Re: [Vo]: Climate change and LENR
In recent mainstream news the agreement between China and the USA were highlighted: For example, In Climate Deal With China, Obama May Set 2016 Theme. When will we see such a headline over a deal with China regarding LENR RD to help execute the current deal? Maybe it will be by December, 2016 after the elections or maybe before. I hope it is at least a year before or sooner. Bob Cook
[Vo]:Climate Change EMail Controversy
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/ Just hit the Drudgereport. Obviously, many remarks may be taken out of context but it looks to be an embarassment for many Global warming scientists. I would point to reported remarks about keeping dissident scientists away from peer review as potentially very important evidence of scientific suppression, regardless of the climate change subject. This aspect is very disturbing but probably no surprize to anyone on Vortex.
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Thomas Malloy wrote: We conservatives question Liberal Orthodoxy, of which Scientific Orthodoxy is an example. You've heard of Parksie's antics. Jed and Ed agree with me on this when ox, LENR, is being gored. Comparing AGW with cold fusion is rather different. With LENR-CANR the majority of scientists probably do not believe in it because they swallowed the party line a long time ago before there were many published papers. They largely got their initial impression from Press coverage. They probably still take their lead from people like Parks and sources like Nature. Within the field of scientists working on cold fusion etc, there is a strong consensus that it is real in exactly the same way that there is a very strong consensus among the scientists working on global warming that it is happening and that humans are mostly responsible and the chances are that it will be uncomfortable at best with a small chance that it may be catastrophic but that nobody can know for sure until we have run the experiment (by which time it may be too late). Scientists not working in the CF field who have not studied the papers and take their attitude from people like Parks (who repeats false beliefs and attitudes and are seemingly incorrigible) are clearly in the majority but this does not mean that their views are worth anything. In exactly the same way, thousands of scientists not working in the field of climate change, who were not familiar with the thousands of papers and decades of work behind them, signed the Oregon petition. This tactic is one of the fundamental deceits of the deniers (in this case S. Fred Singer) who purposefully confuse the public by misrepresenting majority as being the same as consensus. Extending the analogy, if the majority of scientists had to express an opinion on cold fusion, they would probably say that it was disproved in 1989 because that's all they know but the consensus of scientists in the field would almost universally say that it is real. The situation with global warming is that the consensus view of scientists in the field is that AGW is real - there is a difference from the cold fusion situation though - the majority of scientists not working in the climate field would probably also go along with the consensus view because they would take their lead from the policy statements of every major scientific organization in the world that AGW is real. As for insanity, it's clear to us that Liberalism is a form of mental illness. It is a set of ideas which has failed every time that it has been tried. It ignores physical reality. Like the fact that Radical Islam intends to take over the government and impose Sharia Law. Like economic laws, the government can't spend the country rich. Now the Porkulus (economic stimulus) package could work in theory, but it never has worked in practice. I've seen this claim of so-called liberal mental illness on some barking mad neo-con websites. Just think of the situation of the person in a mental hospital who says they are the only sane one and everyone else outside is mad - who is closer to the truth? Similarly with this neo-con claim. Bear in mind that the forthcoming global economic chaos was purely and simply caused by insufficiently finance using greed is good methodologies. I am sure that the neo-con libertarian viewpoint supported those ideas more than the liberals. BTW, liberal and conservative mean very different things in Europe, particularly in Britain, compared to their US meanings. If I were to assert that a wristwatch resulted as a result of random processes, (Jed) would never accept that. However, the essence of Darwinian ideas is that living organisms resulted from random chance ... Best of all, it fixes itself. IMHO, this is the informational equivalent of reversing the second law of thermodynamics. Not really, the cell fixes itself by increasing the amount of entropy (disorder) in the Universe by more than the amount of entropy it reverses by fixing itself. It uses energy to run up the escalator to get higher but always uses more energy than it ends up gaining. If you warm yourself up by setting a fire your personal entropy decreases but the entropy of the whole system always decreases. The Liberals delight in cultural degeneration, of which Springer is not only a classic example, but a celebration. Conservative Talk is banned in Europe of course. Ridiculous distortion. Lies and propaganda tending to increase hate crimes is rightly legislated against over here. Some Yanks have got very strange and often dangerous ideas about what the ideas of free speech and freedom of action should allow. The primary driver of atmospheric temperature is the Sun. It was producing more energy during the period of maximum sun spot activity True but irrelevant - a red herring. The amount of the recent observed global warming, that can be attributed to the sun's tiny increase in
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Howdy Thomas, I read where Sirius netwrks was paying Martha Stewart and Howard Stern under a $ 500 million contract. Now Sirius radio is taking a bankruptcy. Not to worry, Rush Limbaugh's contract wwith clear channel is only 200 million and clear channel is down to advertizing gold mines and close to cratering also. Not to worry.. The Dime Box Saloon communications and general all around rumor mongering network is well financed.. or.. well... err.. was.. until the price of scrap aluminum beer cans dropped and Bud wont pay deposit on thei long neck bottles since they went Dutch. Not to worry, with the batch of what we got brewing behind the outhouse in the woods, won't nobody care who says what when they git a dipper full. Richard Thomas wrote, I'm pleased that you got a sample of our talk radio. I'm disappointed with your reaction to it. BTW, I read Vicky Pope's article, then I wrote a letter to Dr. Pope and Dennis Prager to see if we can get her on the program. Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas sent me notification of this show but I do live on the other side of
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:07 AM, R C Macaulay walha...@cvctx.com wrote: Not to worry, with the batch of what we got brewing behind the outhouse in the woods, won't nobody care who says what when they git a dipper full. And exactly where does the water come from?
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. Consider the possibility that ID has done a fantastic job of designing Evolution in such an unfathomable way that we have only just begun to scratch the Cosmic Wisdom behind its purpose. Unfortunately, as we learn more about what drives the checks and balances introduced into evolution's blue print it seems to have unhinged so many individuals that many feel compelled to dumb it down into the guise of spiritual paradigms and easily digestible moral tales where humans are often conveniently placed the center of evolution's ultimate purpose. Perhaps G-d's greater designs on Evolution have many, many more surprises in store for us, if only we will allow ourselves to simply keep observing its grandeur in action and not feel compelled to pass judgment over what we observe, if only we will allow ourselves not to freak out at the immensity of its incompressible purpose. /Sunday's service Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. Consider the possibility that ID has done a fantastic job of designing Evolution in such an unfathomable way that we have only just begun to scratch the Cosmic Wisdom behind its purpose. Unfortunately, as we learn more about what drives the checks and balances introduced into evolution's blue print it seems to have unhinged so many individuals that many feel compelled to dumb it down into the guise of spiritual paradigms and easily digestible moral tales where humans are often conveniently placed the center of evolution's ultimate purpose. Perhaps G-d's greater designs on Evolution have many, many more surprises in store for us, if only we will allow ourselves to simply keep observing its grandeur in action and not feel compelled to pass judgment over what we observe, if only we will allow ourselves not to freak out at the immensity of its incompressible purpose. /Sunday's service Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Steven, It is necessary to dumb it down if you believe in a loving god/creator. Otherwise this intelligent designer is either indifferent to humans or a sadist. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
On Feb 15, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: - Original Message - From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. Consider the possibility that ID has done a fantastic job of designing Evolution in such an unfathomable way that we have only just begun to scratch the Cosmic Wisdom behind its purpose. Unfortunately, as we learn more about what drives the checks and balances introduced into evolution's blue print it seems to have unhinged so many individuals that many feel compelled to dumb it down into the guise of spiritual paradigms and easily digestible moral tales where humans are often conveniently placed the center of evolution's ultimate purpose. Perhaps G-d's greater designs on Evolution have many, many more surprises in store for us, if only we will allow ourselves to simply keep observing its grandeur in action and not feel compelled to pass judgment over what we observe, if only we will allow ourselves not to freak out at the immensity of its incompressible purpose. /Sunday's service Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks Steven, It is necessary to dumb it down if you believe in a loving god/creator. Otherwise this intelligent designer is either indifferent to humans or a sadist. Surely Harry, a God that has been around for at least 12 billion years and operates throughout the universe can have more than these two attitudes. The Christian religion has always suffered from this very narrow view of God, which has lead to some very harmful conclusions. Imagine any of the following possibilities. 1. This planet is designed by God to inflict suffering as a way to teach wisdom. 2. This planet is one of several penal colonies for the universe. 3. Suffering is a natural experience, just like death and gravity. It comes with life and cannot be avoided, even by the son of God. 4. God had nothing to do with the earth except that this is one of the many different results of the grand plan. We are as important as a grain of sand in the universe. 5. God is heard only when a person has grown wise enough to listen, which does not include most people. Consequently, God remains a mystery, especially to religions. I could go on, but you get the point. Regards, Ed Harry
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 3:00 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change On Feb 15, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Harry Veeder wrote:- Original Message - From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 11:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. Consider the possibility that ID has done a fantastic job of designing Evolution in such an unfathomable way that we have only just begun to scratch the Cosmic Wisdom behind its purpose. Unfortunately, as we learn more about what drives the checks and balances introduced into evolution's blue print it seems to have unhinged so many individuals that many feel compelled to dumb it down into the guise of spiritual paradigms and easily digestible moral tales where humans are often conveniently placed the center of evolution's ultimate purpose. Perhaps G-d's greater designs on Evolution have many, many more surprises in store for us, if only we will allow ourselves to simply keep observing its grandeur in action and not feel compelled to pass judgment over what we observe, if only we will allow ourselves not to freak out at the immensity of its incompressible purpose. /Sunday's service Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks ; Steven, It is necessary to "dumb it down" if you believe in a loving god/creator. Otherwise this intelligent designer is either indifferent to humans or a sadist. Surely Harry, a God that has been around for at least 12 billion years and operates throughout the universe can have more than these two attitudes. The Christian religion has always suffered from this very narrow view of God, which has lead to some very harmful conclusions. Imagine any of the following possibilities. 1. This planet is designed by God to inflict suffering as a way to teach wisdom. 2. This planet is one of several penal colonies for the universe. 3. Suffering is a natural experience, just like death and gravity. It comes with life and cannot be avoided, even by the "son of God". 4. God had nothing to do with the earth except that this is one of the many different results of the grand plan. We are as important as a grain of sand in the universe. 5. God is heard only when a person has grown wise enough to listen, which does not include most people. Consequently, God remains a mystery, especially to religions. I could go on, but you get the point. Regards, Ed Harry In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Harry sez: In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams Without a doubt this is my most favorite quote from atheist, D. Adams. Who sez G-d doesn't have a sense of humor. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Howdy Steven, Yea! Ole Darwin must have cringed to discover he had to use the Bible for technical references and time lines. Richard Harry sez: In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams Without a doubt this is my most favorite quote from atheist, D. Adams. Who sez G-d doesn't have a sense of humor. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.10.23/1953 - Release Date: 02/14/09 18:01:00
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Harry Veeder wrote: From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. I'm curious Steven,who IYHO did the designing. What do you mean by Sunday's service Harry wrote; It is necessary to dumb it down if you believe in a loving god/creator. Otherwise this intelligent designer is either indifferent to humans or a sadist. That depends on how you look at it Harry. The way we interpret it (the Bible), G-d's choir director rebelled against him, Lucifer said that he could run the world better than G-d. So G-d let him run things, and the present condition of the world has resulted. Dennis Prager has raised a similar question (how can a good G-d allow so much suffering). I intend to call in one of these weeks and proffer my answer. I was surprised to learn that religious (Torah) Jews don't believe that Lucifer is a sentient entity, which is why this conclusion isn't clear to Dennis. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
From Thomas: I'm curious Steven,who IYHO did the designing. What do you mean by Sunday's service All of us. On another topic: BTW: TNSTAAFL: Please translate. There is no such thing as a free lunch Thanks for the clarification, Thomas. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: thomas malloy temall...@usfamily.net Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:50 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change Harry Veeder wrote: From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Hi Thomas, Sunday's service I believe in Intelligent Design. I'm curious Steven,who IYHO did the designing. What do you mean by Sunday's service Harry wrote; It is necessary to dumb it down if you believe in a loving god/creator. Otherwise this intelligent designer is either indifferent to humans or a sadist. That depends on how you look at it Harry. The way we interpret it (the Bible), G-d's choir director rebelled against him, Lucifer said that he could run the world better than G-d. So G-d let him run things, and the present condition of the world has resulted. If the Almighty's needs excuse, then he is not almighty. Dennis Prager has raised a similar question (how can a good G-d allow so much suffering). I intend to call in one of these weeks and proffer my answer. I was surprised to learn that religious (Torah) Jews don't believe that Lucifer is a sentient entity, which is why this conclusion isn't clear to Dennis. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 10:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change All of us. On another topic: BTW: TNSTAAFL: Please translate. There is no such thing as a free lunch Thanks for the clarification, Thomas. The grateful know that nature can give more than we give back. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com Date: Sunday, February 15, 2009 7:08 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate Change Harry sez: In the Beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. -- Douglas Adams Without a doubt this is my most favorite quote from atheist, D. Adams. Who sez G-d doesn't have a sense of humor. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks OMG, the Bible is so not funny. It is like so serious. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Nick Palmer wrote: Thomas sent me notification of this show but I do live on the other side of I'm pleased that you got a sample of our talk radio. I'm disappointed with your reaction to it. BTW, I read Vicky Pope's article, then I wrote a letter to Dr. Pope and Dennis Prager to see if we can get her on the program. that Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock but this show was like listening to a broadcast of Josef Goebbels's inspired Nazi propaganda. We conservatives question Liberal Orthodoxy, of which Scientific Orthodoxy is an example. You've heard of Parksie's antics. Jed and Ed agree with me on this when their ox, LENR, is being gored. The main stream media includes newspapers, glossy magazines, T V and most radio programs. The New York Slimes (Times) and Newsweak, (week) are a newspaper and a glossy magazine, both of which follow the aforementioned orthodoxy. These rags are but two examples of of the liberals almost total control of the American media. They control the alphabet channels, (commercial TV) and the People's Broadcasting Service. Most radio, particularly National People's Radio. The only media which gives the conservative viewpoint is talk radio. The Liberal's solution to this is the Unfairness (Fairness) Doctrine, which is going to shut it down. This is an example of Orwellian Language, the twisting of words to mean what they want them to mean, not to confused with their dictionary definition. This Orwellian twisting is the linguistic equivalent of charality, the new meaning is a toxic mirror image of the original meaning. The Liberals have applied this nonsense to our Constitution too. Their interpretation of it is called a living document, as opposed to originalist interpretation. This in an effort to enforce their orthodoxy, (abridge our Constitutional Rights) by taking away our freedom of speech. You may enjoy equating Prager's show with Goebbels's but it is quite Orwellian of you to do so. Dennis regularly has liberal academics on as guests, and allows them to make their case, for their idiotic ideas. This is not the case with the garbage media which toes the Liberal party line. As for insanity, it's clear to us that Liberalism is a form of mental illness. It is a set of ideas which has failed every time that it has been tried. It ignores physical reality. Like the fact that Radical Islam intends to take over the government and impose Sharia Law. Like economic laws, the government can't spend the country rich. Now the Porkulus (economic stimulus) package could work in theory, but it never has worked in practice. They promote a G-dless paradigm. Jed's reaction (liberation of the mind) to Darwinian theory is an example of this. If I were to assert that a wristwatch resulted as a result of random processes, he would never accept that. However, the essence of Darwinian ideas is that living organisms resulted from random chance. This despite the fact that the living organism is surrounded, permeated and controlled by an energy field that the biophysicists don't understand. The living organism is also mechanically rather complex, the cell has been compared in complexity to the island of Manhattan. While we have managed to manipulate various biological processes, that it's the same as understanding them. Best of all, it fixes itself. IMHO, this is the informational equivalent of reversing the second law of thermodynamics. This mechanical complexity reminders me of a new word in my vocabulary, charality. Chemical molecules come in pairs, mirror images or racemates, which differ around centers of asymmetry. There are double bonds around which the molecule can't rotate. One of the racemates work in biological systems, the other doesn't. We do not have any shows like this over here, although we do have Jerry Springer vs. Trailer trash type shows. The Liberals delight in cultural degeneration, of which Springer is not only a classic example, but a celebration. Conservative Talk is banned in Europe of course. They aren't going to allow comments which deviate from the party line, which is why distorters (reporters) have to be licensed by the government. This is a technique that rhetoricians such as Bastardi use to snow under the other side with a blizzard of assertions, strawmen, red herrings, That depends on how you look at it. The primary driver of atmospheric temperature is the Sun. It was producing more energy during the period of maximum sun spot activity. Now, it is at minimum and the planet is cooling off, AFAIK, this has been a record cold winter. Faced with the cold hard facts, these people changed the name from global warming to climate change. As for atmospheric pollution, it's clear to us that volcanoes contribute way more pollution that all human activities. The bottom line is that you want to take the weather predictions seriously; (remake the economic system) of people who can't forecast the
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Thomas sent me notification of this show but I do live on the other side of the Atlantic timewise so it was not really possible for me to contribute to an American talk show (even if I thought it would be a good idea). I listened to the (Dennis Prager) show afterwards via streaming media and all I can say is I am shocked. Is this show a typical example of such shows? I have heard that Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock but this show was like listening to a broadcast of Josef Goebbels's inspired Nazi propaganda. Goebbels said That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result, he also wrote. It is not propaganda's task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success. The people behind this radio show either know they are doing propaganda or they are stupid/irrational/insane by virtue of their inability to see what is real and what is not. We do not have any shows like this over here, although we do have Jerry Springer vs. Trailer trash type shows. The climatologist featured (Joe Bastardi) is actually a meteorologist TV weather guy. These people are not authorities on climate change, neither are they scientists in the field, but if they are otherwise factual and non- propagandist they obviously have every right to speak on this topic as a non authority. He was however presented as an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy inasmuch as he does not have authority to speak by virtue of his career. He and Prager kept on making references to Al Gore and constantly used the latest denier tactic of the month - by implying that because the climate changed in the past naturally and continues to change that therefore even if the climate is warming that it is nothing to do with people or there is nothing we can do about it or that it would be too expensive. This should immediately tip off anyone who follows this subject that the show was not a fair and objective presentation of a debate but low manipulation of people (see Goebbels). He kept on confusing the difference between weather and climate, thus demonstrating that he is either a) stupid or b) evil and he introduced veritable battalions of strawmen arguments thus again proving conclusively that he is a) stupid or b) evil. His basic technique was to do the so called gish gallop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3topic=22020 This is a technique that rhetoricians such as Bastardi use to snow under the other side with a blizzard of assertions, strawmen, red herrings, unattributed statements etc. They can fire off 30 highly dubious points in five minutes which would need a couple of hours (at least) to carefully and accurately correct. They generally restrict themselves to bandwidth/time limited media so there can be no effective answer to their spiel, which has been compared to that of snake oil salesmen. Having heard one of these shows for the first time I have to say that they appear to be a great evil - spreading lies and distortion and misrepresentation and manipulating gullible people all in the name of free speech - liberty? - more like licence! Nick Palmer
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
Hi Mike, Nick, Interesting commentaries. Opinions (like beliefs) are only as good as how well they serve the beholder. Problems occur when end up identifying our sense of self with the opinions we hold. When we end up identifying our sense of self with an opinion, we have succumbed to serving it, instead of the opinion serving our best interests. We have essentially created an idol, a false-god that continuously demands worship. Sooner or later such steadfast held opinions will eventually demand sacrifices, all in the name of defending its honor. -- Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/11/climate-change-misleading-claims This article gives a very balanced view which highlights the problems of exaggeration and poor media reporting on the general appearance of the topic. It makes clear that AGW sceptics (like Prager and Bastardi) are wrong and, on the other hand, that the most dramatic of the doomsayers are saying things that the conservative consensus statements of climate science don't say. Of course, the science may be wrong but it could be wrong either way. Until we have run the experiment, nobody can be certain which way it will end up - planetary feedbacks could keep the temperature fairly stable or we may pass a tipping point, known or as yet unknown, whereby the greenhouse effect is amplified, in which case the doomsayers will probably be right. Release of the undersea and tundra methane deposits would be one such mechanism. Nick Palmer
[Vo]:Climate Change
Vortexians; Joe Bistardi, Chief of Long Range Forecasting at accuweather.com was just interviewed on the Dennis Prager Show. He doesn't believe in Global Warming. As I recall, he believes that the earth is cooling. Of course Climate Change covers that. He rejects Algore's anthropogenic climate change model however. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html ---
Re: [Vo]:Climate Change
- Original Message - From: thomas malloy temal...@usfamily.net ---MC: A cover story in Scientific American a while back asserted the following: Studies of ice cores from several sources show that the CO2 levels have cyclic fluctuation over a very long period of time, with a cycle of plaentary heating and cooling. Following that trend, we have been in a cooling cycle throughout recorded human history and headed of an ice age were it not for human intervention in deforestation for agriculture and the production of CO2 and methane through farming. The industlrial revolution and its use of carbon-based fuel has produced a spike of warming and climate change. The underlying cycle of heating/cooling is traced to a combination of earth's orbital eccentricity [being an elipse] and the precession of the earth's axis. This article convinced me, for one, of the reality of climate change. As it happens, then, like the blind men and the elephant, one holding the trunk and the other the tail, both can be right. I am expecting the energy technology of BlackLight Power to provide a non-carbon base for the comfort of a very large human population. Mike Carrell --- Vortexians; Joe Bistardi, Chief of Long Range Forecasting at accuweather.com was just interviewed on the Dennis Prager Show. He doesn't believe in Global Warming. As I recall, he believes that the earth is cooling. Of course Climate Change covers that. He rejects Algore's anthropogenic climate change model however. --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! -- http://www.usfamily.net/mkt-freepromo.html --- This Email has been scanned for all viruses by Medford Leas I.T. Department.
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
-Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:28 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore Please provide an example how a nation with veto power on the security council might be tyrannised if it were to loose its veto. Harry That is not what I was trying to say. Since its inception, the UNhas been relatively ineffective and harmless because whenever they really try to do something it gets vetoed by somebody. If the leadership could institute policies unopposed then things could start to get dangerous for one and all. Nationalism has shown some really bad characteristics over the centuries, but world unity scares me more. Jeff No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 1/29/2008 10:20 PM
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
In reply to Jeff Fink's message of Wed, 30 Jan 2008 07:45:08 -0500: Hi, [snip] Since its inception, the UNhas been relatively ineffective and harmless because whenever they really try to do something it gets vetoed by somebody. If the leadership could institute policies unopposed then things could start to get dangerous for one and all. Nationalism has shown some really bad characteristics over the centuries, but world unity scares me more. [snip] That would perhaps be a problem if the UN actually had teeth. However it relies for it's muscle upon contributions of armed forces from member states. That isn't likely to change any time soon. In the mean time, removal of the veto power would ensure that various resolutions that ought to be passed would be passed. Sometimes the major powers deserve to be embarrassed. e.g. US and Iraq, Russia and Chetchnya, China and Taiwan/Tibet. (All examples of a major power putting its own interests above those of the local inhabitants). IMO removal of the veto would lead to a more even handed result all round. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
No veto as Robin said, and more permanent members. Harry On 28/1/2008 10:17 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Interesting. How is it inadequate now? How do you think it should be reformed? Lawrence -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry On 28/1/2008 6:06 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa lack capital? Look at what the Grameen Bank has accomplished. No technically educated person should claim these problems cannot be solved! There are only two difficulties: 1. Deciding which of the many solutions is most likely to work, at the lowest cost. 2. Pushing aside the ignorant naysayers and greedy fools who say we can't solve the problems and we should just give up. Here is what we must believe and act upon, right up until the last member of our species goes extinct. In October 1941, after 10 months of war, Winston Churchill said: . . . surely from this period of ten months
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, a rule that seems to have no exception, a fully empowered one world government will be the most frightful entity ever encountered by the human race, and I sadly believe that most of us under age sixty will live to see what I mean. Historically a person could escape a tyrannical government by fleeing to another land. Where will we go now? Jeff -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore No veto as Robin said, and more permanent members. Harry On 28/1/2008 10:17 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Interesting. How is it inadequate now? How do you think it should be reformed? Lawrence -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry On 28/1/2008 6:06 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Howdy Jeff, It is difficult to convey such a thought to a generation that has had a constant barrage of teaching from Miss Pollyana Doogood. Miss Doogood has been trying to explain that the world is run on the level, there is no such thing as evil, and anyone that don't believe it are not intellectual. Richard Jeff wrote, Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, a rule that seems to have no exception, a fully empowered one world government will be the most frightful entity ever encountered by the human race, and I sadly believe that most of us under age sixty will live to see what I mean. Historically a person could escape a tyrannical government by fleeing to another land. Where will we go now?
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I understand there are considerable sweet water aquifers under large portions of the Sahara. There are aquifers, but they are being rapidly depleted and destroyed. There is no chance they can be used to reconvert the man-made parts of the desert back into verdant land. That can only be done with desalinization using energy sources other than fossil fuel. Conventional sources such as fission or solar thermal would work, but cold fusion would be orders of magnitude cheaper. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Please provide an example how a nation with veto power on the security council might be tyrannised if it were to loose its veto. Harry On 29/1/2008 8:43 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, a rule that seems to have no exception, a fully empowered one world government will be the most frightful entity ever encountered by the human race, and I sadly believe that most of us under age sixty will live to see what I mean. Historically a person could escape a tyrannical government by fleeing to another land. Where will we go now? Jeff -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore No veto as Robin said, and more permanent members. Harry On 28/1/2008 10:17 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Interesting. How is it inadequate now? How do you think it should be reformed? Lawrence -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry On 28/1/2008 6:06 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
It is more like a feeling than a thought. harry On 29/1/2008 12:38 PM, R.C.Macaulay wrote: Howdy Jeff, It is difficult to convey such a thought to a generation that has had a constant barrage of teaching from Miss Pollyana Doogood. Miss Doogood has been trying to explain that the world is run on the level, there is no such thing as evil, and anyone that don't believe it are not intellectual. Richard Jeff wrote, Since absolute power corrupts absolutely, a rule that seems to have no exception, a fully empowered one world government will be the most frightful entity ever encountered by the human race, and I sadly believe that most of us under age sixty will live to see what I mean. Historically a person could escape a tyrannical government by fleeing to another land. Where will we go now?
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
i think his point is that the aquifers are natural filters, and that rising watertables from ocean flooding would be filtered through them. this is partially true, but it would filter slowly, and you would still end up with salty marshland, likely. On 1/29/08, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lawrence de Bivort wrote: I understand there are considerable sweet water aquifers under large portions of the Sahara. There are aquifers, but they are being rapidly depleted and destroyed. There is no chance they can be used to reconvert the man-made parts of the desert back into verdant land. That can only be done with desalinization using energy sources other than fossil fuel. Conventional sources such as fission or solar thermal would work, but cold fusion would be orders of magnitude cheaper. - Jed -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
thats basically it. it depends on if the death and disease and destruction that will be caused is worth it. (if you ask me, i get less people in the world, and beach front property here in az. WIN WIN. ) On 1/28/08, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. An ill conceived solution will make matters. Let us not waste resources on crazy solutions, but use them to adapt if necessary. We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization. I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How can that be bad if it was once green? Change happens. Change is continuous. Something somewhere gets better, something somewhere else gets worse. Animals adapt. But, we humans don't want to adapt. We want to stop change, no matter what the cause of the change, rather than adapt. We want the sea shore to stay right where it is now, everywhere, and we will commit unlimited resources to make it so. At sometime in the past, evidence shows levels higher and lower on this planet. It changes continuously. Let it go. Adapt! Adapt or die! ;-) Harry -- That which yields isn't always weak.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. An ill conceived solution will make matters. Let us not waste resources on crazy solutions, but use them to adapt if necessary. We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization. The borg collective comes to mind when I think of dismantling. ;-) Harry I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How can that be bad if it was once green? Change happens. Change is continuous. Something somewhere gets better, something somewhere else gets worse. Animals adapt. But, we humans don't want to adapt. We want to stop change, no matter what the cause of the change, rather than adapt. We want the sea shore to stay right where it is now, everywhere, and we will commit unlimited resources to make it so. At sometime in the past, evidence shows levels higher and lower on this planet. It changes continuously. Let it go. Adapt! No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.13/1246 - Release Date: 1/27/2008 6:39 PM
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. An ill conceived solution will make matters. Let us not waste resources on crazy solutions, but use them to adapt if necessary. We cannot save civilization by dismantling civilization. I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How can that be bad if it was once green? Change happens. Change is continuous. Something somewhere gets better, something somewhere else gets worse. Animals adapt. But, we humans don't want to adapt. We want to stop change, no matter what the cause of the change, rather than adapt. We want the sea shore to stay right where it is now, everywhere, and we will commit unlimited resources to make it so. At sometime in the past, evidence shows levels higher and lower on this planet. It changes continuously. Let it go. Adapt! Adapt or die! ;-) Harry
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Ed Storms wrote on 1-28-08: Some problems have no solution. That is not the issue. It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. Finding a substitute for oil, for example, may not impact the climate much but it will have many other benefits ... Jack Smith writes: It is critical that we get off oil no matter where it comes from. For Americans, this is the issue of highest national security. As the world oil glut tips the price of oil into a precipitous drop, the chance is better than 50% that Bush will attack the Iranian oil fields before November, 2008, to reduce supply, even at the risk of closing the Straits of Hormuz, which shouldn't bother Dubai that ?doesn't have oil? Jones Beene wrote on 1-28-08: BTW - to the word-phreak, Dubai is this strange little oil-poor, but asset-rich, emirate on the Gulf (both Persian and Texan, by abstraction) which is pronounced the same as its essential mandate: Do-Buy ... [Jerome] Kerviel is the so-called rogue trader (or scapegoat) who is taking the heat for the recent French banking scandal ... which is becoming a story with many far-reaching tentacles- there are whispers of Halliburton, a secret CIA-Clique (reminiscent of the Star Chamber), the Bin-Laden optiontrades, secret infiltration of the European banking system by ArAms, and it all may eventually get back to our beloved (and aptly-named) Vice President. Keep you eye on this site for upcoming salacious details: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ BTW an ArAm is short for ArabAmerican, which is more an earned distinction, based on avarice ... more than anything racial or ethnic. It comes from the former 'suits' of this outfit, which is now the largest corporation in the World, Exxon notwithstanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramco They (ArAms in general and Aramco in particular) actually have far more net wealth than the entire United States of America ... which recently, under the watchful anti-terrorist-eyes of the Bush Administration, has sunk to become a net-debtor nation. (no exaggeration) Jack writes: The Oil Gang is insatiable. They are like vampires who, when gorged on blood, want it more than ever. They will certainly get what they can before their boy leaves office. Jones wrote: ... Don't know if all of the above was necessary to get a grip on this- but here is an understated story from Reuters which may illustrate some of this problem of trying to determine what is real and what is abstraction, in the News of the day. HONG KONG - Incredulous equity traders said on Monday they wanted a better explanation from Societe Generale for how a single rogue trader managed to build up a $73 billion position and cause the French bank to lose $7 billion. I think most people are just astonished that someone could get away with that kind of trade for so long without being noticed, said Matt McKeith, head of equity dealing at First State Investments in Hong Kong. I'd always be slightly suspicious of the company line in these circumstances. Societe Generale said the trader, 31-year-old Jerome Kerviel, created fictitious accounts to make it look as though his positions had been covered, when in fact they remained unhedged, and falsified documents to justify his actions. Jack writes: Hi Jones. Would you please give me the url for the above Reuters story? Jones wrote: [SocGen almost immediately called for an equity infusion. Translation- a shift in ownership. No problem there, right Do-Buy?] Equity traders were foxed by the explanation, especially since the relatively lowly Kerviel appeared to make no personal profit from his gamble, and were flummoxed as to his motives. [Personal profits can be sown in Paree, and harvested in Do-Buy] BTW Kerviel, at the time of this incident, was making about one-tenth the salary of a Wall Street trader with the same responsibility; and French Banks are notorious for low bonuses. No wonder he was so easy to recruit. Bottom line for Jerry? Even after a short stint (for his health) in La Santé, Kerviel if he is not Vinced as they say, will probably have some nice 'digs' waiting for him in the world's tallest hotel ... Jack writes: The construction (?tallest hotel?) going on in Do-Buy is almost beyond belief -- talk about the Tower of Babel. Where is all this money coming from? Didn't they offer to buy out the U. S. port operations? Didn't they just pump billions into Citibank? Is there a list of this stuff somewhere? How many trillions has the Bush family (extended) made since 9-11-01? As a side note, I recently saw The Good Shepherd which, along with a lot of Skull and Bones footage, says that a founder of the CIA was blackmailed by the Russians into telling them where and when the Bay of Pigs invasion was to take place. So JFK was hit by the Mafia by mistake? (A Mafia hit is just one theory -- there is a JFK plan to tell the public about contact with aliens, a JFK withdrawal from Viet Nam, JFK issuing Treasury bills like Lincoln issued
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa lack capital? Look at what the Grameen Bank has accomplished. No technically educated person should claim these problems cannot be solved! There are only two difficulties: 1. Deciding which of the many solutions is most likely to work, at the lowest cost. 2. Pushing aside the ignorant naysayers and greedy fools who say we can't solve the problems and we should just give up. Here is what we must believe and act upon, right up until the last member of our species goes extinct. In October 1941, after 10 months of war, Winston Churchill said: . . . surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Regarding our special predicament: I don't care if Albert Gore and 100 million scientists world-wide refuse to look at cold fusion, or ridicule it, or promote crazy ideas such as ethanol instead. I don't care about the apparently overwhelming might of Nature or the DoE. If we try hard enough, and we
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa lack capital? Look at what the Grameen Bank has accomplished. No technically educated person should claim these problems cannot be solved! There are only two difficulties: 1. Deciding which of the many solutions is most likely to work, at the lowest cost. 2. Pushing aside the ignorant naysayers and greedy fools who say we can't solve the problems and we should just give up. Here is what we must believe and act upon, right up until the last member of our species goes extinct. In October 1941, after 10 months of war, Winston Churchill said: . . . surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Regarding our special predicament: I don't care if Albert Gore and 100 million scientists world-wide refuse to look at cold fusion, or ridicule it, or promote crazy ideas such as ethanol instead. I don't care about the apparently overwhelming might of Nature or the DoE. If we try hard enough, and we are lucky, we WILL push this vast crowd of idiots aside. It isn't a sure thing. But I am not finished yet, and frankly I wouldn't recommend you bet against me. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry On 28/1/2008 6:06 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa lack capital? Look at what the Grameen Bank has accomplished. No technically educated person should claim these problems cannot be solved! There are only two difficulties: 1. Deciding which of the many solutions is most likely to work, at the lowest cost. 2. Pushing aside the ignorant naysayers and greedy fools who say we can't solve the problems and we should just give up. Here is what we must believe and act upon, right up until the last member of our species goes extinct. In October 1941, after 10 months of war, Winston Churchill said: . . . surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty -- never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. Regarding our special predicament: I don't care if Albert Gore and 100 million scientists world-wide refuse to look at cold fusion, or ridicule
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
In reply to Harry Veeder's message of Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:31:10 -0500: Hi, [snip] The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry [snip] I agree - the right of veto should be removed altogether. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Interesting. How is it inadequate now? How do you think it should be reformed? Lawrence -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:31 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore The UN security council needs to be reformed for starters. Harry On 28/1/2008 6:06 PM, Lawrence de Bivort wrote: Agreed, Jed. We are, as a species, entering an age of globalized systems, and I think tackling them will require a new set of linguistic skills. The language we use in politics and policy today is still based on national models of human organization -- one might almost say, tribal. My guess is that our language has led us into the present pickle, and that only linguistic improvements -- and radial ones at that -- will enable us to resolve the problems we have created for ourselves. Cheers, Lawrence -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 5:53 PM To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore R.C.Macaulay wrote: At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. As I expect everyone here knows, telling me things like that are like waving red meat at a hungry lion. Frankly, such attitudes are anathema to the spirit of science, technology, and America -- three things I hold dear. Of course I acknowledge that people are capable of screwing things up. Of course I know that we might destroy ourselves and the ecology. Heck, we may destroy the world in an hour with thermonuclear bombs. And it goes without saying that there are some potential natural disasters we cannot cope with no matter what, such as the Sun going nova, and there may be irredeemable man-made disasters such as CO2 released from permafrost -- but there isn't yet, as far as I know. As things now stand, global warming and especially the situation in Africa are entirely our fault, and our problem, and I am certain -- beyond any doubt -- that we have the power to fix these problems. As John F. Kennedy said: Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again. Anyone who doubts that is betting against the tide of history. You are betting against human resilience which has survived incredible trials for millions of years as we came through the evolutionary furnace as Florman called it. And you are forgetting that we have transformed the whole face of the earth and we can do it again, and again; we have untold energy at our fingertips; the bounty of the whole solar system just outside our reach; and we are surrounded with everyday technology that people even 150 years ago would have found indistinguishable from magic. How can anyone doubt that we have the power to forestall global warming, or bring properity to the millions of people in Africa?!? Strictly in terms of material resources and physical energy, we could easily create as much wealth for all 6 billion people as only a first-world millionaire enjoys today. The only thing stopping us from doing this is widespread ignorance and the will to act. Are there food shortages? We could grow enough food for everyone on earth in an area the size of Atlanta. Is there not enough meat? In the last few years, my friends at NewHarvest.com have brought the cost of cultivated meat (meat grown in vitro) down from $100,000 to a few thousand dollars per kilogram. It is just a matter of time before meat will be as cheap as tofu, and as clean and easy to make. Do people in Africa lack capital? Look at what the Grameen Bank has accomplished. No technically educated person should claim these problems cannot be solved! There are only two difficulties: 1. Deciding which of the many solutions is most likely to work, at the lowest cost. 2. Pushing aside the ignorant naysayers and greedy fools who say we can't solve the problems and we should just give up. Here is what we must believe and act upon, right up until the last member of our species goes extinct. In October 1941, after 10 months of war, Winston Churchill said: . . . surely from this period of ten months this is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
On 1/28/08, *Harry Veeder* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How can that be bad if it was once green? Let it go. Adapt! Adapt or die! ;-) Turning the Sahara into farm land sounds great to me! Now if I can just find a plan for a desalinator that is powered by the ZPE. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
RE: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
I understand there are considerable sweet water aquifers under large portions of the Sahara. Lawrence -Original Message- From: thomas malloy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 1:55 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore On 1/28/08, *Harry Veeder* [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 28/1/2008 8:28 AM, Jeff Fink wrote: I saw a science show on Saturday that said global warming will cause the sahara to get green again, and then they called that a bad thing! How can that be bad if it was once green? Let it go. Adapt! Adapt or die! ;-) Turning the Sahara into farm land sounds great to me! Now if I can just find a plan for a desalinator that is powered by the ZPE. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
[Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore by Staff Writers Davos, Switzerland (AFP) Jan 24, 2008 Climate change is occurring far faster than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change foresaw, Al Gore warned Thursday. New evidence shows the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us, the former US vice president and climate campaigner told delegates at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos. There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice cap may disappear entirely during summer months in as little as five years, Gore said. This is a planetary emergency. There has never been anything remotely like it in the entire history of human civilisation. We are putting at risk all of human civilisation, he added. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its fourth assessment in 18 years. In October both Gore and the IPCC, comprising around 3,000 experts, jointly won a Nobel prize for their roles in highlighting climate change. Gore said a little bit of progress had been made at December's climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. He added though that there was a big, large blank spot in the road map agreed in Bali, reserved for the United States' environmental policy once a new president is elected in November and inaugurated in January. He said that the single most important policy that could be implemented would be a tax on carbon emissions that is applied across the whole world, so that those who don't pay the price for carbon don't have an advantage over those who do. I think it is really important from a climate change point of view to move away from the idea that personal actions from each of us represents the solution to this crisis. These are important... but in addition to changing the light bulbs it is important to change the laws, Gore said. He stopped short of endorsing any US presidential candidate but said that whoever is elected will have a better position on climate change than the current administration of US President George W. Bush. Gore was appearing at Davos beside Africa activist and U2 frontman Bono in an effort to combine the fights against climate change and poverty. The brunt of this climate crisis is going to be felt in the developing world. All your work... will be undone if you don't focus on this, Bono said. It is clear that those people who have least created this climate crisis... are the least equipped to deal with it. Gore added: I want to say to everyone who wants to solve the climate crisis, they have to take Bono's agenda on extreme poverty, on fighting disease and dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis and make it an integral part of the world's effort to solve the climate crisis.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al GoreHarry Veeder quotes.. Al Gore The brunt of this climate crisis is going to be felt in the developing world. All your work... will be undone if you don't focus on this, Bono said. It is clear that those people who have least created this climate crisis... are the least equipped to deal with it. Gore added: I want to say to everyone who wants to solve the climate crisis, they have to take Bono's agenda on extreme poverty, on fighting disease and dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis and make it an integral part of the world's effort to solve the climate crisis. Howdy Harry, At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. The biggest problem in the world is jealousy, vanity, lust and greed. Add drugs to this equation and witness a decay in civilized society. An attorney friend remarked tha he no longer knew what justice is as a result of his work in the court system. I explained the definition of the word justice as love of order, that which preserves it, we call justice. Neither Al Gore or any of the politicians in or from Washington hold legitimate credentials to speak to the American people on issues they help create. Not because their political position in failing us.. but.. by their lack of moral leadership. What did they and the politicials of either party expect in their constant degradation of congress and the constitution they were sworn to defend and protect. Richard
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
sigh On Jan 27, 2008 12:25 PM, Harry Veeder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore by Staff Writers Davos, Switzerland (AFP) Jan 24, 2008 Climate change is occurring far faster than even the worst predictions of the UN's Nobel Prize-winning scientific panel on climate change foresaw, Al Gore warned Thursday. New evidence shows the climate crisis is significantly worse and unfolding more rapidly than those on the pessimistic side of the IPCC projections had warned us, the former US vice president and climate campaigner told delegates at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos. There are now forecasts that the North Pole ice cap may disappear entirely during summer months in as little as five years, Gore said. This is a planetary emergency. There has never been anything remotely like it in the entire history of human civilisation. We are putting at risk all of human civilisation, he added. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a report the size of three phone books on the reality and risks of climate change, its fourth assessment in 18 years. In October both Gore and the IPCC, comprising around 3,000 experts, jointly won a Nobel prize for their roles in highlighting climate change. Gore said a little bit of progress had been made at December's climate conference in Bali, Indonesia. He added though that there was a big, large blank spot in the road map agreed in Bali, reserved for the United States' environmental policy once a new president is elected in November and inaugurated in January. He said that the single most important policy that could be implemented would be a tax on carbon emissions that is applied across the whole world, so that those who don't pay the price for carbon don't have an advantage over those who do. I think it is really important from a climate change point of view to move away from the idea that personal actions from each of us represents the solution to this crisis. These are important... but in addition to changing the light bulbs it is important to change the laws, Gore said. He stopped short of endorsing any US presidential candidate but said that whoever is elected will have a better position on climate change than the current administration of US President George W. Bush. Gore was appearing at Davos beside Africa activist and U2 frontman Bono in an effort to combine the fights against climate change and poverty. The brunt of this climate crisis is going to be felt in the developing world. All your work... will be undone if you don't focus on this, Bono said. It is clear that those people who have least created this climate crisis... are the least equipped to deal with it. Gore added: I want to say to everyone who wants to solve the climate crisis, they have to take Bono's agenda on extreme poverty, on fighting disease and dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis and make it an integral part of the world's effort to solve the climate crisis.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
R.C.Macaulay wrote: Harry Veeder quotes.. Al Gore The brunt of this climate crisis is going to be felt in the developing world. All your work... will be undone if you don't focus on this, Bono said. It is clear that those people who have least created this climate crisis... are the least equipped to deal with it. Gore added: I want to say to everyone who wants to solve the climate crisis, they have to take Bono's agenda on extreme poverty, on fighting disease and dealing with the HIV/AIDS crisis and make it an integral part of the world's effort to solve the climate crisis. Howdy Harry, At some point in time it becomes necessary to recognize some problems have no solution tasks and simply turn your head in a stance of inevitiability. Al Gore has profited by profiling global warming and Bono the same with Africa but neither have a solution. Of course Richard, some problems have no solution. That is not the issue. It's the attempt to solve a problem that is important. Finding a substitute for oil, for example, may not impact the climate much but it will have many other benefits, which won't be achieved without the encouragement of the climate change issue. Think beyond the local issue and who is benefiting and ask if taking the advice of Al Gore might not benefit us all in many other ways. Meanwhile, move to higher ground. Africa is imploding in on itself, with any attempt to help being frustrated. Climate changes occur but any attempt to modify climate is futile. All the feeding of guilt will not solve insoluable problems. Of course Africa is imploding. Helping Africa is not done because of guilt but because unstable regions, if ignored, tend to spill out into the reset of the world either as disease or terrorist. Africa was destroyed by the Western nations in the past and even at the present time harm is being done because powerful companies want the resources. The biggest problem in the world is jealousy, vanity, lust and greed. That is not the major problem because these have been part of the human condition from day one. The problem is that these conditions now impact a larger part of the society because of increased power in the hands of government and corporations. In the past, leaders who had too much of these characteristics would screw up a small part of the world. Now they can screwup the whole world. But, we just keep on electing them. As a result, we get what we deserve. Add drugs to this equation and witness a decay in civilized society. An attorney friend remarked tha he no longer knew what justice is as a result of his work in the court system. Drugs are not the problem. The problem is the approach used to deal with drug uce. Some countries take a better approach than others, with the US being one of the worst. In this country, any rational approach based on an understanding of human nature and history is labeled as liberal. As a result, the brute force method of people who only respect and enjoy the use of power are in charge. We see this battle between the liberal and conservative approach being carried out on many issues, with the conservatives winning. As a result, society just keeps getting worse. The response to this deterioration is to apply more force and power. Make people behave rather than give them the freedom and reason to behave. If you want to find the reason for the decay, you might consider this one. I explained the definition of the word justice as love of order, that which preserves it, we call justice. Neither Al Gore or any of the politicians in or from Washington hold legitimate credentials to speak to the American people on issues they help create. Not because their political position in failing us.. but.. by their lack of moral leadership. What did they and the politicials of either party expect in their constant degradation of congress and the constitution they were sworn to defend and protect. Unfortunately, the term moral leadership describes one of the reason things are going down hill. Too often, the criteria is based on some religious idea that has no relationship to the present reality or to the need of the general population. Meanwhile the basic beliefs behind the religious philosophy are ignored in an attempt to force compliance with a few emotional issues. Of course a society goes down hill when the moral leaders speak with such hypocrisy. Ed Richard
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
In reply to R.C.Macaulay's message of Sun, 27 Jan 2008 15:16:24 -0600: Hi, [snip] The biggest problem in the world is jealousy, vanity, lust and greed. Add drugs to this equation and witness a decay in civilized society. An attorney friend remarked tha he no longer knew what justice is as a result of his work in the court system. I explained the definition of the word justice as love of order, that which preserves it, we call justice. [snip] A fascist dictatorship preserves order, but I would hardly call it just, therefore, I think your definition is somewhat lacking. My definition is that a just system is one in which *all* are treated equally before the law. I suspect this doesn't exist anywhere on Earth. This is different BTW from a *fair* society which tries to treat all members equally, and also from a *free* society, which tries to give all members the greatest possible freedom. A fair society would need to restrict the freedoms of some in order to ensure that all get an equal share, while a free society allows some to exploit others resulting in an unequal distribution of wealth. IOW fairness and freedom are usually to a considerable degree exclusive of one another. Fairness is epitomized by pure communism, while freedom is epitomized by pure capitalism. Most societies end up opting for a mixture of the two, with some restrictions on freedom designed to ensure that exploitation is limited to some degree. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk The shrub is a plant.
Re: [Vo]:Climate change 'significantly worse' than feared: Al Gore
Ed Storms wrote, The response to this deterioration is to apply more force and power. Make people behave rather than give them the freedom and reason to behave. If you want to find the reason for the decay, you might consider this one. Meanwhile the basic beliefs behind the religious philosophy are ignored in an attempt to force compliance with a few emotional issues. Howdy Ed, While I have trouble reconciling your words force and make to co-mingling the words with religious philosophy, I suggest we are on the same page, just viewed from a different angle. The simple premise of justice mentioned as Love of order. That which preserves it. we call justice holds for concept but does not define the act of justice which is the purpose of the courts. An interesting sign hanging over a judge's wall states All who seek justice labor here. A wise saying in that it does not claim justice will be found. Lawyers sure spend a lot of time searching for justice in our hip pocket. Actually, there is no such thing as perfect justice other than perfect mercy. It is true that ole Solomon asked for wisdom to discern knowledge to make judgement calls for the people, it is also true that he sure was poor example himself. How an intelligent man could wind up with 300 wives and 600 concubines is anybody's guess.. but that seems to be the way religion and justice can be mixed and interpreted provided you are using somebody else's money. I sorta think like my lawyer buddy.. justice is administered best from the business end of a gun.. provided one has the stomach for it. What is happening in Africa is an example of man's inhumanity to man. What is happening to the world environment is criminal. Look at the huge dead dark area in the Gulf of Mexico off the mouth of the Mississsipi for a horror story. Richard
[Vo]: Climate Change
Vortexians; In case you missed it, this man was just interviewed on C to C AM, http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html , he is a climate scientist who contends that what we are seeing is the result of a natural cycle. I have previously mentioned the book, Unstoppable Climate Change by Avery and Singer which says the same thing. The story that really intrigues me is that there are big rocks flying into the sun from a direction orthogonal to the planetary ecliptic. Coincident with these hits are large sunspots on the other side of the Sun. This story was reported by James McCanney. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
