Still Hating America.

[LessinSF]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You ignored my post pointing that the graph is of sea-level rise, not global warming.

"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." In other words, while it appears to be rising, but the rate is the same as in 1910.

It is one of the puzzlers about global warming. The atmosphere's temperature rise is accelerating, arctic ice melt is accelerating, but sea rise is not.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/013.htm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Pelosi’s meetings in Syria go beyond the Iraq war issue. She may disagree with the President about the war in Iraq, but in terms of diplomatic relations… she shouldn’t be suggesting or giving the impression that the current administration isn’t being fair to Syria in terms of how much it should be listening and talking to Syria. She may disagree that U.S. troops in Iraq, but her country has been attempting (well before the war in Iraq) to reign in Syria’s role in terrorism, creating weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations and raiding big sovereign countries like Lebanon. Take for example the Syria Accountability Act, which Pelosi voted for and lists as its purpose: "To Halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes."

Let's see what Congress, Pelosi included, has to say about Syria in the Act:


Pelosi’s own statement on the Act: “Syria’s assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, in violation of resolutions on that issue by the United Nations Security Council. The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and the site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.”

So, gee I wonder why people are upset at a vocal critic of the administration getting cozy with Syria’s top chiefs/henchmen and talking about keeping open dialogues and shit.

Still no answer to the fact that Republican congressmen have been in Syria this week, "getting cozy" with Syria's top chiefs. Obviously, what really bugs you is that she's a "vocal critic of the administration." She's the Speaker of the House, not just a "vocal critic of the Executive Branch." Why do you hate democracy?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
"No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected." http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/013.htm

Very nice, but you're quoting from the 2001 report, and my graphs are from the 2007 work.

eta:

• "The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence7 that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming . . . .
  
  "Since the TAR, progress in understanding how climate is changing in space and in time has been gained through improvements and extensions of numerous datasets and data analyses, broader geographical coverage, better understanding of uncertainties, and a wider variety of measurements. Increasingly comprehensive observations are
  available for glaciers and snow cover since the 1960s, and for sea level and ice sheets since about the past decade. . . .
  
  "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM-3).
  
  "Observations since 1961 show that the average temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at least 3000 m and that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system. Such warming causes seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (see Table SPM-1). . . .

pages 5, 7 here

eata: That's not remotely all of it, but I got bored with cutting and pasting.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Still no answer to the fact that Republican congressmen have been in Syria this week, "getting cozy" with Syria's top chiefs.

"Still no answer..."

What's the question? Whether I think it's okay for California's convict, Hezbollah-supporting Rep to be getting cozy with Syria's government? No. I don't think it's a good idea.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
"Still no answer..."

What's the question? Whether I think it's okay for California's convict, Hezbollah-supporting Rep to be getting cozy with Syria's government? No. I don't think it's a good idea.

Do you think it's a good idea for your R congresspeople friends to be getting cozy with Syria's government?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Do you think it's a good idea for your R congresspeople friends to be getting cozy with Syria's government?

Nope. Do you?

ETA: Since I already posted as such, did you think Issa wasn't a Republican? Or are you drunken-posting? NTTAWWT.

[LessinSF]

No need to quote you, since nothing you cite addresses my point that sea levels are not rising as expected. I do not dispute that the atmosphere is warming. However, some of the most extreme claims of the results (X will be underwater as of yet are entirely unsupprted).

Your (apparent) point that 6 years have passed since 2001 (the date of the report I cited) and we have more info might have had import, but nothing you cited even remotely hinted at new knowledge gained in those six years changing the facts that, simply put, the sea is not rising any faster now than in 1910.

I will agree with you all day that atmospheric and ocean temps are rising, some ice is melting, that some, but not all, glaciers are retreating, and greenhouse gases are rising. That said, the bugaboo of island nations, San Francisco, etc. being swamped, is not manifesting.

My concern is that we overreact, we always have to every "Nastrodamus-esque", media-fueled looming global catastrophe: see e.g., the population explosion, the energy crisis, the coming ice age, Y2K, the domino theory of creeping Communism, every dietary fad known to man, Global 2000, Dow 30000, whatever.

Our response is always wrong. For a simple example, Australia is now trying to figure out how to get rid of its monster cane toads - http://www.fdrproject.org/pages/toads.htmhuge" - a non-native species introduced by then well-respected scientist do-gooders to get rid of a troublesome beetle. Like kudzu, it went bad. But we suffer from the hubris of our ancestors, not learning from their 100% error rate, and think that, now, we have augured the globe and all its eco-systems. This time we're right, for sure, for sure.

So, we have historically always been wrong (flat earth, diet, phrenology, bleeding, cigarettes are good for you, etc.) But hubris knows no bounds. Thus, most archaelogists bemoan and regret the damage done by the generation before them for their lack of skills and equipment. Yet they wade in with their soon-to-be-equally-outdated methods and equipment with the historically irrational belief that "Oh, it's OK now, we got the shit." And if you are the sole voice of reason that says, "Um, maybe we should leave this untouched until the next generation has better shit," it becomes no tenure for you. And I won't even get into the back-biting, posturing for tenureship, that passes as intellectual/scientific "peer review."

But I digress, so-called global warming right now is mostly conjecture, guesswork and a lot of politics. Putting aside that it was similar Chicken Littles who said in the late 1970s that we were entering a new ice age (and who only decades ago didn't know that microorganisms cause disease), I do agree with the current lot that we are likely warming. Given what close to 7 billion people require and produce, I do not doubt that that has a world-wide ecological effect. That said, the science remains unclear on exact causes and effects, let alone the best preventative (e,g. some say some warming would be good).

My issue (since I'm not having kids) is that boogiemonsterism bugs me. Put aside the politics, and the issue(s) become fairly simple:

1. If global warming raises sea levels, this is good. Because the cause of global warming is too many people using fossil fuels, those using them is the worst place - in Bangladesh, the Ganges, and other low lying deltas- will be ushered into their nest life via flood, famine, and pestilence, and as good Hindus they will accept this as their karma. It is a win-win, less consumers of oil, and more abalone for me.

2. If global warming causes more hurricanes and typhoons, incidentally killing thousands of people that don' appreciate taht a tree is more important than their child, it iss OK because they were "part of the problem."

3. Wrestlemania World Credit Battle Royale. 1.3 billion Chinese plus 1.2 billion Indians versus us and our measly 300 million (but combined they way exceed us in their harmful emissions). If we want a healthy globe, with good air, parks, sights and water for our kiddies, they can't be allowed to keep polluting by bunring coal and having so many children. The math is simple. To save the world, 3 billion, coal-burning, brown people in too-hot, sweaty countries where I cannot get good Mexican food must be sterilized so that yours can enjoy balmy 70F weather, the Pepito Moreno Glaciers, and see elephants cavorting with

Less, jugoso por favor, inSF

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by LessinSF
No need to quote you, since nothing you cite addresses my point that sea levels are not rising as expected.

I posted 2007 data indicating that sea levels have been rising. In response, you quoted the 2001 report saying that the evidence is inclusive. The February 2007 summary says clearly that in the last six years, the scientific consensus has changed, and that there is more evidence. If you don't see that from what I've quoted, and you care, then click on my link and look at pages 5-7, which explain how the science has developed.

T. (welcome back) S.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Pelosi’s meetings in Syria go beyond the Iraq war issue. She may disagree with the President about the war in Iraq, but in terms of diplomatic relations… she shouldn’t be suggesting or giving the impression that the current administration isn’t being fair to Syria in terms of how much it should be listening and talking to Syria. She may disagree that U.S. troops in Iraq, but her country has been attempting (well before the war in Iraq) to reign in Syria’s role in terrorism, creating weapons of mass destruction, human rights violations and raiding big sovereign countries like Lebanon. Take for example the Syria Accountability Act, which Pelosi voted for and lists as its purpose: "To Halt Syrian support for terrorism, end its occupation of Lebanon, stop its development of weapons of mass destruction, cease its illegal importation of Iraqi oil, and hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East, and for other purposes."

Let's see what Congress, Pelosi included, has to say about Syria in the Act:


Pelosi’s own statement on the Act: “Syria’s assistance to terrorist organizations is well known, and the State Department continues to list Syria as a state sponsor of terrorism, in violation of resolutions on that issue by the United Nations Security Council. The Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, which Syria controls, provides a haven and the site of training facilities for Hezbollah, Hamas, and other terrorist groups. These activities could not occur without the assent of the Syrian government.”

So, gee I wonder why people are upset at a vocal critic of the administration getting cozy with Syria’s top chiefs/henchmen and talking about keeping open dialogues and shit.

What makes you think there is any current disagreement about any of this at the moment? The question is whether you talk to them or you stone wall them. This administration believes you can't talk to them because they are "evil." That makes this administration stupid, and the various members of congress who have been visiting at least showing some common frickin' sense that you might be able to influence the behavior of state sponsors of terrorism if you, you know, actually talk to them.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Interesting op-ed. Probably would make wonk happy.

He seems right--it's a slogan now, not a meaningful term.

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by LessinSF
For a simple example, Australia is now trying to figure out how to get rid of its monster cane toads

There is a great documentary on this.



Described as the Monty Python of nature films. Worth watching.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Adder
... common frickin' sense that you might be able to influence the behavior of state sponsors of terrorism if you, you know, actually talk to them.

The behavior of those states can also be influenced by isolating them and sanctioning them, which is exactly what Pelosi as well as the majority of our government decided to do in the Syria Accountability Act. Pelosi herself waxed poetic about how great it was that our President would be given, under the Act, the freedom to impose sanctions on the Syrian government which he did by Executive Order, after Powell's last ditch efforts to "talk to them" as you put it. Now all of a sudden Pelosi doesn't like the amount of U.S. "talking to them"? Bullshit.

BTW -- is that what we do with people who sponsor terrorism and help kill our soldiers? We keep "talking to them"? "Common sense" indeed.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
"Still no answer..."

What's the question? Whether I think it's okay for California's convict, Hezbollah-supporting Rep to be getting cozy with Syria's government? No. I don't think it's a good idea.

"Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," [GOP Rep. Joe] Pitts said after returning home [from Syria] Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength."

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
The behavior of those states can also be influenced by isolating them and sanctioning them, which is exactly what Pelosi as well as the majority of our government decided to do in the Syria Accountability Act. Pelosi herself waxed poetic about how great it was that our President would be given, under the Act, the freedom to impose sanctions on the Syrian government which he did by Executive Order, after Powell's last ditch efforts to "talk to them" as you put it. Now all of a sudden Pelosi doesn't like the amount of U.S. "talking to them"? Bullshit.

BTW -- is that what we do with people who sponsor terrorism and help kill our soldiers? We keep "talking to them"? "Common sense" indeed.

Uh, yes. You do do talk to enemies. It's part of diplomacy and has gone on for as long as people have divided themselves into tribes, nations, etc...

The idea is that sometimes that talking may create a breakthrough that might lead to a compromise that might save lives.

Do you agree with Laura Bush that we ought not to allow stem cell research because some say the chance of it yielding cures is not that great and even if they were to be found, that wouldn;t happen for many many years?

We should always talk. Talking and sanctioning/attacking aren't mutually exclusive. That we have one stated policy doesn't mean we can't explore other options through differnet channels. Why would we even have a CIA?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Dialogue is not a sign of weakness," [GOP Rep. Joe] Pitts said after returning home [from Syria] Wednesday. "It's a sign of strength."

http://local.lancasteronline.com/4/202534

Lancaster? What the fuck do the Amish know about war? That butter churner's in way over his head.