Obama may play God

#26
#26
T-TownVol said:
They would have to use photshop for there to be a pic of my arse on that rock.
Click to expand...

:)

Here is a picture from below...if you look carefully in the middle of the picture, you can see that rock wedged between the fjord walls....

20060811-027-LysefjordB.JPG
 
#28
#28
nickknx865 said:
I'd venture to say that most liberals don't exactly support altering our atmosphere to stop a .5 degree more temperature increase in about 50 years.
Click to expand...

They've already proposed radical changes to industry that would result in about a 0.05 degree decrease over the next 100 years.
 
#30
#30
For the life of me I can't believe anyone takes Obama seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of, yet because this guy is so worshipped that instead of calling him the idiot that he is, the sheep are acting like it might actually be a good idea.
 
#31
#31
VolsSportsFan said:
For the life of me I can't believe anyone takes Obama seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of, yet because this guy is so worshipped that instead of calling him the idiot that he is, the sheep are acting like it might actually be a good idea.
Click to expand...

He's not an idiot by any standard.
 
#32
#32
nickknx865 said:
He's not an idiot by any standard.
Click to expand...

By the standard of any linguist he would be considered an idiot because he thought Austrian was a language!! :)

My room mate for a year was a Serbocroation linguist, what do you think of the Clinton Balkan foreign policy??
 
#33
#33
nickknx865 said:
He's not an idiot by any standard.
Click to expand...

He is an absolute idiot by any financial acumen standard. Anyone willing to talk bottom up politics and huge wasteful stimulus needs to shut the hell up about it.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#35
#35
VolsSportsFan said:
For the life of me I can't believe anyone takes Obama seriously. This has to be one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard of, yet because this guy is so worshipped that instead of calling him the idiot that he is, the sheep are acting like it might actually be a good idea.
Click to expand...

In fairness, this has John Holdren's finger prints all over it - not Obama's. I guess you can call Obama an idiot for nominating him, or for other policy reasons, but it's pretty clear that Obama isn't pitching this idea (right now).

The wild thing is that geoengineering is something that really is thrown around in some circles...though some of the most respected climate guys openly say they are wary of such intervention (included in this is not only the high-atmosphere particulate like this, but also a large array of mirrors placed in orbit between the sun and the earth - no kidding).
 
#38
#38
TennTradition said:
In fairness, this has John Holdren's finger prints all over it - not Obama's. I guess you can call Obama an idiot for nominating him, or for other policy reasons, but it's pretty clear that Obama isn't pitching this idea (right now).

The wild thing is that geoengineering is something that really is thrown around in some circles...though some of the most respected climate guys openly say they are wary of such intervention (included in this is not only the high-atmosphere particulate like this, but also a large array of mirrors placed in orbit between the sun and the earth - no kidding).
Click to expand...

I would say it is a mere fear mongering ruse to advance the 'cap and trade' (read burdensome tax) idea on America.

Is it funny that all socialist ideas can be reduced to a simplistic two words, no matter how complex, draconian or just plain stupid that program may be or how little effect the program has on the original problem as it is perceived???
 
#39
#39
gsvol said:
I would say it is a mere fear mongering ruse to advance the 'cap and trade' (read burdensome tax) idea on America.

Is it funny that all socialist ideas can be reduced to a simplistic two words, no matter how complex, draconian or just plain stupid that program may be or how little effect the program has on the original problem as it is perceived???
Click to expand...

I don't see it as fear mongering - to me, that is articles calling for 50 ft. sea rise, etc. This sounds more like someone speaking off the cuff about possible approaches to curb global warming and resulting climate change. I would think this would sound more stupid to people (and while I don't think all geoengineering is stupid, I am wary of it) than fear-inducing. I don't see why people would necessarily run away from this toward cap and trade out of fear of the former.
 
#40
#40
TennTradition said:
I don't see it as fear mongering - to me, that is articles calling for 50 ft. sea rise, etc. This sounds more like someone speaking off the cuff about possible approaches to curb global warming and resulting climate change. I would think this would sound more stupid to people (and while I don't think all geoengineering is stupid, I am wary of it) than fear-inducing. I don't see why people would necessarily run away from this toward cap and trade out of fear of the former.
Click to expand...

Do you really think the american public is that smart?

People honestly believe in 20 years the Earth is going to burn itself up.
 
#41
#41
OrangeEmpire said:
Do you really think the american public is that smart?

People honestly believe in 20 years the Earth is going to burn itself up.
Click to expand...

If you meant that last part literally, then I would counter that those type of people are extremely few and far between.

But, my point is that those are the type of things that incite fear...earth burning up, sea covering mountains, etc....not "we will put particulates in the upper atmosphere" or "we will place reflecting satellites between the earth and the sun." I would think that people would either scoff at them as silly, use them as a jumping off point to talk about how far-fetched climate change talk goes, discard them with indifference because they don't really see how it would impact them, or think of the comments as one part of a larger toolkit that might be necessary. Where does the fear of them come in?
 
#43
#43
TennTradition said:
If you meant that last part literally, then I would counter that those type of people are extremely few and far between.

But, my point is that those are the type of things that incite fear...earth burning up, sea covering mountains, etc....not "we will put particulates in the upper atmosphere" or "we will place reflecting satellites between the earth and the sun." I would think that people would either scoff at them as silly, use them as a jumping off point to talk about how far-fetched climate change talk goes, discard them with indifference because they don't really see how it would impact them, or think of the comments as one part of a larger toolkit that might be necessary. Where does the fear of them come in?
Click to expand...

I worked at Ohio State for a few years and that was common place.
 
#45
#45
TennTradition said:
I don't see it as fear mongering - to me, that is articles calling for 50 ft. sea rise, etc. This sounds more like someone speaking off the cuff about possible approaches to curb global warming and resulting climate change. I would think this would sound more stupid to people (and while I don't think all geoengineering is stupid, I am wary of it) than fear-inducing. I don't see why people would necessarily run away from this toward cap and trade out of fear of the former.
Click to expand...

The mere fact that any person with that kind of authority would publicly mention such lunacy must indicate that there is some sort of threat that creates fear of what may happen if we don't take drastic action.

The Earth has warmed and cooled forever and the climate has always been changing and never static.

The fact that there are those who want stop weather How does one decide that.??
 
#46
#46
TennTradition said:
Like...earth is going to erupt into flames and burn up people? Commonplace? Eek.
Click to expand...

We had special duty at the main library and there is a grassy mall, the main gathering area on campus, and the kids would come up and talk. Some of the stuff was crazy they would talk about.
 
#48
#48
gsvol said:
The mere fact that any person with that kind of authority would publicly mention such lunacy must indicate that there is some sort of threat that creates fear of what may happen if we don't take drastic action.
Click to expand...

I don't see how doing some geoengineering is viewed as more fearful than cap and trade by those who think that man can't really have that much of an impact on the earth's climate....and those that think man can impact earth's climate are already generally in favor of some kind of action, including perhaps geoengineering and/or cap and trade. It just doesn't seem like useful fear mongering to me...or fear mongering at all.
 
#49
#49
T-TownVol said:
see post # 25, i was setting up a joke....."not too good" though
Click to expand...

Thanks, I got a chuckle out of that.

You can count me in there, I'm always thinking, what if an earthquake is about to happen, don't tempt mother nature. :)



TennTradition said:
I don't see how doing some geoengineering is viewed as more fearful than cap and trade by those who think that man can't really have that much of an impact on the earth's climate....and those that think man can impact earth's climate are already generally in favor of some kind of action, including perhaps geoengineering and/or cap and trade. It just doesn't seem like useful fear mongering to me...or fear mongering at all.
Click to expand...

Is there such a thing as useful fear mongering???

Oh wait, Rahm Emanuel said not let a crisis go to waste.

Pardon me but I just don't see the crisis.

Tutor me on how cap and trade will solve the theoretical problem.

That sort of geoengineering is a bit frightening to me, unless there was some way to be able to undo it.
 
#50
#50
gsvol said:
Is there such a thing as useful fear mongering???

Oh wait, Rahm Emanuel said not let a crisis go to waste.

Pardon me but I just don't see the crisis.

Tutor me on how cap and trade will solve the theoretical problem.

That sort of geoengineering is a bit frightening to me, unless there was some way to be able to undo it.
Click to expand...

When I said useful fear mongering, I meant useful in serving one's agenda...not so much useful for an optimal outcome. I would agree that, in that sense, it certainly isn't useful.

As for this sort of geoengineering, I don't know exactly what he is talking about (i.e., what kind of particles). But, I have heard using sulfur particles inserted into the upper atmosphere as one approach. This sounded really stupid to me at first, because I felt like we would be walking back to 1975's acid rain problems. While I still don't like the idea a lot, I later learned that the residence time (how long these particles stay in the atmosphere) of such particles in the upper atmosphere is maybe as much as 100x longer than the residence time of particles emitted from a smokestack (so, a residence time of 4 years instead of 2 weeks). So, while it may not be immediately reversible, the particles are not suspended forever, the total amount used is less because you don't have to replace it at such a high rate considering its long residence time, and the particles will settle out of the atmosphere in a "reversible" fashion. Like I said, I don't really like the idea because it feels like a two-wrongs kind of thing...but I'm not that scared of it...

I'm still not buying into the idea that the folks who think there is no way that man's greenhouse gas emissions can cause an impact on the climate will be afraid of the impact geoengineering, unless it isn't an impact on climate they are worried about...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top