To follow up, I agree with Andrew Sullivan: http://tinyurl.com/ye9qeu3Comment Posted By Mike On 28.01.2010 @ 13:45
He's doing what Reagan did: bash your predecessor till the economy improves and take the credit.Comment Posted By Mike On 28.01.2010 @ 13:17
But as a strong Obama supporter I will let myself "be taken in" for one more year. The next SOTU will have to show a year of follow-through to this year's speech.
amen! may their creators be struck with misfortune and sorrow.Comment Posted By mike On 25.01.2010 @ 06:37
bang on! looking forward to tomorrow (been awhile since I have said that)Comment Posted By mike On 13.01.2010 @ 10:21
Rick, I for one really appreciate your attempt to reason this out - a rare thing in this debate.
This question has been around for a long time. An important journal article is found here at this link I found in Wikipedia (it's a PDF):
It dates from 1896 and the author Svante Arrhenius was influenced by the thought of John Tyndall and Joseph Fourier. The history of this thinking is detatailed here:
So this is a 150 year old scientific problem: How to explain that the earth is warm enough to sustain life when it should be colder based on radiant heat escaping into space. Water vapor is the major insulator but it is a constant so does not explain the climate change we see in history. So it must be the greenhouse gases, even if they are a minor part of the atmosphere. The scary part is how much at risk are we for a drastic climate shift?
The political question is that our whole human history is within only 10,000 years. We are used to a certain climate. If we go to a climate that hasn't been around since the dinosaurs how much is that going to affect us economically?Comment Posted By Mike On 8.12.2009 @ 16:21
Only the GOP is stupid enough to be having this fight at a time, when they need to be banning together. This is why they are the are the default party and nothing more.
Ideological purity or moderation can be hatched out later, stopping Progressives should be the ONLY mission right now.Comment Posted By Mike On 29.11.2009 @ 17:26
Mark you are correct. But the larger problem here is that any raw data or research that "might" truthfully show something we should be concerned about will be disavowed.
These so-called scientists have ruined the reputations of researchers who aren't even involved in this fiasco and are doing honest work in a range of noteworthy fields. This is the equivalent to the decline of trust in the government that followed the 50's. There have been several good leaders and pols since then but they were guilty by association because of their corrupt counterparts.
We have to be careful, and I mean CAREFUL, how we cast our judgments on future research. This does not mean being blindly faithful as we have been in the past. Just more informed on the processes of peer review and scientific transparency. We do not want to overlook something detrimental or even advantageous to our society because of mistrust.Comment Posted By Mike On 29.11.2009 @ 11:00
Well Rickster, you might be on to something. I came across an interesting little sight provided by NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) which specifically measures the CO2 release and uptake at the Earth's surface.
But you better be careful which drum you are beating. If there is any credibility to what you are claiming this is just another avenue for the "warmers" to latch on to and pass overreaching draconian legislation.The problem with good science is it can be distorted by bad intentions.
Here is the link for those interested.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/Comment Posted By Mike On 28.11.2009 @ 23:41
The Nobel Committee has more or less put the handcuffs on Obama. Right in the middle of deliberations on whether to send an additional 60,000 troops to Afghanistan, Obama is awarded this prize based mostly on future expectations. One of those expectations is that additional troops will not be sent to Afghanistan and the US will quit the war. The intent is to prevent the United States from conducting foreign policy in its own interest. Having been prophesized now as the great leader, the one who is to bring peace to the world, how can he now wage war?Comment Posted By Mike On 9.10.2009 @ 12:57
I just read his statement accepting the Prize. It looks like he will try to use this to build momentum for his foreign policy agenda. He was honest about being surprised. Sounded humble. Maybe he could make this work?Comment Posted By Mike On 9.10.2009 @ 10:33
I guess we'll see. I've always supported him based on his potential, maybe the rest of the world feels the same? We are living in interesting times indeed.