Camille !

About: the paranoid withdrawal fantasy | salon

The senators of my party, with a few stellar exceptions like Dianne Feinstein, may be a pack of vain, spineless, poll-puking, strutting peacocks, but they are not mass murderers. They did not coolly plan an amoral strike on American landmarks and cause the unspeakable suffering, death and incineration of nearly 3,000 people, U.S. citizens as well as foreign nationals.

As for the Democratic Party's governing committee or the combative, impudent left-liberal activist groups, they are just as committed to their altruistic vision of a future America as are conservatives, who base their values on tradition and faith. Both sides deserve respect.

However, I must confess my own exasperation with the Democratic leadership, who spout tiresome platitudes but achieve little and who stampede off on puerile publicity stunts that alienate potential voters across party lines. The latest example is the near-delusional campaign to turn popular radio host Rush Limbaugh, who has unwaveringly supported the military for nearly 20 years, into an anti-military antichrist. If Democrats are serious about ideology-based government regulation of talk radio, then the party is fast abandoning its fundamental principles, central to which should be constitutionally protected free speech.

... the whole set of topics is very interesting from a democrat feminist! She nails Leonardo DiCaprio on global warming. The whole set of articles are worth reading.

BTW, I heard from someone, probably a reader of junkscience , that the global warming hysteria is fueled by a bunch of climatologists each with their own set of mathematical models which by their very nature can NOT be validated.

I think we could get a lot closer by spending trillion$$ on some real solutions.

Comments

Seth says
That climate is changing is not fueled by any group of people, it is fueled by actual current events and measurements. Also it is a myth that "we need to spend trillions" to fix it ... but we had better invest in adapting to it. Take a look, for example, at Germany: they no longer use land fills ... creating the infrastructure for a renewable life style has been a boon to their economy. The small investments,like the $10 here, that i have done for my own family have paid me dividends, not cost me money. The American government should get behind this retooling for a renewable world.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-10-10 08:52:30 8244

That climate is changing is not fueled by any group of people, it is fueled by actual current events and measurements. Also it is a myth that "we need to spend trillions" to fix it ... but we had better invest in adapting to it. Take a look, for example, at Germany: they no longer use land fills ... creating the infrastructure for a renewable life style has been a boon to their economy. The small investments, like the $10 here, that i have done for my own family have paid me dividends, not cost me money. The American government should get behind this retooling for a renewable world.

I'll pit my myths against your myths any day! The climate is changing and always has. The myth that we cause it & are headed for cataclysmic disaster as humans is specious. The panic & hysteria about the already, always changeability of the climate is caused by various groups of humans mostly for political power - like Algore! The UK recently documented 11 lies and falsehoods in Algore's inconvenient truth movie & won't allow it to be shown to school kids without the disclaimer anymore because of its bias!

Mark de LA says
Has anyone actually validated one of these so-called global warming models which predict cataclysmic disaster anywhere? That was the point of citing Camille's rant on L. Decapritatedrio.

Mark de LA says

Validation of a model for the past does not necessarily predict the future. In the 70's they were predicting a new Ice Age!

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-10-11 11:06:58 8244

They validate the models by running them on past history and seeing how closely they match the actual measurements. If you just put natural cycles and the effects of the sun in the model it does not match the actual measurements nearly as close as if you include man's effects through green house gases.

Doesn't sound as if you know of an actual validation. Those models that validate one theory most likely fail to validate other things that the model predicts, etc.

Seth says

M 2007-10-11 11:10:36 8244

seth 2007-10-11 11:06:58 8244

Doesn't sound as if you know of an actual validation. Those models that validate one theory most likely fail to validate other things that the model predicts, etc.

Yep i do ... it's right there in the IPCC report ... quite a famous graph ... i'm surprised that you missed it.

Mark de LA says

So then what is the model that was used? (mathematical equation or computer program) What does that model predict for today's weather? What constants & tuning parameters did they have to tweak to get the results to work? How did they validate the temperatures for hundreds of years ago before the thermometer was invented.

Believing in junk science is a religion - not worth arguing about (until governments & congresses pass laws in it's name with jihad-like furor). The Nobel Prize committee has debased itself & made itself a joke - first with Carter & now with Algore.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-10-12 07:33:53 8244

It's a computer program, or course ... and again with your confusion between climate and weather

.

I'm looking forward to the day when reason will triumph over global stupidity ... or climate change will start biting ignoramuses in the ass.

Your graphs look more like statistics shaped to support a theory, rather than an actual model (program, expert system or set of equations). The models won't ever be validated until you wait hundreds of years for your great-great grand children to do it. Your religious fervor is showing! Enjoy the rush while it lasts. Thirty years ago we were going to go into an ice age. I wonder where those models went. A model that is only good for way into the future & can't explain the daily observations is no model at all, it's just religious support. You should join a support group for members of the church of Chicken Little Cult. Faith in a model which you can't actually prove is as good as faith in God in a materialistic World.

Seth says
It's a computer program, or course ... and again with your confusion between climate and weather

.

I'm looking forward to the day when reason will triumph over global stupidity ... or climate change will start biting ignoramuses in the ass.

Mark de LA says

It is just a footnote in history that the Nobel Prize was created from the wealth of the inventor of dynamite. It was also given to Yasser Arafat - a noted terrorist.

Seth says
The NYT has a editorial which should shed some light on the sources of your lament re Al Gore.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-10-15 09:14:43 8244

The NYT has a editorial which should shed some light on the sources of your lament re Al Gore.

"Gore suggests poor people stay poor and the rich people get less rich by paying higher taxes, to assuage the sin and the guilt for destroying the planet. So Algore's Peace Prize has nothing to do with mankind. It has everything to do with the religion of Gaia, of the Earth. "

So while campaigning in 2000 he lies (~50 well-documented ones including his Internet BS) and now documented by a judge in the UK makes 9 scientific errors while exaggerating, hyping & hysterifying global warming & gets a prize for it!

The Gorble Prize medal:

Season's Greetings for the occasion:

Mark de LA says

Seth says

M 2007-10-16 09:03:53 8244

seth 2007-10-16 08:26:49 8244

Re Gore's alleged 9 errors, you might want to read this.

Thanks for the other side of the story. That Algore hyped things to the point of hysteria to start a movement is not in dispute in my mind & a lot of others'. I don't remember the scientific method (or science for that matter) being a matter of opinion or consensus. Apparently with the improvement in communications technology, M$M political templates, & scientists' egos we now have science by mob rule. Just take a deep breath, wait a few years or 20 & your results will probably be different! It's the interpretation & meaning of the scientific findings that remains in doubt.

Yep, certainly Al Gore hyped things to start the change that will work twards an alternative future. But the word "hyped" is a politically charged word that does not do justice to what Gore has accomplished ... would you say that Van Gogh hyped the night sky in Starry Night ... i think not. True, the scientific method is not a matter of consensus ... but people do rely on the opinion of scientists to comprehend matters that are too specialized and complex for a casual understanding. This thing looming in Earth's future is too large to wait 20 years to start adapting to it ... it has too much inertia ... you don't stop a train on a dime.

Maybe you should start examining some of the hype on the other side. For example, start with the myth that adapting to climate change will cost zillions of bucks and throw the Western world into a deep depression. That simply is not true. Rather the opposite is can happen. You could use your energies to help that to happen. Then in the final analysis our children will have a better world and it will not matter whether some of Gore's artistic license was justified or not.

Mark de LA says

seth 2007-10-16 08:26:49 8244

Re Gore's alleged 9 errors, you might want to read this.

Mark de LA says

"looming" in your context is a politically charged word. Why the whole topic is politicized starts with Algore! Your entire argument for Algore boils down to the ends justifies the means. Why not tell a few small lies here & there as long as you get what you want in the end - as long as you scare enough people & get motion where you want it? I will NEVER accept such an argument! The ends and the means have to be true, beautiful & good to get my vote for action.
As long as Algore runs around the world in a private jet spewing CO2 & pollution - I will never accept any of his hype.

Mark de LA says

A analysis of Algore's "Inconvenient Truths" (because 25% are lies!) can be found today in this article. I think that you should demand your money back if you paid to see it.

An interesting scene by scene analysis of the lies knitted together by irrelevant self-promoting filler such as the following sample can be found in the article:

source: ...

Minutes of non-science filler dominate the opening sequence

Mark de LA says

All further climate comments should be referred to 8340. This is an article on the commentator Camille Paglia's recent editorials.

Camille !

About: the paranoid withdrawal fantasy | salon

Tags

Comments

See Also