The Big Stories and views that don't make major network news ...
June 15, 2006 by Seth
As i am tuning in to the political blogosphere, i am finding more and more stories and views that are not being reported by the major TV network media.  Just how deeply does this filter on our national awareness go?  Consequently i have decided to make a collection of major stories that I would have included in the nightly national news had I have been an editor.
  1. The world will start running out of oil sometime in this century.  The only question is which decade.
  2. Proposition: Global warming is real, its already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
  3. Clashes Break Out in NW Iran, Qom Protesters Drive Out Rafsanjani
  4. During the Viet Nam war we had a daily dose of the carnage shown to us on TV.  It was awful to watch.  But being shielded from that is certainly not healthy.  Here is a video that you should watch.  War is hell.  Just seeing Talking heads and brief descriptions of the violence does not inform us of what is actually going on.

by Seth in group seth — 2006-06-06 13:45:21, changed 2006-06-15 14:52:04 thought 3673
23 comment threads
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-06 16:28:57 [item 3673#10451]
Do it!    War gets a lot worse than your movie. A balanced perspective would be nice. I think the worse thing I heard today was a bunch of crates with severed heads in them in Iraq. The enemy there is not nice. They also discovered 100,000 in mass graves a few days ago. I suspect if you took pictures of the 50,000 people killed in their cars on the highway each year & got up close & personal pictures of the blood & guts (prolly illegal to do so) it would look worse than the war or, at least on a par with it. I don't know exactly where to draw the line between what's worse in the battle between war & opression.  Somalia is now a worry with Islamists reportedly in control of the capital.  Blackhalk Down II anyone ?

Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-07 22:04:02 [item 3673#10457]
seth 2006-06-07 19:15:32 item 3673
Good nonination ... i put it on top of the priority list.  Only thing ... if we are to examine it here at fastblogit, let us enquire into the facts ... let us eschew political rhetoric ... let us seek out the original source materials ... and finaly let us decide if this is a real problem or not.
item 3167 points to some interesting data. This global warming is another god that seems to want to scare.
Seth 2006-06-08 09:45:58 [item 3673#10459]
M 2006-06-07 22:04:02 item 3673
seth 2006-06-07 19:15:32 item 3673
Good nonination ... i put it on top of the priority list.  Only thing ... if we are to examine it here at fastblogit, let us enquire into the facts ... let us eschew political rhetoric ... let us seek out the original source materials ... and finaly let us decide if this is a real problem or not.
item 3167 points to some interesting data. This global warming is another god that seems to want to scare.

To begin with i am very serious about cutting through the rhetoric.  I am sure that i can find as many fluff pages on the internet that scream panic as you can find that do not.  I can think of as many cute phrases to hurdle in support of the problem as you can hurdle against it.  The more of these lobs the harder it is to assertain what is really going on.  Yesterday i picked up An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore.  It is disturbing and emotional presentation, but was i was dissapointed by it's lack of references to hard data. 

What i am proposing is a systematic  examination.  To do this we need to delve deeper into the science and the scientists and examine exactly what they are saying and hold it up to rational scrutiny without the static of partisan lobbying obscuring our inquiry.  We need to find scientists we can trust.  Perhaps inevitably even interview them. 

One of the best references i have found in support of the propposition that we have a problem is Thomas J. Crowley's presentation here and the other references here.  It will take a while for a critical reading of the materials at the Paleo Perspective website ... and then too i'm not even sure this is the best place to start.  I did quickly read your references off of item 3167 and did not find any of this caliber, but then perhaps i missed something.  If you can find actual source materials and studies that are accessable, please do publish them here or in some appropriate tag or title room. 

The current administration has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.  But did "The Global Climate Coalition (funded by over 40 major corporate groups like Amoco, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and General Motors) began spending millions of dollars each year to derail the Kyoto Protocol" as Aaron suggests?  Why? Where is the proof of this?  How much of the articles that you are throwing my way are a result of this campaign?  I don't know.  We really need to dig deeper to find out.  

For my part I am undecided.  I think that is the best way to approach this inquiry.  I would love it, it it turns out to be that the world in the next 50 years is not going to be turning into a hot cesspool.  But if that is actually what the best evidance tells us, i want to know what i can do to prevent it.  So this inquiry is worth a bit of effort ... don't you think?

Don't forget we cannot start using the "supported by" wiki labels for our systemization untill they support the proposition in the topic of the item ... the topic of this item is The Big Stories and views that don't make major network news ... which does not even contain a proposition.
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-08 10:21:29 [item 3673#10461]
The Earth changes in cycles. Not long ago the climatologists were predicting a coming Ice Age. In any case I am not alarmed or worried. At most I have ~ 100 years left so it's not worth worrying about.  There are more pressing problems. I would like to see more effort devoted to alternative energy sources & fool-proof communication between human beings & countries.

Seth 2006-06-08 10:48:56 [item 3673#10462]
M 2006-06-08 10:09:40 item 3673
M 2006-06-08 10:06:32 item 3673
Well, you are beginning to delve in the realm of the UnhackTheBrain . The fact is that neither of us is a climatologist.  Climatologists are necessarily biassed to a degree because they depend mostly upon government funding which depends upon a perception that there is crisis.  Sorry folks, I don't trust Gore on anything!  The Kyoto protocol exempted such Countries as China & India & would hamstring our economy in favor of the others - good idea it has not been ratified.  I liked the scientist I cited from Colorado.  The people at uri http://junkscience.com seem to be able to cut thru statistics & myths & studies quite reliably. Working from actual measurements instead of theoretical models is a good idea like this. The biggest problem is figuring out where to stick the thermometer! 


Mark, I could not have composed a more partisan response, if i had tried.  Saying "I don't trust Gore on anything!" is the worst kind of subjective partisan rhetoric.  The Kyoto protocol is not even the issue ... that may be a side track.  The issue is whether, if we do nothing, our world will turn into a cesspool.  The materials at junkscience.com might be an interesting reading list but where is the science?  Can you be specific ?  You may want to  reread my comment above and grok that this is an unbiased non-partisan inquiry.  Please take that seriously.  It is as if we were sitting on a jury trying to decide if the world is to be doomed.   if you are going to be part of this inquiry, part of this jury, then please provide specific articles that are pertinant to the science ... articles that are pertinant to the proposition and please don't make the inquiry harder by heaping more rhetoric  on us to sort through... we need articles where we can examine the sciece and the scientists.  I really don't think that we need to be athmospheric scientist to decide.  What we do need is to find those who have studied this seriously and kick the tires of their science and of their biases.  Being on this jury is going to be a lot of work.  I can understand if you don't want to help ... but please at least don't hinder.

One thing i would like to find, or to propose is a test.  The test would be performed somtime in the not to distant future.  The test would match theory to actual measurements.  Then we could trust the theories  that more precisely predicts the measurements.   It is one thing to take theory and analize history ... but it is more convincing to have the theory predict future measurements.  Has this been done?  When is the future measurement to take place?  We need scientists on our jury ... not politicians ... or Winnies cute iconology.
Seth 2006-06-08 11:17:33 [item 3673#10463]
Before i start another item ... i am trying to assertain  the best proposition ...  is it this one ?
source: An Invonvenient Truth
The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, its already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable..
... as we are not really concerned with a mjority view of scientests but rather of the facts, a better proposition might be:

source: me
Global warming is real, its already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.
Is there a better starting point or not?
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-08 11:17:59 [item 3673#10464]
Apparently you refuse to read http://www.junkscience.com/GMT/index.htm . It is relatively free of polemics & well thought out.  You are the one injecting rhetoric & politics with your references to Gore, Kyoto Protocol &
source: ... our world will turn into a cesspool - (inaccurate & inflammatory)
...
The fact is that neither you nor I is qualified to judge the science - so we depend upon others' opinions & research. The politics of this issue (Global Warming) is far more important at this time than the science.

Seth 2006-06-08 12:00:01 [item 3673#10465]
Who wrote this and what are their qualifications?  What is the major proposition that it supports?

I have found IPCC, a International body which one hopes would be indepenant of the current US biases. 
source: The Third Assessment Report of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
"Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities."

Is this conclusion adequately supported?  Why not?  Please be specific.





Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-08 12:39:32 [item 3673#10466]
Sorry dude - these organizations belong to the UN which, believe it or not, has a huge Anti-American bias ... nice try! Who are the members & what is their funding? Exactly where was the data collected? (Where did they stick the probe (thermometer)) . In 1860 how accurate were the measurements as compared with today ? Past 1000 years - who are you kidding? Like you said there are tons of graphs & slides & statistics proving what the presenter wants to prove.
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-08 12:41:20 [item 3673#10467]
The purpose of Kyoto was to redistribute American wealth - nice try - glad someone had the sense to nip it in the bud.
Seth 2006-06-08 12:57:05 [item 3673#10468]
Every organization is going to have some biases.  What we need to do is to see the truth through the biases, get as close to the original sources as possible, and then find science on the other side,  look at apples to apples and see if we can where the rotten apples are.  If we can't tell, then we need to find people we trust that can help us.   We cannot just dismiss the IPCC because it is funded by the UN and you state "UN which, believe it or not, has a huge Anti-American bias".  Come on Mark, get in the spirit of this inquiry or just ignore it and i'll go on without you.  I though this kind of critical thinking was what group unhackthebrain was all about ... but instead all i get from you is more and more partisan and subjective rhetoric.  

Seth 2006-06-08 13:12:59 [item 3673#10469]
M 2006-06-08 12:39:32 item 3673
 In 1860 how accurate were the measurements as compared with today ? 
This is a valid question.  Perhaps we can find the answer.  There is a lot of reading and work to be done.  Let us not waste our time with throwing rhetoric back and forth.
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-08 13:27:45 [item 3673#10472]
M 2006-06-08 13:26:29 item 3673
Well, OK I'll ignore it. It's not the thing I want to sort thru online. google global warming records about 88,900,000 items. I suppose there are a few million more just on paper. The ratio of number of people who profit from there being a crisis versus the number who don't is very staggering - not to mention the left side of the isle who profits most. The left would control as much of what people do as possible like:                                (libertarians & conservatives are for individual responsibility)
  • what kind of car you drive & what kind of gasoline or fuel of other variety.
  • what kind of foods you can grow & eat
  • how much you can drive
  • where you can live (stack em high in cities dont let em out in the country).
  • where you can go
  • how fat you can be
  • keep humans out of the forest & trees & pristine areas
  • don't touch the animals (even though they eat eachother)
& finally, it's all the human's fault & especially American's - get rid of the humans & all the problems will go away.
Man can't even turn a hurricane nor a tornado. Man can't even tell you where one is going until it's obvious. What arrogance to think that Man can destroy God's finest creation. Cultivite a sense of Gaia within in your own hearts & spirits & care for your part of the world & I will do what I can in my small part of it for however long that part is entrusted to my care!




Seth 2006-06-08 14:00:19 [item 3673#10470]
Fine, Mark, so be it.  You can still comment on these threads, but i am going to strat deleting your comments that contain rhetoric that is not useful.  

You can develop your thesis that man is "arrogance to think that he can destroy God's finest creation" in your own groups.  For my part I think it is high time that man started to realize that he must suffer the consequences of his actions.  When you grow up you take on more responsibility ... mankind is starting to grow up ... we have responsibilities now.  Our planet is one of them.  If collective action to avert a calamity is no longer feasable or is deemed arrogant and we must defer our actions in favor of our Tribal Gods, then i have nothing but fear for the future. 

Seth 2006-06-10 08:39:04 [item 3673#10510]
source: my comments on Aaron blog
You say: Theres no better scientific consensus on this on any issue I know, said the head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Where can i find the souce of this statement on the web? Where is the hard evidance that there is a scientific consensus on this issue? I would like to form a jury of citizins who, even though they might be biased, can keep an open mind and just examine the real data apart from partisan rhetoric. I started discussing this here. Can you lend any help and\or join the jury?
...
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-12 09:40:20 [item 3673#10545]
I nominate this story on US Deaths due to people here murdering eachother. 16,900 last year which rate would make the last 5 years worse than the GI deaths in Viet Nam. As far as Americans (& prolly Iraquis) go it sounds like it is safer in Iraq than the US.

Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-12 11:25:45 [item 3673#10553]
The 16,912 deaths amounts to 46 per day or about 3 IED's per day - NOT kewl!  I think that we should get the troops out of the US ! 

Seth 2006-06-12 11:40:08 [item 3673#10555]
M 2006-06-12 09:40:20 item 3673
I nominate this story on US Deaths due to people here murdering eachother. 16,900 last year which rate would make the last 5 years worse than the GI deaths in Viet Nam. As far as Americans (& prolly Iraquis) go it sounds like it is safer in Iraq than the US.

The story is that violent deaths have increased.  The think the comparison with Iraq is your thing.  Do you seriously doubt that Iraq is a more violent and dangerous place to live than the US ?  I suppose there might be some similarites between some places like South Central LA, and some other ghettos.  But what makes you think that this is not just natural fluxuations   ... like the temperature of the Earth? ... im mean ... where do you stick the probe .
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-12 11:49:24 [item 3673#10556]
seth 2006-06-12 11:40:08 item 3673
M 2006-06-12 09:40:20 item 3673
I nominate this story on US Deaths due to people here murdering eachother. 16,900 last year which rate would make the last 5 years worse than the GI deaths in Viet Nam. As far as Americans (& prolly Iraquis) go it sounds like it is safer in Iraq than the US.

The story is that violent deaths have increased.  The think the comparison with Iraq is your thing.  Do you seriously doubt that Iraq is a more violent and dangerous place to live than the US ?  I suppose there might be some similarites between some places like South Central LA, and some other ghettos.  But what makes you think that this is not just natural fluxuations   ... like the temperature of the Earth? ... im mean ... where do you stick the probe .
You want the facts, those are death facts. Adding to that there were 92,837 rapes last year - that's probably more than Saddam & his sons & cabinet could get done in any year! Certainly if one had to find a hole, South Central LA might be obvious & maybe the Bronx. But, the average statistics seem similar to Iraq. The FBI has the details at uri http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel06/prelim2005061206.htm in case you want to massage them in some other way
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-12 11:51:20 [item 3673#10557]
The point my friends on these death & violence statistics is when you look at the Iraq statistics cultivate a sense of balance!

Seth 2006-06-12 12:13:46 [item 3673#10558]
M 2006-06-12 11:51:20 item 3673
The point my friends on these death & violence statistics is when you look at the Iraq statistics cultivate a sense of balance!
Well i've lived in South Central LA.  I left just after they burned down a shopping center durnig the rioting that happened in the wake of the Rodney King beating trial.   I remember being irritated by the helocopters at night occasionally punctuated with gunfire.  But somehow i still don't think that compares with the daily bombings that are happening in Baddad.  I don't think that you can arrive at a sense of balance in these things by viewing stastics.  Perhaps reading involved bloggers like neurotic iraqi wife would be a better way to find your balance. 
Mark de Los Angeles of group mark 2006-06-12 16:26:15 [item 3673#10560]
From Drudge:
source: ... AN ESTIMATED 84,563 AMERICANS HAVE BEEN MURDERED SINCE 9-11...
...


Seth 2006-06-13 09:52:52 [item 3673#10570]
M 2006-06-12 09:40:20 item 3673
I nominate this story on US Deaths due to people here murdering eachother. 16,900 last year which rate would make the last 5 years worse than the GI deaths in Viet Nam. As far as Americans (& prolly Iraquis) go it sounds like it is safer in Iraq than the US.

Sorry does not qualify ... it made the national news on several networks last night.