A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[bilmore]

[Hank Chinaski]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...cstillwell.DTL

Read this.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://apnews.myway.com//article/200...D88HP8100.html

FCC decides it was okay to air Private Ryan even with bad words!

Re-fucking-diculous.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...cstillwell.DTL

Read this.

No.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ironweed
No.

Once all the native Dutch leave the Netherlands, do you think Sparta Rotterdam will be weaker or stronger? Did the possibly of the Stadium being reserved for executions instead of football impact your answer?

[juan, usmc]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...cstillwell.DTL

Read this.

Bravo amigo!

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Agreed that you can do this to a degree, but only to a degree, because it relies on keeping the currency at a point where fluctuations will still bring it back into line with the peg.

The problem (if any) that you posit--greater ownership of american debt--is far different than "depressing" the currency to make goods cheap. That's just not a sustainable strategy, with or without a peg.

This policy may not be "sustainable" but countries can do it for a loooooong time. The Japanese have been depressing the yen relative to the us dollar for over ten years. They like to keep the US dollar worth at least 110 yen or maybe 105 yen, and when the US dollar falls below that level they buy a shitloan of US dollars to push it up. And yes, this is a matter of depressing currency. They prop up the US dollar regardless of whether they hold their reserves in the form of currency or US dollar denominated debt.

Foreigners aren't buying US debt because it's a good investment. The main buyers are Asian banks that want to depress their currency relative to the dollar to assist their export driven economies.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

From the Economist:

• More evidence that global warming is man-made:Most published research on climate change looks at the atmosphere. That is partly because the records are good and partly because it is in the atmosphere that the human-induced changes that might be causing it are happening. One of these changes, which would promote global warming, is a rise in the level of so-called greenhouse gases (particularly carbon dioxide) which trap heat from the sun and thus warm the air. Another, which would oppose warming, is a rise in the quantity of sulphate-based aerosols, which encourage cloud formation and thus cool the air by reflecting sunlight back into space. Dr Barnett, however, thinks that the air is the wrong place to look. He would rather look in the sea. Water has a far higher capacity to retain heat than air, so most of any heat that was causing global warming would be expected to end up in the oceans.
  
  And that was what he found. In a follow-up to a preliminary study published four years ago, he looked at ocean-temperature surveys made over the past 65 years. He confirmed that the sea has got warmer since the 1940s, and particularly since the 1960s. Furthermore, it has done so from the top down. At a depth of 700 metres, things are almost unchanged. But surface temperatures in all six of the ocean basins he examined (the north and south Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans) have increased by about half a degree Celsius.
  
  So the Earth has, indeed, warmed up over the past few decades, as most climatologists already believed. But the actual pattern of temperature change in each of the six ocean basins is different (see chart), and that diversity allowed Dr Barnett to test the idea that people, rather than natural phenomena, are the reason for the warming. He took two widely respected models of the world's climate (which couple events in the atmosphere with events in the sea, and take account of both greenhouse gases and aerosols) and played with their variables in different ways. He tried mimicking the effects of the natural variability caused by feedback loops within the climate, and also the effects of small changes in the sun's output and the consequences of volcanic eruptions, both of which affect the climate. But the only changes that produced patterns of heating which matched reality were the man-made ones. And the match was good in all six basins. Which is confirmation, in Dr Barnett's eyes at least, that the guilty party in global warming is industrial man....

via Semi-Daily Journal

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
From the Economist:

• More evidence that global warming is man-made:Most published research on climate change looks at the atmosphere. That is partly because the records are good and partly because it is in the atmosphere that the human-induced changes that might be causing it are happening. One of these changes, which would promote global warming, is a rise in the level of so-called greenhouse gases (particularly carbon dioxide) which trap heat from the sun and thus warm the air. Another, which would oppose warming, is a rise in the quantity of sulphate-based aerosols, which encourage cloud formation and thus cool the air by reflecting sunlight back into space. Dr Barnett, however, thinks that the air is the wrong place to look. He would rather look in the sea. Water has a far higher capacity to retain heat than air, so most of any heat that was causing global warming would be expected to end up in the oceans.
  
  And that was what he found. In a follow-up to a preliminary study published four years ago, he looked at ocean-temperature surveys made over the past 65 years. He confirmed that the sea has got warmer since the 1940s, and particularly since the 1960s. Furthermore, it has done so from the top down. At a depth of 700 metres, things are almost unchanged. But surface temperatures in all six of the ocean basins he examined (the north and south Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans) have increased by about half a degree Celsius.
  
  So the Earth has, indeed, warmed up over the past few decades, as most climatologists already believed. But the actual pattern of temperature change in each of the six ocean basins is different (see chart), and that diversity allowed Dr Barnett to test the idea that people, rather than natural phenomena, are the reason for the warming. He took two widely respected models of the world's climate (which couple events in the atmosphere with events in the sea, and take account of both greenhouse gases and aerosols) and played with their variables in different ways. He tried mimicking the effects of the natural variability caused by feedback loops within the climate, and also the effects of small changes in the sun's output and the consequences of volcanic eruptions, both of which affect the climate. But the only changes that produced patterns of heating which matched reality were the man-made ones. And the match was good in all six basins. Which is confirmation, in Dr Barnett's eyes at least, that the guilty party in global warming is industrial man....

via Semi-Daily Journal

And so once again you suport my theory. A blogger dumbs down a summarization of what could only be called extremely complex analyses and questionable hypos- and you post as truth. Next week when I say you haven't shown anything, your toadies will scream "Ty repeatedly has proven...."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
And so once again you suport my theory. A blogger dumbs down a summarization of what could only be called extremely complex analyses and questionable hypos- and you post as truth. Next week when I say you haven't shown anything, your toadies will scream "Ty repeatedly has proven...."

The Economist is not a blogger, Hank. It's a fairly respected magazine, from England, more to the right than the left.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
The Economist is not a blogger, Hank. It's a fairly respected magazine, from England, more to the right than the left.

Over there, yes.

Here? I'd say centrist as it gets.

[SlaveNoMore]

ironweed
No.

Illiterate soccer hooligan.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Economist is not a blogger, Hank. It's a fairly respected magazine, from England, more to the right than the left.

I have a weird obsession with the Economist. My roommate from law school will attest to it. I have been reading it from cover to cover since I was in high school. If it does not arrive in the mail on Friday - I can't wait the twenty-four hours and I go buy it at some crazy newsstand. Something weird must have happened in my childhood. Maybe there was an Economist next to the bed the first time I had a wet dream. I don't know what happened, but whatever it is I have a weird irrational obsession with that periodical. I am only saying this to establish my expertise on the subject (knowing about the Economist). In fact this is the only subject that has been on the board that I really am an expert on. On every other subject, what may seem like my opinion is probably just some regurgitated editorial from the Economists past.

The Economist is an extremely conservative economic news journal. I guess you could say it has a neo-liberal economic perspective. On social issue they tend to be more liberal. Gay Marriage: no problem etc. The Economist in general presents articles that are highly skeptical as to whether or not there is global climate changing. The Economists general position is we don’t' think it is happening, if it does happen it will be in small amounts and won't effect that many people. And the price to combat rising tempatures will be prohibitive. They have been strongly apposed to implementing the Kyoto accords.

Since that has been the Economist consistent view on this subject for two decades, this Article represents quite a change in the attitude of the Economist editor’s board.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Economist is not a blogger, Hank. It's a fairly respected magazine, from England, more to the right than the left.

I don't subscribe so I can only see what starts the actual article. Since it differs from the blog quote, I assumed it was the blogger summarizing. You have read the article? The blog quotes and your quotes are direct from the article? Okay.

Only change to my original post is some magazine has summarized the study. There are horribly complex assumption built into what is summarized, and its also based upon thermometers from 50 years ago being accurate to within .5 degree (and read accurately). To say the least you shouldn't take anything from a summary. If you want to take something from it, take it as a recommendation to read the actual results and then challenge those results. If they hold up then maybe it's something. Again, two weeks from now when your Toadies say "Ty proved global warming two weeks ago, remember?" I cannot respond- I have a job-

just understand you're like several 12 year old boys who think they understand sexual intercourse since they've seen some Club International magazines. What they don't know is that seeing a report of the results w/o the detail of how one got there is vastly different than getting into the situation and understanding the compromises and assumptions that need to be made to get to any result.

And what struck me from the blog were the comments "Of course this proves global warming." that's how you guys sound Ty. This supports global warming because a scientist said it does!

And question. You aren't bothered by the admission in the first that they can't find evidence of air temperature increase, so they assume there are 2 problems that cancel each other? Occam's razor anyone?

oh, and spanky- I surely don't know what the Economist has as it's normal take but for an article to begin "More evidence that global warming is man-made:" doesn't strike me as a huge editorial shift- not to mention that this isn't the stuff of editorials.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Over there, yes.

Here? I'd say centrist as it gets.

Still smarting over that Rumsfeld cover, huh?