The closing of an era...Payback!

[kingfish]

I knew gutting the agency wasn't such a hot idea.
I just didn't expect to see results this cool.

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-ga ... 34971.html

I guess they no longer felt obliged to keep quiet on information contradicting something created by a group who's largely democratic.

[crfriend]

Ihttp://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Even a quick read of that article points out substantial bias on the part of the author, mainly the incessant use of the term "alarmist". I would take this story with more than a grain of salt.

It's well known that we're still clawing our way out of the last ice age, and the primary question at the moment is, "How much is mankind's actions accelerating it?" The ancillary questions to that primary one are, "What effect will this have on humanity?" and, "If the consequences are dire, what can we do to slow, or possibly arrest, the process?"

I do not now who own Forbes, but this assertion at the bottom of the article caught my eye:

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute [...]

Based on my experience in recent years, the callout of "Heartland" sounds extremely suspicious. It may be perfectly innocuous and legitimate, but the mere name sets my teeth on edge.

There's a very old adage of, "Figures don't lie, but liars figure." Raw numbers can be twisted in very many creative ways, and my initial suspicion on this "expose" is that we have some creative liars (and bad writers -- they telegraphed the intent) at work.

I've never been big on conspiracy theories, and this is another application of it. I do not see what amounts to a general consensus of the worldwide scientific community as being overly "alarmist" (as was pointedly postulated in the article); there is still some healthy debate about the severity of the problem, but just about everybody credible admits that there is one. On the other hand, there are vested business interests that know that a wholesale shift to non-carbon-based (read, "fossil fuels") sources would spell doom for their profit margins. Bluntly put, I smell greed. And with apologies to George Lucas and Han Solo, "Sorry Greedo."

[Since1982]

I like this story about an old lady stopped by a Highway Patrolman in Texas who asked her if she had a gun after noticing a "conceal carry" permit next to her Driver's License.

He had asked for her driver's license and insurance. The lady took out the required information and handed it to the patrolman. In with the cards he was surprised to see she had a conceal carry permit. He looked at her and ask if she had a weapon in her possession at this time.

She responded that she indeed had a .45 Colt automatic in her glove box. Something, body language or the way she said it, made him want to ask if she had any other firearms. She then admitted to also having a 9mm Glock in her center console. Now he had to ask one more time if that was all, and she responded once again she did have just one more, a S&W .38 Magnum Police Special revolver in her purse.

The officer then ask her the obvious question: "Lady, what are you so afraid of?"

She looked him right in the eye, smiled, and said, "Not a damn thing!"

[skirted_in_SF]

Carl,
Forbes magazine is owned by the Forbes family. You remember Steve Forbes who ran for the Republican nomination for President two or three cycles ago. I subscribed for Forbes for 15 or 20 years in the 70's to late 80's or early 90's but let my subscription expire as the magazine became more partisan after Malcolm Forbes died and the magazine passed to his sons.

[crfriend]

Thanks for the reminder, Stuart. I guess the editorial policy has shifted over the years; the style in the referenced story sounded more like Fox News than anything else. I rather think the old man would never have allowed something like that to be published.

There were more than a few blatant signs in that article that screamed "bias" -- and bad writing. If one is going to be biased in a piece, one should not make it overt. Do not lead off by telling the reader that you have a point of view to push; the object is to gently bring the reader 'round to your point of view without letting him know that he's been led.

[Uncle Al]

... Do not lead off by telling (a story to) the reader that you have a point of view
to push; the object is to gently bring the reader 'round to your point of view
without letting him know that he's been led.

Sounds like some politicians we've all heard about

Uncle Al

[crfriend]

Sounds like some politicians we've all heard about

Indeed -- and the art of persuasion is a very useful tool for politicians. It's also a useful tool for the everyman, too. For instance, take today: I went sailing and that involves quite a bit of exposure on public transport and walking. Waiting for the tram I got a rather sideways look from another guy, and what could have just been something forgettable turned quite nice when we began to talk. By the time he alighted from the tram a couple of stops later any apprehension that may have been there by way of my attire was gone -- utterly -- and all because a decision was made to have a conversation.

The above is a "worked example" of what I refer to when I say that I want my looks to be "believeable"; sure, my looks are off in comparison to jeans, but they do jot jar onlookers into fear or loathing -- and I am approachable and frequently amenable to conversation if my mind is not otherwise absorbed with something. I did not try to sway the guy one bit about my attire; we just chatted about other things and I was proved not to be some sort of nutter. Whether he might consider doffing trousers fro skirts I do not know, but he was exposed to a perfectly reasonable rational bloke who just happened to be wearing a skirt: somebody who was able to "think outside the box" and yet still fit in.

When "out and about" I make it a point to never bring up the topic of my skirts. I let the other person do so -- and then I can shape the conversation because the other person has already "made the first move" and I can get a feel for their (current) ideas. If there seems to be genuine interest in the idea of skirts for guys, then I'll openly advocate; otherwise, I'll merely demonstrate that a guy can wear a skirt in public and still be a pleasant conversationalist.

[Jack Williams]

Well said, Carl. Yes, never do the mentioning. One doesn't think of mentioning the shirt, jeans etc so a skirt is just as "everyday". Perhaps it is a bit rude to comment on another bloke's mode of dress, although I do find strangers will go out of their way to strike up a conversation as I go by in my skirts. About the weather or anything, but it is always an act of aproval on the daring to be in a skirt of course.

[crfriend]

[...] I do find strangers will go out of their way to strike up a conversation as I go by in my skirts. About the weather or anything, but it is always an act of aproval on the daring to be in a skirt of course.

Indeed, and my conversation this morning started in precisely that vein -- the weather. It's a safe topic, after all, and it's also a good way to get an inkling of whom one is speaking with. This one revolved around whether it was going to rain in the Boston area, and I had the advance knowledge that I had driven through some light showers on my way into the city and came in from the west, and that's the way that weather typically moves in my part of the world.

So, what started rather tentatively, ended up with a exchange of "best wishes" and a "Have a safe trip home" from me (my conversant was from North Carolina and was here because his wife was at a conference). My "unconventional" attire never came up in conversation. That I was going sailing, and had been watching the weather with some interest did, as did what each of us do (or in his case did, as he's retired), and the general cultural environments in which we both live.

We got back to the dock at about 17:00 -- right at the height of "rush hour", and not wanting to deal with the local mass-transit system at peak time, nor the traffic, opted to walk partway across Boston and pick up the tram line at "Copley Station"; this took about a half hour, provided me with much-needed exercise, and an equally-needed delay in getting on the tram. It also guaranteed that untold dozens noticed my attire; some locked eyes with me and smiled (which I, of course returned), and I just generally went from point A to point B with my head held high as if a bloke in a skirt is the most normal thing in the world.

A happy point in the walk was happening across a guy with a pair of long-haired Dachshounds (sp?), one of which was running madly along on the lead trying to keep up and the other was being carried. Eye-lock happened, smiles were exchanged, and I commented, "Cute dogs!" to which a "Thank you" was returned. "Sausage dogs", in my opinion, are just an excuse to smile.

From there, it was across the Public Garden (they're trying to grow palm trees (I am not making this up! I suppose they're annuals in this part of the world, at least for a few more years)) and a walk up Boylston Street before going underground to finish the trip out to my car. It was a good day of sailing, a good walk, and just a good day all 'round.

So, "I wore a skirt today and nothing happened." But some things did, and I feel richer for it.

[sapphire]

Loved the article regarding global warming.

Yes, the planet is getting warmer. If one looks at the geographic record, one will see that this is a cyclic happening. The co(2) level rises, gets to a peak and then crashes into an ice age. Extinctions are the norm. Are we adding to that process? Yup. Will we do anything to slow it? Nope. Too late.

There are two excellent books: "Six Degrees: Life on a Hotter Planet" and "Collapse".

[crfriend]

Extinctions are the norm.

This is an uncomfortable fact that most folks do not particularly like to contemplate, and to Mother Nature humanity is just one more species. The corollary to this is, "Natural laws have no pity."

So, will the human species eventually become extinct? In the very long haul (several hundreds of thousands of years), almost with a certainty; in the medium, range (several thousands of years), possibly, and if not the population will be vastly attenuated as our ability to find food and uncontaminated water decreases due to what the planetary environment is undergoing; and in the short term (several hundreds of years) we will likely see an uptick in wars over food and water as competition for those resources grows as well as widespread famine and drought.

Is it "our fault"? Partially, and much squabbling continues to go on about precisely what our portion of blame is -- and that squabbling misses the fact that the place is getting warmer and that if we don't do something we risk everything. Recall that without our "carbon footprint" the planet still cycles; could we actually arrest that cycle? Would it be wise to do so? Can we "terraform" the Earth into a perfect habitat for man? Would it be ethical to do so?

Man is not "special"; we are one species on a planet that is coming under considerable stress -- and warming notwithstanding, we as humans shoulder considerable blame for the damage we've done to nature and the ecosystem. It's not our planet, folks; it is not a "god (pick one or a few) given gift" to us to do with what we please -- and it has the innate right to snuff us out like a candle if it wants to. However, not being sentient in and of itself, there is no will to do so; it'll just happen.

[Since1982]

My my my my, way to go Carl, I didn't know you had it in you. One of the Science Channel shows the other night said by the year 2030 man will have wiped out death. I'm not so sure about that one. Men like to kill stuff, including other humans, too much.

[crfriend]

One of the Science Channel shows the other night said by the year 2030 man will have wiped out death.

This may, or may not, be possible, but if it becomes widespread it guarantees death by starvation to broad swathes of the Earth's population of hominids to support the tiny fraction thereof who have the money to make it possible. That doesn't sound like a very good bargain to me. Contemplate, for a moment, an immortal Rush Limbaugh or an immortal Glenn Beck. I'd posit that to be a rather unappetising vision.

Somebody vastly wiser than I once said, "Live each day like you have a terminal illness." Well, you do (in the generalised "you") -- all of us do. It's called "life". The subtext is to make your time here count for something. There seem to be two schools of thought in this sphere: those who would like to "die with the most toys" and those that "want to make a lastimg impression for good" and leave an honourable legacy; unfortunately, there seem to be more of the former than there are of the latter. On a very personal note, I cannot begin to comprehend the unfathomable boredom that would ensue if "there was always a tomorrow"; knowing that the "end of the line" is out there -- lurking -- may help keep us somewhat honest
.

I'm not so sure about that one. Men like to kill stuff, including other humans, too much.

In this case, it'll be Mother Nature calling the shots, and I don't care if you've managed, by hook or by crook, to make yourself "immortal"; extinction is the rule, not the exception, and no amount of money nor toys will save you. That, and there's always somebody "more immortal" than you.

[sapphire]

Can we "terraform" the Earth into a perfect habitat for man?

OOOHHHH. Sounds like Larry Niven. Sounds like "Ringworld"

Do we have to deal with the Pierson's Puppeteers and the Kzinti too??

[Since1982]

Contemplate, for a moment, an immortal Rush Limbaugh or an immortal Glenn Beck. I'd posit that to be a rather unappetising vision.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!