We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Wednesday, June 20. 2007
About clouds and solar wind, from Canada's National Post, a quote:
Not only will we all freeze to death in ten years, but the freezing of Arctic ice will kill off all of the seals and Polar Bears, not to mention all of the Eskimos. "Mommy, let's take the SUV so the Polar Bears don't freeze to death."
Addendum: We tend to see it the way Vaclav Klaus sees it.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Which is why we gotta get all those carbon atoms up there in the atmosphere, just a jigglin' in the wind, to warm things up a tad.
Solar Cycles!? How do you square up the cycles of nature with the linear thinking of progressives? Impossible. Look for the greenie hystericals to come up with further rationalizations. Stay tuned...
oooo! A big, bright thing in the sky! Do you think it has anything to do with keeping things warm?
I have said it before, with this article: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/01/look-at-global-warming.html
And say it again with this one: http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/03/let-me-know-when-you-have-some-real.html
We are at a historically low period for carbon dioxide on Rock 3 from the Star Sol. The tiny changes of the past 10,000 years are due to the larger cycles involved with glaciation because we have got one stupid continent that is in the south pole acting as a huge heat sink. Also these deep oceans and broken up continental suface are due to plate tectonics. If you want to get a nice, warm planet Earth then Reunite Gandwanaland and stop the plates from sprinting around the globe.
That will bring back those lovely, shallow, inland seas and turn Colorado into the new Florida.
Until then the forecast remains: generally chilly weather with sudden, long, cold snaps causing mile thick glaciation over much of the Northern continents and parts of the Southern hemisphere. Slight warming trends will vary in a narrow range for a few ten thousands of years within a narrow band that is highly variable within that band. Call back in 1 million years for the updated forecast.
I notice you don't site a source for this fascinating news...are you still just making random things up or did somebody with a tinfoil hat tell you this?
Well, actually she does: R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, and a well-known CC denier for many years. A quick Google suggests that he is not taken very seriously by anyone except Exxon-Mobil, who have donated tens of thousands of dollars to orginizations with which he is affliated, and the radical right, who believe that, as a article of faith, thousands of scientists worldwide are part of leftwing conspiracy to wreak the U.S. economy and bring the world's lone super-power to its knees. Here's a link to an article debunking:
this post only shows the disconnect of the extreme right and science. if maggie and the rest had their way copernicus, galileo, and newton would all still be in jail. gravity, it's only a theory.
the author of the editorial (not a news article) refered to above, r. timothy patterson, is on the advisory board for "friends of science" which has received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. he also is affiliated with "the natural resources stewardship project" which is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
its all about climate change. See, the climate should never change. In fact, it never has.
That is until Bush Chimpler took office and now look at things!!
We need a Democrat in office so that the climate will stop changing again. It's our duty to keep the global climate in a state of stasis, allways the same, never changing. Change in climate only gives profits to big corporations anyway.
If humans can't keep the climate from changing, then Mother Gaia should shrug us off like fleas. Such crappy stewards of her ever un-changing climates! We aren't worth the ice it takes to make a ball of hail....
So, if there was a mass murderer running around, and I were to say, "Hey, maybe somebody ought to go arrest that guy. Just a thought," how would you respond? If this post is any indication, you'd mock me as an idiot who believed that nobody anywhere had ever died, and that immortality is a human right.
The climate has changed in the past. The climate will change in the future, even if all humans everywhere turn off their cars and hold their breath. But the current warming trend is dramatic, unnatural, man-made, and dangerous, and trying to chalk it up to harmless natural cycles flies in the face of the best science we have available.
Even if Dr. Timothy Patterson's predictions are correct (and given his relentless, industry-funded obsession with proving that the sun is the sole driver of climate change, I'd put the probability around 1%) it's plenty easy to put CO2 into the atmosphere to counteract it.
Basically, he's hitching his predictions to the problematic, widely-dismissed "cosmic ray theory" of climate change. The most generous I can be is to say that it will take tons of research to put this theory on solid scientific footing. Until that research is done, and GW skeptics have demonstrated both the magnitude of the effects of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the effects of cloud cover on the climate, then they're really just reading tea leaves.
In the intro to your web-site you write, "We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, traditionalist New England Yankee humans...".
Judging from your links which are, with the exception of the Dylan sites, nearly 100% ultra-conservative, and your recent posts, I'd truely like to know what on earth here indicates any degree of political centrism, or leaves one to conclude you as anything other than another, rather run-of-the-mill, rightwinger?
Maybe if madmatt (mad, it's "cite", not "site"), R. Mutt, and jay k. hang in there and keep blustering, they can fend off those damn glaciers headin' our way.
R.Mutt, childish name-calling aside, what are we going to do about PRC, which recently overtook USA in CO2 emissions? What's the plan?
Look up the definition of "blustering". You, Bird Dog and many others here started off the comments thread with ridicule, snark and sarcasm. Give me a break! Who's being childish?
The USA, the EU and the rest of the industrialized West have to take the lead on CC initiatives in order to have any legitimate leverage on the PRC. Doing nothing because China, as of yet, refuses to regulate their emissions isn't much of a plan either.
This is the favorite argument on the right: But [insert name] does it! It pops up with every White House scandal: But Clinton did it!. Personal responsibility and mature policies at its finest.
An analysis should begin with the question at hand. The current debate on climate really ought to begin with the question "What is 'thought'?"
There's a place to help start thinking about that:
Once folks quit whoopin' & hollerin' each other to distraction, maybe something resembling "thinking" can start happening.
Okay, you're right, R. Mutt. Many of us are guilty of ridiculing the hysterical fringe of the green movement. What is the hysterical fringe? That which accuses every single dissenting opinion as being in league with evil.
That science has dissenting views on global warming is a good thing, and hardly news. Patterson has his own honestly held views, based upon his own research, as do many other scientists and educators.
Still, the "deniers" are outnumbered by what ...100 to 1? More, even?
As is true for many complex questions in the modern world, you've got to look at many sources of information. The Natoional Post is trying to do that, I think. Maggies Farm, not so much.
"The USA, the EU and the rest of the industrialized West have to take the lead on CC initiatives in order to have any legitimate leverage on the PRC."
Okay, but we need to know the costs--all of them, including an honest appraisal of the cost of doing nothing. We're currently right in the midst of that study. The results aren't in (UN's politics-as-science initiative notwithstanding). You can't make that fact disappear with verbiage. Too many scientists on both sides of the question to make either side disappear.
What frightens conservatives is the specter of the gov't going off half-cocked on a "feel-good" mission, and causing great damage for no real return to anything other than the further concentration of state power.
Which, BTW, we all know is not a bad idea to many, leading them to use the weather (which is usually not ideal) as a socialist trojan horse.
This issue is unique among "feel good" missions in that in the long run, the outcome of controlling emissions and the "greening" of business is good for human health, the environment, and the economy. With effective technology and methods in use in the USA, it would be not too difficult to put pressure on China to make changes by putting environmental standards and transparency requirements into trade policy. An additional benefit of this move would potentially be more products made here providing more jobs and boosting the economy.
There is always griping from the business world about environmental controls, but virtually all industries do not even come close to covering the costs of their products in terms of the environmental cost of their waste stream. What government asks them to do is merely a fraction of the true cost. We all foot the rest of the bill in a variety of ways.
BL, do you think that the 'hysterical' left is making up the extreme weather that has been occuring in the U.S. for the past couple of years.
Earlier this week floods destroyed up to 75% of crops in northern TX town and killed five people.
Lots of places in the SE are suffering through a fourth or fifth year of drought. Whether these patterns are part of the normal shift in climate or a result of global warming the consequences are dire for this country.
"...patterson has his own honestly held views, based upon his own research..." which was paid for largely by the oil industry. but that's no reason to doubt his honestly held opinions. nope.
providing factual information on the possible/probable bias of an editorial presented as a news item is bluster? i don't think that word means what you think it means.
"...which was paid for largely by the oil industry."
Some do get funding this way, Patterson says that he has not. At least, according to Source Watch.
Do you have information to the contrary? Seriously, I'd like to know.
Wait, you are right. Come to think of it, there never was a tornado or flood or any crazy weather before Bush Chimpler took over and let big business polute our world into chaos.
Before Chimpler there was only 70° days and just enough rain to get the grass to grow.
Okay, go ahead and politicize the weather, it's a free country.
But the backlash is already including a lot of ordinary folks who are closing their ears completely, because they realize intuitively that normal (yes, 'bad' is normal) weather patterns have no political solutions, and that trying to assert that bad weather is proof of AGW and is furthermore curable flies in the face of recorded natural history--which has always included bad weather.
Can't we have some non-gamed data quantification before we start legislating?
And, so the oil companies are behind the reluctance to accept these assertions? Isn't this just a small step from asserting the gov't was behing 911?
C'mon--please--talk about needing a break.
"...And, so the oil companies are behind the reluctance to accept these assertions? Isn't this just a small step from asserting the gov't was behing 911?...
no -- that's an incredibly large, and faulty, leap of logic.
it has been widely reported that the oil indusrtry has pumped millions of $$$ into the coffers of serial deniers like patterson. the idea that the us gov't was behind 9.11 is the rantings of a lunatic fringe...despite the efforts of the right (fred thompson et al) to ascribe it to the entire democratic party. if your argument is based upon falsehood...you really don't have much of an argument.
But, you realize that millions of citizens work in the energy industry, and millions more have the shares in their retirement & pension funds, and that you are more or less accusing the whole complex of engaging in a conspiracy to suppress the life-and-death AGW information?
jay k, I think RR was referring TO your #7 when asking the question (your referring to the basis of the question as an answer to the question is just wasting time & space).
Here, let me help:
..."friends of science" which has received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry. he also is affiliated with "the natural resources stewardship project" which is controlled by energy industry lobbyists."
I think RR was asking for some info which would mitigate RR's concern over the possibility that this is just made up agitprop (not necessarily by you personally but perhaps by someone else whom you may have read).
To all that say global warming, climate change is just b.s.
What happens if you are wrong and 99% of the scientific community is right?
What happens if you say, this "COULD BE" a serious problem and work to change things for the better?
What is it that you are afraid of, in joining the majority of scientific thought? What harm comes to the planet if we work on this problem - and it turns out to be no problem?
I don't understand why, with all that is at stake you won't ever err on the side of caution.
Seriously, tell me what you are afraid of.
mamased, I can only speak for what I'm afraid of, and what I'm afraid of is people who use "99%" dishonestly (why?) and who don't define what "changing things for the better" means ('better' according to whom?).
I am afraid of people like you.
Do you drive a car? Stop, in the name of caution.
Do you breathe? Stop, you are releasing co2.
Do you work? Stop, not only are you commuting, but you are feeding the capitalist monster which Chimpler is using to enslave the environment.
No, you say. No you want to keep on using up the planet for your own ability to say "see I told you so". Hypocrite.
I would ask you the same question: What are YOU afraid of? Something that has never happened? (a warm disaster)
Just which warm period in all of recorded time was the end of all life as was known at the time?
When the world warms, more life. Not less.
and "joining the majority of scientific thought" is a phrase straight from the Dark Ages. Science is about facts, not opinions. I say this not to insult, but to try to further comment on the quality of the data.
If the data were clear, there'd be no argument. That there is argument means, ipso facto, that the data is not yet clear.
Even the palliative half-measures, the "just-in-case" prescriptions, have costs. what are they, and to whom do they accrue? What are the risks on the other side, and who bears those risks?
One risk to draconian caps on CO2 emissions will immediately accrue to poor folks the world over who are only lately, for the first time in human history, beginning to industrialize out of hand-to-mouth, what-will-we-eat-today, desperation.
What are you asking of these people? And what do you offer in return?
How can we legislate before we know more about these things?
What's with the rush?
Does anyone seriously believe the "atmosphere will be doomed in ten years" hysteria is anything more than a cold-blooded scare tactic mongered in order to achieve a political end?
Before taking the word of a noted AGW-denier about what "Solar scientists predict", it might be enlightening to see what Solar scientists actually say. Thus far, I only see Patterson making that claim, not any actual Solar scientists. In actuality, I've seen study by Solar scientist after Solar scientist that discounts the link between Solar variability and climate change.
See for instance http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/104/10/3713.pdf and http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4223p03m4188757/
(This isn't to state that solar variability doesn't play a role in the Earth's climate. Just that the influence it has is outmatched by the greenhouse effect.)
#19 refered to and quoted directly from #18. the answer to #19's question is in #7.
however...an august 12, 2006, article in the "globe and mail" spelled out anonymous indirect funding of "friends of science" by the oil industry.
i just googled the arcane & restrictive phrase [solar scientists deny AGW] and got a mere 19,000 hits, but i scanned the first two ('gregburch' and 'qando') and recomment them both--particularly qando's quoting of several high-ranking experts as to various aspects of the debate.
Particularly instructive is this para, which, note, involves the opinions of the very people who stand to benefit, via career advancement, monetary grants and fiscal appropriations, from the very existence of "a problem" (as opposed to "no problem"):
"A great many scientists, without doubt, are four-square in their support of the IPCC. A great many others are not. A petition organized by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine between 1999 and 2001 claimed some 17,800 scientists in opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. A more recent indicator comes from the U.S.-based National Registry of Environmental Professionals, an accrediting organization whose 12,000 environmental practitioners have standing with U.S. government agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy. In a November, 2006, survey of its members, it found that only 59% think human activities are largely responsible for the warming that has occurred, and only 39% make their priority the curbing of carbon emissions. And 71% believe the increase in hurricanes is likely natural, not easily attributed to human activities."
The quote is from Lawrence Solomon, whose name I encourage you to 'search'.
So, really, guys n gals, the real debate can't even get going, not even on a street corner or a school playground, much less among reasonabl adults, until the one side will quit demanding that everyone shut up and agree that there is a consensus on AGW.
Whoa, hold on there big fella.
I'm new to this so all I can say is --- wow, you really have nothing to fear from me.
I'm under the impression that at least 99% of the scientific community agree that there is most likely a man made link to climate change. Are you disputing that. If so, 'splain it to me.
Change for the better, well I see a lot of polution. I think it would be better to at least try to reduce it. I think change for the better is a pretty safe phrase. Are you saying things should stay the way they are and you are satisfied? Just say that. Why attack a phrase like change for the better? Things can't get better?
Look, I'm trying to decide what's best for the planet and for those that will inherit the planet. Seems to me that if a majority of the community says that we are sending our children to hell in a handbasket, we shouldn't cross our arms and say proove it. We start working now, to see if we can reverse it.
It's interesting that you answered my questions with more questions though.
I really think you are over-reacting to an earnest question.
No, one certainly not me is suggesting that you stop breathing, or driving, working or commuting. Are your questions your answers. Are you concerned that you'll have to stop driving, working, breathing?
I don't understand, what you are saying. Lay it out. What happens if we start to reduce pollution of the air, water and soil?
Talk about scare tactics - all your questions about do you drive then stop, etc. sound exactly like scare tactics to me.
Then you call me a hypocrite?
Dude you don't know me. I'm seeking the truth, I don't give a rats ass of your opinion of me personally.
All I've seen from you is b.s. questions and personal attacks because I asked the most basic question.
What is it that you are afraid will happen if we work to stop climate change.
I think I get the game. Not interested in playing dance around the question though.
jay k, that's okay, even if you did have some credible links, it would not prove that AGW exists on the basis that you don't like the people rebutting.
After all, there's money behind every PR campaign--money doesn't make the facts true or false, not on my side of the debate nor on yours.
mamased, most of those weren't my questions--answer phil.
No, I'm a conservationist and a really careful person who abhors waste and environmental damage. I have four kids and do care about their world after I'm gone. In fact, that's why I'm typing this sentence.
But "99%" is baloney, and you should quit perpetrating it. It shoots you in your own foot.
But, to answer your "What is it that you are afraid will happen if we work to stop climate change" --one word, "waste". --waste money, waste effort, waste time, waste lives.
Just listen to "...work to stop climate change".
Maybe I'm wrong--my ears are open--but that sounds like that old fairy tale King who drowned when the tide wouldn't obey his command to stop coming in. The lesson of the fable was to beware arrogance. Have you outdoors, and seen how powerful it is out there?
Why do global warming denialists think it's OK to simply assume that the majority of scientists who disagree with them are acting out of illegitimate self interest? The evidence, after all, is that attacks on the reality of climate change, like attacks on the reality of the ozone hole and the health effects of tobacco, are financed by industry groups for obviously interested reasons. The consensus on global warming wasn't cooked up in secret. Every substantive issue related to climate change was vigorously debated in papers in scientific journals and during sometimes acrimonious professional meetings.
You're out of your depth here, following in the footsteps of so many other classicists who think that their knowledge of the gnomic aorist makes them competent to pass judgments about real-world matters they obviously don't understand.
jay k, thanks for the info. I can see (having wiki'ed the organizations you provided in #7) that Patterson can at best say that he doesn't know where the funding for his activities comes from. Who knew the Canadians allow such secrecy in their non-profits?
At any rate, I still allow for him to honestly hold his beliefs re: GW. For the record, I'm in strong disagreement with him, but my original point was meant to be that such disagreement in science is healthy, and even necessary. This is how we get to the truth.
Jim Harrison, nice thesaurus, but you misunderstand the topic. It's not climate change--that's a constant after all--it's the "A" in the "AGW" that was under discussion.
"--waste money, waste effort, waste time, waste lives."
How? I have yet to see a single economic model that predicts this disaster, yet the anti-AGW folks are so quick to jump on uncertainties in the GW science.
You could have said the same thing about the space program of the 60's, where we spent a significant chunk of our GNP with the goal of putting men on the moon. One of the best things we ever did, the technical spinoffs helped power our economy for decades.
Beats the hell out of forking money over to Halliburton, anyway.
A number of climatologists disagree with the GW hypothesis for a number of reasons that make basic sense. Chief among them is the inability of the GW side to frame the theory in a testable manner. Historical data refelcting the dynamic nature of climate over extremely long periods has not been refuted in any manner and the 'this time it's different' reasoning doesn't cut it. One school of thought holds that a misanthropic and anti-free market ideology colors the judgement of many academics as well as the media and my personal experience confirms the very likelyhood of such bias in more than a few cases.
Scientists have supported all kinds of theories in the past which have been shown to be less than an accurate reflection of how the world or human nature works. Until a global warming theory is presented which is framed in a falsifiable manner through testing and explains the past patterns of climate change, the onus is on the supporters, rather than 'deniars' who would probably be better categorized as agnostics. Prove it and you'll be supported. If you can't it's a belief system based on an ideological predisposition and belongs in the realm of metaphysics and faith rather than 'science'. Kind of like Freud and the historicism of Marx.
Apologies to LARSEN
Questions still go out to Phil...
Thanks for you direct answer. Here's what I feel now, today. It could change, but I'm 54 - will be 55 next month. From the time I was in high school in the late 60's and even before that I believe, I've been taught about the pollution caused by fossil fuels and the fact that we'll soon run out. That's been 40 freakin' years.
In my opinion, what's been wasted is time. We should have found alternatives long ago. I'm not a raving leftie or a ecofascist, but I know, or certaninly I believe, that the reason that we are still burning those fuels it profit. If our government weren't swayed by the petroleum industry, they would have pressed for less poisonous forms of energy long ago.
It's all tied together, cleaning the planet and the atmosphere of pollutants is a good thing. If it stops global warming, great.
If it cleans the forests, and our lungs, wonderful. If young men and women stop spilling their blood in desert sand, miraculous.
I can't really separate one from another.
We are the most fortunate humans since the dawn of time. Our lives are SO easy. Will we hand that same pronouncement over to our children and grand children? Or will we simply point at their polluted world and say, I thought the effort to save this place would be a waste of time and money. Sorry about that.
That's what I'm afraid of.
RR, start by typing, say, [cost of Kyoto] into your favorite search engine.
Then, read some of the entries--the reputable ones, that is.
Who said Apollo was a waste? The Moon really exists after all.
Halliburton, check in on its website, too. Composed of engineers, regular folks who work hard and make a decent living. Earns midrange corporate profits, pays a lotta taxes, does projects no other outfit does, is victim of jillions of tons of misinformed agitprop ink ever since the GOP entered the White House. But, fun to say crappy things about, with knowing winks and soi-disant cynicism.
mamased, agree with much of what you say. But just for grins do search "synfuels" for a nice peep into a previous top-down effort to mandate a non market-rationalized energy source.
I'll quit hogging the thread, but close with, I agree with every letter of Tom C.'s post above.
IMHO he's exactly right--including his speculation on the psychological drivers behind many of those involved in this sudden explosion of an AGW issue.
I would argue that complaints against Halliburton are justified considering their recent track record. It has been proven that they have overcharged the gov't for services in Iraq by tens of millions of dollars. They were doing business with Saddam's Iraq throughout the '90's and have been recently doing business with Iran, both against US and International sanctions. And, they just recently moved their headquarters to Dubai to avoid paying those taxes you mentioned. So, at this point, our gov't is handing out contracts for military and security support services to a middle-east company in Halliburton.
Of course, the vast majority of people working for them are decent and honest, but the company has made some very poor decisions and does not deserve any of our tax money.
The Schwabe cycle is the sunspot cycle. What they are saying is that we are expecting the lowest number of sunspots in nearly 200 years. It does have a very minor effect on solar irradiance. But the estimate is that the maximum variation is about 0.1% and this is considered far too small to have any impact on our climate.
I tried to find out which scientists are making this claim but haven't had any luck. It sounds pretty suspicious to me.
Also, use some common sense. In 1807, 200 years ago, we were still in the "Little Ice Age", yet that was one of the warm periods. If a Schwabe minimum could cool off the climate you'd expect the opposite.
I don't care whether the climate changes or not. Whatever it does, humans will cope very well, as they have in the past during all the climate changes humans have experienced.
Moreover, it will change whether we try to do something about it or not. In fact, I believe that the only things that wil be done will be costly feel-good things that wouldn't make a damn bit of difference anyway.
I think it's a non-subject.
If I was able to read the article correctly (it's confusing, because National Post retracted part of the article) it turns out that the Professor who thinks there is a connection between solar mins and maxes and climate also believes that it won't be enough to mitigate the effects of greenhouse gases but might offer a minor offset.
Profits asside, the main reason that so-called 'fossil' fuels continue to be used is that they are the most efficient (output/cost) source of energy. There are legitimate arguments that perhaps not all of the costs for extracting, shipping, refining, polution and possible enablement of anti-social behavior of the newly rich 3rd world benefactors are fully recognized in the the cost/benefit equation, however alternative fuels will have to greatly increase their cost/benefit to gain traction. There's some interesting alternative energy technology emerging, but they ain't quite ready to replace good ol' fossil fuels just yet.
Meanwhile we'd do well to build more refinery capacity outside of the hurricane belt and increase raw supplies by developing offshore and ANWAR resources.
'Greenhouse gasses' has become another one of those loaded terms with little correlation to reality. Per Buddy's previous post it is an area where the data is still inconclusive. Some analysis of the data conclude that increased CO2 is actually RESULT of warming trend not a CAUSE and that hisorical analysis shows every warming period followed by an increase in CO2, not a rise in CO2 followed by warming. BD has posted links on this site to interesting hisrtorical temperatures that indicate we are already on the downside of a periodic warming cycle that peaked this century.
Simple common sense tells me that a warmer climate is far better and easier to addapt to versus cooler...it's pretty difficult to adapt to massive ice sheets...stuff doesn't grow too good under ice and snow. If...IF humans have any possible impact on weather, than it only makes sense for us to do all we possibly can to ward off the next ice age for as long as possible. Perhaps those greenhouse gasses are a blessing from God.
Global Warming is directly proportional to the hot air on the subject, emanating from the White House (and blogs like this one), and that's why we are all in trouble.
In 2005 at the hight of the White House spin offensive in Iraq "We are turning the Corner" , and the "Global Warming? What Global Warming?" campaigns so much hot air went out, that as a result we were hit by Hurricane Kathrina.
So my humble advice is that for this particular hurricane season that is just getting on the way, you guys kind of like bring the noice down a bit will you?
OH and please learn to sky on grass.
peteathome, just for the record, that overcharge was a mid-level subcontract (HAL uses lots of subs) malfeasance that amounted to a fraction of a percent of a brief period of biz, and was caught, punished, and repaid.
HAL if you say so "worked for Saddam" but the operators were multinational oil companies employing any and all other international construction & engineering firms that had contracts in the oilfields.
HAL was instrumental in snuffing Saddam's purpose-set Kuwaiti oil field fires that did burn off a percent of the world's reserves and could easily have doubled or tripled that loss, absent a can-do C&E effort to extinguish the some 600 burning wells, properly and quickly.
HAL has also lost quite a few employees to enemy action in the mideast--how many C&E's are able to field a large enough, capable enough, resourced-enough labor force to cope with those sorts of conditions and do the job? None.
And that's the source of the infamous early no-bid contract. Look into the reality of the no-bid contracts--see how many have been let, and when, and why.
And really, folks should research the Dubai move (a new mideast operations HQ, not the corporate HQ, no employees surrendering USA citizenship, and a wash on USA taxes), so that it can be seen for what it is--a company trying to grow a return for its shareholders (that's what built American prosperity), and getting its operations people closer to the major clients' areas of concentration. Heck, read the company press releases, read the WSJ and even the NYT stories. Don't read moonbat blog threads, they all think it's because Bush & Prince Bandar are gay lovers.
If there is a tinge of HAL delight in escaping the corrosive anti-HAL propaganda in USA, well, I can't blame HAL for that--that's been a PR campaign by the DNC, aimed at Bush, Cheney, and the war effort, and if HAL managers want to go where they're not hated, well, so would I, so would you, so would anyone.
Sorry to run on and on--but I know some HAL folks, and I follow the company as a shareholder at times, depending on which way the stock is moving (I like to buy high and sell low). And I'm sick of all the fricken baloney I hear about this great scandalous company skuldugging on in plain sight. I mean, as if. Really. What has happened to critical thinking in this country?
I think the self-esteem movement has created a monster that believes it can just think whatever it wants to think, regardless of any complications like objective factual truthful reality.
And this monster is right, it CAN, if it wants to, think whatever it wants to think--but it better be prepared for more and more confusion, disorder, hatred, anxiety, error, waste, stupidity, control by masters, and multinational corporations that decide they want to operate elsewhere.
Rather than typing "kyoto cost" into that search engine, try "kyoto cost benefit". What we're comparing here is the cost of attending to GW issues now versus the likely cost of not attending to them.
Many economists support the results of the Stern Report, very recent and most comprehensive, which concludes it will cost us one percent of global GDP to properly deal with warming issues that, if ignored, could ultimately cost a loss of twenty percent of global GDP. Some economists disagree. Sound familiar?
You see, if climate change models are complex, then the GW economic models are orders of magnitude more complex, and a great deal less certain. Still we have people who criticise the former and take the latter (as long as they believe it agrees with their position) as gospel. Go figure.
Halliburton? They're the biggest pimple on the ass who sent us into this war. I feel sorry for their employees.
Well, I agree that 20% is way more than 1%. And that ass pimples are ungood. So your case is partially persuasive, RR--well done!
[Stern Report Summary], over a million hits
[Stern Report Critique], three quarters of a million hits.
So clearly there are many who do not automatically accept Sir Nicholas Stern's report.
Small wonder, as he's the British Labour Party's chief economist, and as such is at least somewhat a politician.
Since the UK Labor Party is, you know, famously foursquare in favor of gov't control of all aspects of society, and since we're ostensibly trying to get some un-biased data, I would definitely select and read some of the more reputable of those three-quarter million critiques.
If, that is, you're after 'truth' rather than 'victory'.
Lastly, RR, no need to feel sorry for HAL employees.
They're free to quit anytime.
Just like any employee anywhere in the free world. Unhappy? Just quit, try something else. No one will arrest you.
One more thing, RR. Try this little thought experiment.
Say you have a slight seasonal allergy attack, and your old auntie pressures you to go to a terminal brain cancer clinic to get tested. You go, and the clinicians run some mysterious, technical tests the reliability of which you do not really understand.
Next, they give you a four hour all-star PowerPoint mixed-media quadrophonic auditoreum presentation, introduced and hosted by big name stars, that maximizes all the dangers and horrors of terminal brain cancer.
Next, while you're all vibed up on the horrors of the malady, they give you another presentation (this time it's a thirty-second cassette tape on a little scratchy portable cassette player on a card table in the back hall on your way back from a restroom break) which minimizes the pain, cost, danger, recovery, and unreliability of elective exploratory terminal brain cancer surgery.
So, there you are, terrified by all those ghastley, grisly details, surrounded by the clinicians in their white lab coats standing there with contracts and releases ready to sign, waving ballpoint pens in your face, impatient for you to authorize the surgery.
Can you remember that you may not even have terminal brain cancer?
What should you do? Unless you want to be a moron, you will get a second opinion, and maybe a third, before you elect the surgery.
Especially if, say, for instance, that first clinic is perhaps badly in need of business, and/or is staffed by terminal brain cancer exploratory surgery partisan advocates. And if those things are so, who will inform you? Not the clinicians, for sure.
Maybe a competing clinic will inform you? But what if you can't believe it either (since it has a bias to discredit the first clinic)?
What to do, what to do?
Only one sensible answer--study the whole thing yourself. Apply critical thinking to facts.
Until you have a handle on all the relevant facts--DON'T LET ANYONE WITH A SCALPEL NEAR YOUR BRAIN (or your wallet)!
"Only one sensible answer--study the whole thing yourself. Apply critical thinking to facts."
Excellent advice, and I couldn't agree more with that sentiment.
Now, if we could only apply it to your hit-ratio analysis... 8-)
The full story on Halliburton has yet to be told. Stay tuned.
Sombody get some butter for Buddy because he's on a ROLL
Great stuff on this topic thread Buddy!
What's with the HAL fixation during a discussion about GW? Total weirdness.
Actually if the planets temps do increase and the polar caps melt the sudden rush of cold water into the Atlantic would cause extreme weather patterns with freezing temps bringing cold air onshore and freezing the arse off you dopey Americans. Needless to say the sooner that happens the better as your idiot foreign policies are murdering millions as a matter of routine. Just because a few of your ultra rich, greed filled arseholes died because of 9/11 you think it gives you the right to go murdering millions in revenge, and then try to mock the intelligent souls trying to forewarn the world about the results of your gobbling more of the worlds energy than your dopey country deserves. Sounds like you are a commune of idiots to me. Just another warm up pep talk from the neocons at Oil and Murder Inc. Look out for the next instalment where the sun gives Der Fuhrer Bush a massive solar headache and he gets abrain . Rightwing wankers! Zeig Heil!