Monday morning links

So, you publicly admit that the greenhouse effect is a good thing.

Furthermore, you admit that you wouldn't even be here now if it weren't for the greenhouse effect.

Well, thank goodness.

It's nice to know we've finally put that one to bed.

#1.1 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-04 07:44 (Reply)

Dr. Mercury: So, you publicly admit that the greenhouse effect is a good thing.

Of course it is. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's mean surface temperature would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.

Dr. Mercury: Furthermore, you admit that you wouldn't even be here now if it weren't for the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect has been very good for metazoa.

Dr. Mercury: Well, thank goodness.

Yes. Thank Goodness.

#1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 07:50 (Reply)

So let me see if I have this all straight: Greenhouse effect is good except when it is produced as a biproduct of human activity and then it is bad even though human biproduct is a tiny fraction of total greenhouse effect. We must micromange the quantity of this good greenhouse effect at great cost even though we can't affect the vast majority of the naturally produced stuff and even though the relatively tiny human caused effect probably doesn't really matter, or if it does matter might actually be beneficial in providing additional environment support for warm and warm is good except when computer models show that it might become too warm which is bad even though collected data doesn't match those scary computer model projections...

I'm confused.

#1.1.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-04 10:56 (Reply)

phil g: So let me see if I have this all straight: Greenhouse effect is good except when it is produced as a biproduct of human activity and then it is bad even though human biproduct is a tiny fraction of total greenhouse effect.

Some water is good, but being dropped in the middle of the Atlantic without a paddle is bad.

phil g: Greenhouse effect is good except when it is produced as a biproduct of human activity and then it is bad even though human biproduct is a tiny fraction of total greenhouse effect.

Not so tiny. Projections are for a 2-5°C rise in mean surface temperature.

phil g: We must micromange the quantity of this good greenhouse effect at great cost even though we can't affect the vast majority of the naturally produced stuff ...

At current growth rates, humans will double or triple the amount of atmospheric CO2.

phil g: or if it does matter might actually be beneficial in providing additional environment support for warm and warm is good ...

Well, not necessarily. Increased warming is projected to disrupt agriculture, inundate flood plains, force people to migrate, and a number of other effects.

phil g: I'm confused.

Cognitive dissonance can occur when facts contradict preconceptions.

#1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 11:26 (Reply)

Ah, you see the theory is that even though this massive CO2 caused the earth to melt to the extent that plants could grow and thus spew the caustic O2 into the atmosphere which facilitated animals, which eventually evolved into humans. Humans now so smart only we can halt the rise of CO2 and save the Earth from being warmer and more conducive to plant growth. Thankfully, we came along just in time to put our wrench to the soon to be broken down limiting feedback loop.

Old processes, they just don't understand the world the way as we young, and might we say, brilliant upstarts do.

#1.1.1.1.2 JKB on 2013-03-04 12:05 (Reply)

JKB: Ah, you see the theory is that even though this massive CO2 caused the earth to melt to the extent that plants could grow and thus spew the caustic O2 into the atmosphere which facilitated animals, which eventually evolved into humans.

Is that a sentence? Yes, that is the theory.

JKB: Humans now so smart only we can halt the rise of CO2 and save the Earth from being warmer and more conducive to plant growth.

The Earth will be fine. It's humans that may be inconvenienced.

JKB: Thankfully, we came along just in time to put our wrench to the soon to be broken down limiting feedback loop.

It's pretty clear that the Earth's climate is not well-governed, but teeters between quite different states.

#1.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 12:13 (Reply)

LOL at whoever or whatever Zachriel is/are. If you're not some sort of Auto BOT, you sure respond like one.

JKB and my posts were having a bit of fun at the 'global climate change' religion expense. Your point by point rebuttal was funny in its total lack of ironic awareness.

Like my little sister when we were young, you are far too easy to get a rise out of and entirely predictable.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.1 phil g on 2013-03-04 12:19 (Reply)

And boring.

#1.1.1.1.2.1.2 jma on 2013-03-04 12:39 (Reply)

its easy.

democratic global warmin' good.
republican global warmin' bad.

hope that helps.

#1.1.1.1.3 wirraway on 2013-03-04 14:35 (Reply)

Even though CO2 is necessary and incredibly helpful as a greenhouse gas and otherwise, and even though the amount of CO2 in comparison with other greenhouse gases is tiny, and even though the human contribution to raising CO2 levels is undetermined, this small increase in total greenhouse gases is analogous to the difference between drinking a cup of welcome water and being dropped into the middle of the Pacific.

Stands to reason.

#1.1.1.1.4 Texan99 (Link) on 2013-03-04 21:20 (Reply)

Texan99: Even though CO2 is necessary and incredibly helpful as a greenhouse gas and otherwise, and even though the amount of CO2 in comparison with other greenhouse gases is tiny, and even though the human contribution to raising CO2 levels is undetermined, this small increase in total greenhouse gases is analogous to the difference between drinking a cup of welcome water and being dropped into the middle of the Pacific

The human contribution is hardly undetermined. Humans have already increased atmospheric CO2 by nearly half, and are well on their way to doubling or tripling it.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/coop/scripps/img/img_scripps_co2_record.gif

And as you point out, there are other greenhouse gases. Some are anthropogenic, but the most important is water vapor, which increases as the surface warms, amplifying the effect of CO2.

#1.1.1.1.4.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-05 07:51 (Reply)

Zachriel says:

"...the greenhouse effect."

Wrong, Mars' atmosphere is greater than 95% CO2, and Mars is very cold. Not much of a greenhouse effect on Mars.

But thanx for playing.

[BTW, that is a really excellent website, one of the few climate sites that does not censor comments that go against scientific skeptics. Almost all the climate alarmist blogs delete comments that challenge their runaway global warming narrative. That's not very scientific, is it?]

#1.2 Dr. Everett V. Scott (Link) on 2013-03-04 19:33 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Study suggests ‘snowball Earth’ was real and was reversed by ‘An ultra-high carbon dioxide atmosphere’

Zachriel: Yes, the greenhouse effect.

Dr. Everett V. Scott: Wrong, Mars' atmosphere is greater than 95% CO2, and Mars is very cold. Not much of a greenhouse effect on Mars.

What's "wrong"? The study?

Mars has a very tenuous atmosphere, and is farther from the Sun, and the atmosphere has virtually no vapor content, so of course, its surface is colder. Nevertheless, the surface on Mars is about 5°C warmer due to the greenhouse effect than it would be otherwise.

#1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-05 07:56 (Reply)

Great pic of the Rust-Oleum can, BD. I'll have to include it in my Unclear On The Concept collection. Not to be confused with the Very Clear On The Concept collection, of course.

As for the 'gender confusion' story, I've been following it the last few days and am just stunned that no one's suggested that Child Services get involved.

Of course, I also feel that way about naming your baby "Quvenzhané", but we'll let that one slide for now.

#2 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2013-03-04 07:40 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Jazz Shaw: The slow slide toward state run media: In the aftermath of the increasing strange story about Bob Woodward being threatened by the White House,

Not off to a good start. The first sentence is a falsehood. In any case, it's nothing like the media complicity in the runup to the Iraq War, where any voice opposing the war was ignored or denigrated.

#3 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 07:44 (Reply)

One word on media bias: Vietnam

#3.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-04 07:50 (Reply)

The media tended to be supportive of the Vietnam War until it became evident the government was lying about the course of the war. But you're right. Media bias certainly isn't new.

People don't remember, but government was given great credence by most Americans during and after WWII, including the power to keep secrets in the interest of defeating fascism. This allowed the expansion of the secret state during the Cold War, and this lack of accountability led to increasingly unrealistic views within the security establishment.

Frankly, hippies and peaceniks were not treated kindly by most of the media.

#3.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 08:06 (Reply)

I don't know what world or reality you live in Zach, but I lived through that era and frankly, from 1963 onward, press coverage of the Vietnam was largely negative with very little positive reporting of any successes.

Maybe in your universe it was different.

#3.1.1.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-04 09:13 (Reply)

The coup in 1963 certainly did raise eyebrows, and served as a turning point, but there were already problems with the U.S. government not being completely honest, such as after the Battle of Ap Bac, where journalist reports of bungling by the South Vietnamese leadership were denied by the U.S.

#3.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 10:33 (Reply)

For instance, the day after the coup in 1963, the New York Times had an article, "Opportunity in Vietnam".

#3.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 10:35 (Reply)

Your universe - your rules.

#3.1.1.1.2.1 Tom Francis on 2013-03-04 15:59 (Reply)

they weren't treated well by the demoncrats. the LBJ and the totally faked gulf of tonkin "incident" resulted in the escalation of the VN war and the deaths of tens of thousands of them.

not since Wilson FDR Truman JFK have we seen such a lying fraud be responsible for so many deaths.

#3.1.1.2 wirraway on 2013-03-04 10:35 (Reply)

About two million Vietnamese, not to mention destabilizing neighboring countries. Turns out it was a bipartisan affair, as the Nixon Administration continued to war for political purposes, even while privately acknowledging the war was lost.

#3.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-04 10:38 (Reply)

The 'losing' of the war in Vietnam was self inflicted from all the meddling by politicians - especially Johnson.

As for the press - Uncle Walter invented news commentary as part of the news - and he was fiercely opposed to the war. The in general press lied about Tet and the coverage went downhill from there.

#3.1.1.2.1.1 mudbug on 2013-03-04 10:47 (Reply)

Nixon was elected with a mandate to end the war. He started reducing the number of troops in Vietnam from the day he was elected. No one at the time wanted him to just pull all the troops and walk away so he tried to push North Vietnam into some kind of truce. Obviously North Vietnam didn't want a truce or end of fighting or anything but a win and to follow that with a massive genocide. If your arguement is that Nixon should have just pulled out my counter to that is Kennedy and then Johnson should never have gone into Vietnam in the first place. Kennedy was a fool, inexperienced and didn't really want to be president. His father bought him the presidency and he used it to screw around. But Johnson was a dirty bastard no good cheating lying Democrat (sorry for the redundancy) who screwed American in too many ways to list them all. Vietnam may have been the most public screwup but wasn't his worst. The only saving grace for the Democrats is after they "broke it" they handed it to Nixon and then spent 5 years blaming Nixon for the mess.

#3.1.1.2.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-04 19:20 (Reply)

GoneWithTheEnd: Nixon was elected with a mandate to end the war.

Yes, he called it "peace with honor", but Nixon and Kissinger both knew that the war was lost, yet continued the policy for political purposes.

#3.1.1.2.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-05 07:59 (Reply)

Yes his political intent was to secure peace without the genocide that the left leaning North Vietnamese were known for.

#3.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-06 22:54 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Yes his political intent was to secure peace without the genocide that the left leaning North Vietnamese were known for.

The Nixon tapes make clear that Nixon and Kissinger were well aware that the war didn’t have a military solution.

QUOTE:

August 3, 1972:

Nixon: because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway…

Nixon: It’s terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam? That’s the real question.

Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it’s the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three- to four-month period, we have pushed {unclear} Thieu over the brink– we ourselves– I think, there is going to be– even the Chinese won’t like that. I mean, they’ll pay verbal– verbally, they’ll like it–

Nixon: But it’ll worry them.

Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago.

Nixon: I know.

#3.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2013-03-07 07:27 (Reply)

Talk about falsehoods. Yeesh.

#3.2 DrTorch on 2013-03-04 09:22 (Reply)

Gender confusion hits nadir

One of the comments provoked this thought - if a 1 1/2 yo boy can "self identify" as a girl, can I "self-identify" as a African American? Probably not because I can't dance - or jump and I don't care for basketball. Eskimo? Hell no - I hate snow and cold. Native/First American? No - while I used to be a Milwaukee Braves fan, I don't like the Braves, Cincinnati Indians, Washington Redskins or Florida Seminoles. So that's right out.

How about Hispanic? Possibly - don't speak Spanish, but I do like Mexican food and Mariachi. And a simple addition of co to my surname (FrancisCO) gives me an Hispanic identity. First name Tomas. Tomas Edwardo Francisco. Ok Hispanic, it is.

How would one go about "self-identifying" as Hispanic? Do I go to court to have them recognize me as Hispanic? Change my surname, then go to court? Just declare that I'm Hispanic on all forms and documents?

I'm so confused.

#4 Tom Francis on 2013-03-04 07:45 (Reply)

Re: Colorada Dems move to ban hunting firearms

Colorado hunting regs limit the number of shells to three (one chambered, two in the magazine), so the standard off the shelf el cheapo Remington 870 holds, I think, up to seven (maybe six, its been a while since I've owned one). hunters using those guns have the mag plugged with a dowel to limit the mag to two shells and demonstrate this to any game warden on request.

I consider anyone hauling around a shotgun with an extended tube mag for hunting as already half insane and probably dangerous, certainly no one who does much hunting.

#5 wirraway on 2013-03-04 10:49 (Reply)

Obama a lousy manager: "But Mr. Obama and his team would benefit, as they begin the second term, by acknowledging that many of the biggest problems facing the administration flow directly from the man at the top. Mr. Obama is a lousy manager. As chief executive he gets a C — and then only if graded on a curve that takes into account his predecessor’s managerial weaknesses." And he was his predecessor, making it worse. Waaaaaay worse.

One-Hit Wonder Cars--Pinto: "Top Secret", the movie, immediately comes to mind.

Fox & Rush: What hurts Benghazi Barry's efforts to work with Repubs are his lack of effort to work with them and his demonization of them--there is no incentive/upside for Repubs to work with him.

Starnes' Day Of Dooooooooom!: Funny!

Colo. Dems: Nobody wants to take away your guns, or limit them. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

#6 Sam L. on 2013-03-04 11:38 (Reply)

Re: Pinto:
http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf

#6.1 Douglas2 on 2013-03-04 14:46 (Reply)

The Pinto was created for one reason; the car companies were required to meet milage standards and the customers didn't want to buy those little cars. But since Ford had to average a specific mpg for all their cars they created the Pinto and actually sold it for less then it cost to make it. It was a decent inexpensive little car but not great.

#6.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2013-03-04 19:24 (Reply)

"Food-free food" link is misdirected to the snowball earth one.

#7 Douglas2 on 2013-03-04 14:38 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, March 4. 2013

Monday morning links