with the base, so why should he be to blame? Posted by: tomeck on November 27, 2006 at 11:57 PM | PERMALINKex-liberal: we should learn better levee-building skills Good idea. How much do you think it will cost to build levees around the southern third of Florida? Posted by: alex on November 28, 2006 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINKHere's a great link for those who are interested - he has an actual solution, that appears practical and realistic. So it will never happen. Posted by: craigie on November 28, 2006 at 12:03 AM | PERMALINKScience might find a way to cool the planet that's less costly than huge cuts in carbon emissions. Well, it's not too late for a thermo-nuclear exchange with one or more rogue states. A little touch of nuclear winter would cool things a bit. Posted by: Keith G on November 28, 2006 at 12:09 AM | PERMALINKI'll remind you via paraphrase the attitude of bushiekins base: Why should we care about the verdict of history; we'll all be dead by then. Quite frankly this is their attitude toward every mess that's been created (the war, the deficit) or worsened (global warming, expensive health care, the debt, income gap, government corruption) on bushiekins watch. 上海长方光学仪器有限公司致力于先进的精密光学制造技术和计算机图象处理技术的研发，从事发展尖端光学、精密机械、计算机相结合的（光、机、电一体化）光学仪器开发和销售。 021-68610355http://www.chfang.com http://www.chfang.com.cn 金相显微镜 主要产品：金相显微镜、偏光显微镜、生物显微镜 荧光显微镜、倒置显微镜、相衬显微镜、电子显微镜、体视显微镜、立体显微镜、视频显微镜、检测显微镜、测量显微镜、读数显微镜、工具显微镜、影像测量仪、测量投影仪、硬度计、熔点仪、显微成像仪、放大镜、分光光度计、倒置生物显微镜、倒置荧光显微镜、实验室仪器、显微镜软件、偏光熔点测定仪、生物显微镜加热台、光切法显微镜、干涉显微镜、立式光学计、透镜中心仪、中心偏测量仪、阿贝折射仪、金相抛光机、平行光管、数字式激光平面干涉仪、显微硬度计、1'和15'的光学比较测角仪等各种光学仪器、以及计算机图像处理软件和显微镜测量软件、光学仪器配件。产品广泛应用于农牧、轻工、机械、电子、冶金、医疗、化工等行业；卫生、教育、国防等部门及各大专院校 、科研单位。021-68610355 (http://www.chfang.com.cn)金相显微镜 alex: How much do you think it will cost to build levees around the southern third of Florida? The point is, we (the US) can build a levee around FL. The US cannot cut world CO2 emissions. I believe the US has been doing well at controlling net CO2 (due to increase in our forested area), but IMHO we will never get full world cooperation. We can't even get cooperation to act against terrorists and terrorist states. Posted by: ex-liberal on November 28, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINKOr, we will have to learn to live on a warmer planet. E.g., we should learn better levee-building skills. is there a way to somehow cut off the southern states and just let the gulf drown them all? ... although, I guess ethically, we'd be obligated to issue visas to the bluse-staters lost in the red sea. we should issue them liberally. Posted by: Nads on November 28, 2006 at 12:18 AM | PERMALINKForests schmorests. We could forest every square inch of the planet and still not neutralize the geologically-freed CO2 we are spewing into the air. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINKI'm just a lowly middle-school science teacher in the middle of nowhere. I don't have all the answers to the test I'll give next week, let alone the problems facing the universe. But I'm not delusional, either. Anyone who thinks we can just "adapt to a warmer planet" has gotta be on a respirator cause there is no way the medula oblongata is still functioning on that retard. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINKThe point is, we (the US) can build a levee around FL. False. Bug Bunny cannot saw it free from the mainland, either. increase in our forested area False. Forested area in the U.S. has been in decline for sixty years. The recent tiny "increase" in forestation has been due to reclassification of what constitutes a forest by the Bush propaganda bureau. Further, all forests are not created equal: the old growth forests that have been lost possessed a much greater capacity to absorb carbon than the new growth. We can't even get cooperation to act against terrorists and terrorist states. False. Governments around the world have been cooperating on intelligence and arrests of terrorists for decades. Apparently you've been too busy watching Loony Tunes to notice. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 12:46 AM | PERMALINKI hate to cite Wiki pedia as a source for anything, but they have a couple of clear paragraphs about that carbon cycle I've been yammering about: The carbon cycle is the biogeochemical cycle by which carbon is exchanged between the biosphere, geosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere of the Earth (other astronomical objects may have similar carbon cycles, but nothing is yet known about them). The cycle is usually thought of as four major reservoirs of carbon interconnected by pathways of exchange. The reservoirs are the atmosphere, the terrestrial biosphere (which usually includes freshwater systems and non-living organic material, such as soil carbon), the oceans (which includes dissolved inorganic carbon and living and non-living marine biota), and the sediments (which includes fossil fuels). The annual movements of carbon, the carbon exchanges between reservoirs, occur because of various chemical, physical, geological, and biological processes. The ocean contains the largest active pool of carbon near the surface of the Earth, but the deep ocean part of this pool does not rapidly exchange with the atmosphere. The global carbon budget is the balance of the exchanges (incomes and losses) of carbon between the carbon reservoirs or between one specific loop (e.g., atmosphere - biosphere) of the carbon cycle. An examination of the carbon budget of a pool or reservoir can provide information about whether the pool or reservoir is functioning as a source or sink for carbon dioxide. As you can see, there is no mechanism to balance the geologic carbon we are freeing. I wouldn't mind people having opinions that disagree with me if they just applied a smidgen of brainpower, used a little common sense (why the hell do they call it that?) and learned what the fuck they were talking about before they open their yaps. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINKOops. Blockquote failed me. Only the first and last graphs are mine. Posted by: Perpetually Inquisitive on November 28, 2006 at 1:01 AM | PERMALINKMacSwain is going to buy beach property in Lawrence, Kansas. Well, up on Mt Oread, they will have to change the lyrics from "High above the golden valley, (ripped off from Cornell's Cayuga's waters), glorius to view" to: "High above the oceans's waters, rancid and fishless to view, stands our noble Alma Mater, Hail to old KU." - Somewhere a Rock will Chalk. Posted by: thethirdPaul on November 28, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINKGlobal warming is releasing hundreds of years of accumulated mercury from the wetlands of the northern hemishphere, http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20060722011834data_trunc_sys.shtml The findings indicate that the drier conditions brought about by a warming climate will cause the soil to relinquish its hold on hundreds of years of mercury accumulation, sending that mercury back into the air at levels up to 15 times greater than originally calculated. "While peat lands are typically viewed as very wet and stagnant places, they do burn in continental regions, especially late in the season when water tables are depressed," explained Turetsky. "When peat lands burn, they can release a huge amount of mercury that overwhelms regional atmospheric emissions. Our study is new in that it looks to the soil record to tell us what happens when peat soil burns, soil that has been like a sponge for mercury for a long time." Posted by: cld on November 28, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINKI'll leave it to you all to explain to your grandchildren why you needed a Ford Extinction to drive half a mile to the gym after a day on your riding mower... Posted by: mother nature on November 28, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK裸体图片 美女自拍 激情图片 激情小电影 性感图片 性交图片 做爱图片 成人小说 偷拍走光 美眉图片 人体写真 性虐待电影 写真集 激情电影 免费影院 日本av电影 美少女贴图 性感美女图片 美女写真 漂亮妹妹图片 同志电影 性交姿势 美女走光 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 性变态图片 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 激情论坛 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 美腿图片 三级片 成人性爱电影 写真电影 美女阴图 美女乳房 性电影 成人电影下载 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装图片 性感内衣 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交电影 做爱电影 性福 人体摄影 裸女图片 免费小电影 免费电影在线 免费影片 最新大片 看免费电影 情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 两性写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 美女脱衣电影 裸体美女 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水图片 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 强奸图片 色情图片 黄色小说 黄色电影 强暴电影 乱伦图片 轮奸电影 迷奸电影 夜曲 为什么相爱的人不能在一起 约定 不得不爱 触电 秋天不回来 求佛 太美丽 发如雪 生日礼物 那年夏天 我想更懂你 手放开 香水有毒 Posted by: 手机图片 on November 28, 2006 at 4:49 AM | PERMALINKWe will just evolve to a different species which will adapt to this new warmer climate. What do you say - how about all of us just plan our punctuated equilibrium the moment all this warm stuff comes to get us. Did it snow in Florida recently? Must be that global warming thing. All those hurricanes this year too must have... oh the hurricanes have been less than any year on record? It must be because global warming is forcing them to stop. Well gotta go get my global warming shovel so I can be prepared to move all that global warming off my driveway. Yeah all this stuff really bothers me. Posted by: Orwell on November 28, 2006 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK"Orwell" once again strives to prove that ignorance is strength. Posted by: Gregory on November 28, 2006 at 9:06 AM | PERMALINKex-liberal: Global Warming is not an either/or scenario. It's true that some worldwide temperature increase is a foregone conclusion. But just how much the temperature increases still hinges on carbon emissions and the like. Posted by: keptsimple on November 28, 2006 at 9:08 AM | PERMALINKI have to admit that I'm never sure if Orwell is a parody. If he is, he's a damn sight more subtle than most of ours. And step off Tom Waits, damn it! Posted by: shortstop on November 28, 2006 at 9:19 AM | PERMALINK>>It's the foundation of the sociopathy of the selfish: "I've got mine, so fuck you!" Makes 'Apres moi, le deluge.' seems so quaint. But look, Exxon-Mobil may be happy but I'd have to guess Mobile will be rather less so. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 10:06 AM | PERMALINKOrrrwellll.... Orrrrrrrwellllllll! But look, Exxon-Mobil may be happy but I'd have to guess Mobile will be rather less so. Oh, sweet Jesus, that was good! Posted by: shortstop on November 28, 2006 at 10:09 AM | PERMALINKGlobal Warming + Peak oil = problem solved. What's the bad news? Thirty years from now, most people will be walking to work. The good news is that should help people lose weight. Posted by: Peak Oil on November 28, 2006 at 10:18 AM | PERMALINKI command my army to drive SUVs 356 days a year! We shall destroy this planet in a million years at that rate! But woe how the volcanos burst forth with more emissions to destroy the earth. Only the completely arrogant person believes that humans could destroy an entire planet. We couldn't do it even if we tried. Typical liberals on global warming: Everything is going to be destroyed and we are to blame! Hurricanes! Floods! Earthquakes! It's all our fault! Sounds like the progressives and Christians have a lot in common. Man's sin is the reason for the crumbling earth. Glad we could come to agreement on that. Heres the liberal solution: Get off the planet now! Get our people out of there because we are just making the earth hate us all the more. Now my army, drive forth in your Suburbans and NASCAR racing vehicals. Posted by: Orwell on November 28, 2006 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINKNah, Orwell, we're not going to "destroy" the planet. We will be making it very uncomfortable for human beings to live on, however. And Mama Nature doesn't give a damn whether we're here or not. Posted by: grumpy realist on November 28, 2006 at 10:51 AM | PERMALINKOrrrrrwelllll, you stupid fuuuuuuck. And Mama Nature doesn't give a damn whether we're here or not. She's got 130 million years invested into the cockroach in any case. 'Bout the only viable species we look to leave in our wake. Posted by: CFShep on November 28, 2006 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINKPerhaps if Talk Radio can sign on, drop its hatemongering for a moment or two and get its vast listener base to think about a new idea for a change, maybe the other half of the US population might get onboard with cutting back on carbon emissions. The republican't barking point goes like this: We will just evolve to a different species which will adapt to this new warmer climate. Heh - probably Black People. The republican't barking point goes like this: read ex-liberal's posts: 4 - even if it does exist, and even if Americans could stop spewing carbon, those nasty terrorists in other nations won't, and then their economies will do well because they're burning petroleum, and ours will suck, because we aren't, and then they'll buy more guns that we have, and take us over, and make us burn more petroleum. What's the bad news? Thirty years from now, most people will be walking to work. Probably not. 30 years from now, most people won't have jobs anyway. Posted by: impeach.remove.convict.punish.justice on November 28, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKAnd, Peter, the fourth point is that people who care about it are crazynutty enviro-terrorists who like trees better than people. And by people, they mean corporations. So shut up and sing! (Cough, cough.) Posted by: Kenji on November 28, 2006 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKWhy can't Limbaugh and those other talk jocks use their airtime for purposes other than dispensing negative opinions about people who don't think like them. Because that medium exists only for ego inflation, the fomenting of bigotry and anger, and assigning blame to others for the listeners' own problems. This allows the talk jocks and their companies to make money off the aforementioned assignation of blame while shaping opinion in ways that assist moneyed interests in this country. You make an astute obersvation that the infrastructure exists for it do something productive and helpful, but that's likely never to happen. People listen to hate radio in the first place to avoid doing something productive and helpful while at the same time indulging in fantasies of superiority. And I suspect that much of the talk radio audience cares little about mitigating environmental damage, even were they ever to understand or admit that it's going to negatively impact their own lives. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINKJust as an aside, here in SE Michigan where it's normally snowing intermittently by now, the temperature yesterday was a balmy 61 degrees -- 20 degrees above the average for this time of year and just a few degrees shy of the record. Posted by: trex on November 28, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKProbably not. 30 years from now, most people won't have jobs anyway. Wow. Here I'd have gone for 30 months from now. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/28/business/28tax.html?ref=business By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON 'Still, those very top households, which include about 300,000 Americans, reported significantly more pretax income combined than the poorest 120 million Americans earned in 2004, the data show. This was a sharp change from 1979, the oldest year examined by the I.R.S., when the thin slice at the top received about one-third of the total income of the big group at the bottom.' 'The next best-off group, the fifth of Americans on the 60th to 80th rungs of the income ladder, averaged 2 cents more income in 2004 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Only those in the top 5 percent had significant gains. The average income of those on the 95th to 99th rungs of the income ladder rose by 53 percent, almost twice the average rate. A third of the entire national increase in reported income went to the top 1 percent and more than half of that went to the top tenth of 1 percent, whose average incomes soared so much that for each dollar, adjusted for inflation, that they had in 1979 they had $3.48 in 2004.' 'Because of cuts in the tax rate, the top tenth of 1 percent did even better than their rising incomes alone would suggest. For each inflation-adjusted dollar they had after tax in 1979 they had $3.94 left after taxes in 2004. For the bottom 60 percent, their income taxes were so small in 1979 that the cuts did little to change their after-tax incomes. While their pretax average incomes fell by a nickel on the dollar from 1979 to 2004, their after-tax incomes fell by a fraction of a penny less.'
Point 5 - Even if Global Warming does exist (evidence does seem to point to that) and you can prove it is partly caused by humanity, and you can prove that it is a bad thing, AND you can get the world to do something about it........it doesnt mean that global warming will stop. There is no way we can prove that any method we use will stop it. And it will be a hard sell to get countries to spend 20% of GNP to try and fix something that we may not be able to fix. Global warming *does* occur naturally as well. How do we stop the natural cycle - even if we can stop man's contribution to it? Posted by: Spock on November 28, 2006 at 4:09 PM | PERMALINKSpock wrote: "Even if Global Warming does exist (evidence does seem to point to that) and you can prove it is partly caused by humanity, and you can prove that it is a bad thing ..." All of that has been proven already. Global warming is occurring -- rapidly, at a speed unprecedented in thousands if not millions of years. All of the observed, rapid, unprecedented warming of the last century is due to human activities which emit large amounts of CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels. And it is clearly a "bad thing" since it is already manifesting in the form of extreme weather events, heat waves, droughts, rapid sea level rise, over 150,000 human deaths per year according to the WHO's conservative estimate, mass extinctions of species, and is triggering feedback loops (e.g. the melting of polar ice, the release of methane and carbon from frozen soils, etc) that will worsen and accelerate the anthropogenic warming that is already occurring. All of this has been firmly established by science. Claims to the contrary are fossil fuel industry-funded bullshit. Spock wrote: "And it will be a hard sell to get countries to spend 20% of GNP to try and fix something that we may not be able to fix." A report recently produced by the British government, written under the leadership of Sir Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics, a former chief economist of the World Bank, estimated the cost of dealing with global warming at ONE PERCENT of annual world economic consumption, and the cost of failing to do so at many times that. The UK government's chief scientist Sir David King commented on the Stern report that "All of [Stern's] detailed modelling out to the year 2100 is going to indicate first of all that if we don't take global action we are going to see a massive downturn in global economies ... the kind of downturn that has not been seen since the great depression and the two world wars." Spock wrote: "Global warming *does* occur naturally as well. How do we stop the natural cycle - even if we can stop man's contribution to it?" The currently observed rapid and extreme global warming is unprecedented and it is not related to any "natural cycle". There is absolutely ZERO scientific evidence that any "natural cycle" has anything to do with the currently observed warming. There is overwhelming evidence that the currently observed warming is entirely due to human activities which are rapidly and dramatically increasing the concentration of atmospheric "greenhouse gases". You certainly packed a lot of misinformation into one short paragraph.
One of the goals in the Millennium Development Goals is to achieve environment sustainability. We should use this information as a sign to address the Millennium Development Goals as well as to end poverty. Posted by: Ashley on November 28, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINKOne of the goals in the Millennium Development Goals is to achieve environment sustainability. We should use this information as a sign to address the Millennium Development Goals as well as to end poverty. Posted by: flagrl118 on November 28, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINKSecularAnimist - I am no flunkie of the petro-industrial complex - I want my grandchildren to have clean air and water and a habitable biosphere as much as the next person. My primary issue is this: we have no scientifically reproducable proof that we can significantly affect global warming. We *assume* that reducing concentrations of greenhouse gases will work. The truth is - some scientistists guess that it *could* work. The exemption of some countries - most notably China and India - from the Kyoto Accords (who together have close to 1/2 the world's population and are 2 of the fastest developing countries with pollution comensurately increasing) is simply inexcusable. A flawed treaty to attempt to fix a problem that there is no scientific proof that conclusively shows we can fix seems at best silly. Posted by: Spock on November 28, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINKAs to the economic impact of the Kyoto Accords.... The EU cleverly aligned itself with the fallen economies of Eastern Europe, thus, as a whole will only have to pay roughly $5/ton of emissions while the US and Austrailia would have to pay close to $100/ton. If each country had to be responsible for its own emissions, the EU would not have signed the treaty either - in particular Germany. The treaty is based on 1990 levels of emissions...not current levels. Thus countries that have expanded their economies since 1990 have been hit the hardest. Countries like Russia, who's economy has shrunk over that period of time are barely affected by the treaty. And other countries like China and India, who's economies have expanded dramatically over that time were exempted. The treaty is not fair - Greenhouse gases have the same effect regardless of where they are emitted, yet the cost is not similarly dispersed. Posted by: Spock on November 28, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKSec, keep in mind that if you say that global warming "is already manifesting in the form of extreme weather events, heat waves, droughts, rapid sea level rise...", you automatically open up the question of whether this is in fact the case. You can't have people saying in 2005 "global warming causes terrible weather, just look at this hurricane season!" and then pretend you didn't say it in 2006 when the problem is one more year advanced, but the hurricanes have been few'n'far between. Fact is, we do not have reducing economic activity as an option on the table here. Even if some Western governments decide to, a significant amount of the displaced activity is going to just head for China and India, who will sign a global warming treaty the day hell freezes over. That isn't saying that global warming is inevitable, but it will almost certainly NOT be prevented by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. (Hell, even if we did, if there's also a solar variation cycle involved, it's entirely possible we'd get global warming ANYWAY, though probably not so much of it.) And, of course, controlling emissions in developing countries consigns more than half the world's population to subsistence farming and poverty, completely aside from the governmental repression that would be necessary to make it stick. What are our other options? Well, "treat the symptom" solutions can work - instead of focusing on preventing global warming at the root cause level, we can always go about other measures which serve to reduce global warming - primarily by reducing the Earth's albedo directly through particulate ejection into the atmosphere and reducing the heat-island effect of cities through heat-reflective coatings (paint!) on dark surfaces. We're not talking a huge effect here, but we're not talking about HUGE warming either, and it's something that developed countries can do on their own initiative and dollar. Developing technological alternatives is good too. There's nothing wrong with wind and solar and geothermal energy production (well, aside from solar and geo not working yet and wind being only partially applicable, but let's do more of it.) Nuclear fission plants also offer another way to generate electrical power without atmospheric emissions - even a nuclear accident puts out less radiation than a coal plant working normally, to say nothing of the CO2 involved! It may also be the case that we can come up with some kind of carbon sequestration strategy that can be made to work (hopefully, without the risk of the stuff getting loose and asphyxiating a nearby small town or what have you.) So increased funding for alternative energy and efficiency increases, greater deployment of fission power, and at least the theoretical work towards direct amelioration are all good ideas. Not only that, we can actually DO them, unlike pretending that we have the power to stop people from setting carbon-containing fuels on fire. ;p Posted by: Avatar on November 28, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINKThe point is, we (the US) can build a levee around FL. ex-liberal at 12:17 AMBush can't even build a levee around New Orleans, but the US can control its own CO2 omissions and since we are the largest source, that would be significant. Only the completely arrogant person believes that humans could destroy an entire planet. Orwell at 10:45 AMYou are the hollow men You are the stuffed men Leaning together Headpiece filled with straw. Alas! Your dried voices, when you whisper together Are quiet and meaningless As wind in dry grass Or rats' feet over broken glass In our dry cellar Shape without form, shade without colour, Paralysed force, gesture without motion;... Ok, so I changed a little Mike - I am not all about winning moral victories, because without the world as a whole committed to reducing greenhouse gases, the entire effort is doomed to fail its goal. So the US *unilaterally* doing so would not have any signficance beyond significantly pointless and futile. Give me an economic alternative energy. Asking folks to de-industrialize is ignoring reality - the reality that people taken as a whole have priorities in their lives that include their own self-interest FIRST. Conditions that will affect their grandchildren have a priority less than the one that affects them NOW. (which is why we have budget deficits, future social security and medicare shortfalls - don't kid yourself into thinking that politicians don't know the priorities of their constituents) When you give a choice that makes economic sense to people in the now, you will have a solution that works. Order Generic drugs Buy Generic drugs without prescription You could get the following medicines at cheapest prices: attract women pheromones Prostate medication Prostate medication Prostate health Prostate health Prostate supplement Prostate supplement Prostate medicine Prostate medicine Prostate vitamin Prostate vitamin Natural sleeping aid Natural sleeping aid Natural pain relief Natural pain relief Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Prevent Hair Loss Prevent Hair loss Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Syndrome Irritable Bowel Irritable Bowel Bowel Syndrome Bowel Syndrome Bowel Cleansing Bowel Cleansing Irritable Bowel Syndrone Irritable Bowel Syndrone Bowel Cleanse Bowel Cleanse Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Treatment Anti Wrinkle Cream Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Best Anti Wrinkle Cream Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Cure Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Stop Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation Prevent Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation End Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Pills Premature Ejaculation Pills Preventing Premature Ejaculation Preventing Premature Ejaculation Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Solution Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejaculation Remedy Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejackulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejactulation Premature Ejeculation Premature Ejeculation Natural menopause relief Natural menopause relief Menopause treatment Menopause treatment Menopause natural remedy Menopause natural remedy Herb Menopause Herb Menopause Menopause relief Menopause relief Herbal menopause remedy Herbal menopause remedy Menopause remedy Menopause remedy Stretch mark cream Stretch mark cream Stretch mark removal Stretch mark removal Stretch mark treatment Stretch mark treatment Remove Stretch marks Remove Stretch marks Stretch mark remover Stretch mark remover Rid of Stretch marks Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks How to get Rid of Stretch marks Stretch mark prevention Stretch mark prevention Cellulite treatment Cellulite treatment Cellulite cream Cellulite cream How to get rid of cellulite How to get rid of cellulite Cellulite removal Cellulite removal Anti Cellulite Anti Cellulite Cellulite reduction Cellulite reduction Rid of cellulite Rid of cellulite Reduce cellulite Reduce cellulite Anti Cellulite Cream Anti Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Best Cellulite Cream Remove cellulite Remove cellulite Cellulite remedy Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Natural Cellulite remedy Cellulite reducer Cellulite reducer Eliminate Cellulite Eliminate Cellulite Colon cleansing Colon cleansing Colon cleanse Colon cleanse Colon cleanser Colon cleanser Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleansing Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanse Natural colon cleanser Natural colon cleanser Super colon cleanse Super colon cleanse Best colon cleanser Best colon cleanser Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing treatment Colon cleansing recipe Colon cleansing recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Natural Colon cleanse recipe Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanse Ultimate Colon cleanser Ultimate Colon cleanser Posted by: top on November 30, 2006 at 4:37 AM | PERMALINK 
November 2009
October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
