1 - 10 Next
In response to:

The Ethics and Realities of Divestment

James64 Wrote: Feb 14, 2015 11:58 AM
Actually, water is much - MUCH - smaller than that. I used to like the 95% number, but breathing might get difficult. The true value of water in the atmosphere is under 5%. A better use of the number would be that water vapor is 95 times greater than CO2 (which, BTW is only 0.038% - not 3.6%), but really, it is almost 200 times more. Nitrogen (78%), oxygen (20%), and Argon (1%) make up 99% of "dry" (not counting water) air, with all other gases in the last 1%. Perhaps it is fortunate I am ignorant, as I simply cannot see how such a miniscule bit - even doubled - could have such an effect. It's like the mouse leading an elephant on a leash. Most likely - IMHO - is the CO2 changes are a result, not a cause. It is just the anti-pollution zealots trying to remain relevant that focus on their main pollutant (carbon) as the cause of all woe.
Marketing and relevance to continued survival of the organization(s). It started decades ago as “anti-pollution” and when that was – somewhat – successful, they found themselves becoming irrelevant. They needed to adapt to survive. Before simply calling themselves “environmentalists” (because there was nothing big to attach to), they took a short turn with “global cooling”; as the hot topic at the time was “nuclear winter” and they promoted the idea that air pollution did the same thing. When the globe didn’t freeze, they took to “saving” the animals and trees; again with the basis of the calamity being pollution, with acid rain the primary focus. Unable to sustain themselves as relevant while science proceeded to show how small the problem actually is, it became necessary to find something big and scary to attach to. One of the results of “global cooling” was noticing that the climate was in a short warming trend; thus “global warming” became the much-desired bogeyman to instill fear into the pockets of people and politics. Still, the basis of this calamity was – again, as always – pollution. The organizations have been trying mightily to convince everyone of the connection, but science keeps getting in the way. Yes – there has been a warming trend, BUT; it started before our industrial pollution. It also has occurred in times there were no people – yet those people adapted without the organizations and politics we have today. We could do the same, if we were half as resourceful. Then there is the CO2 bugaboo: such a miniscule amount of the atmosphere was causing all this damage – if you ignored that there were bigger, badder, “natural” causes (which they do). CO2 ties in man-made pollution, even though the difference is ridiculously small. Of course, the warming – as the cooling – did not progress according to the hype and has gone – statistically – flat over the past decade and a half. Once the warming was shown not to exist, the focus (i.e. name change) became “climate change”. Now, it doesn’t matter what direction climate takes – but the cause is STILL pollution. Fortunately for them, climate always changes on this planet. Before science can show this definitively, multiple trillions of dollars will be wasted at both ends of the issue.
In response to:

Bad Laws Lead to Bad Cops

James64 Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 11:13 AM
No. It's those who insist "there oughta be a law" who are to blame. These are the ones who whine about everything being unfair and keep pressing for laws to fix perceived shortcomings, which are actually enforcement penalties the whiners disagree with.
In response to:

Bad Laws Lead to Bad Cops

James64 Wrote: Dec 06, 2014 9:38 AM
Bad laws and regulation force the police to create procedures that simplify the response actions in such a way as to - mostly - protect the organization. Thus, the inability of the individual policeman to vary their approach is severely restricted (of course, some really don't want to have to think for themselves). Taking someone by force is not always necessary. In this case, collecting data and evidence would be sufficient, then the process could, if necessary, call for forced collection later. It would have worked much better to have taken the tobacco into custody
ALL public education/indoctrination is "in line with the administration position". One of the reasons education has gotten so poor, is the ascendence of the subjective and politically correct over the objective. As for anthropogenic climate change; if humans have such an effect and that effect is so well established (according to the "settled science" crowd), shouldn't we already be able to control the weather? Then again, it has never really been about weather. It is about money and political clout.
Watch that Siberian high pressure system. It' size and duration are likely more important than the snowpack, which is an effect rather than cause. Sustained and stationary high pressure area will eventually lead to longer snowpack duration and if it lasts long enough, we'll start the next ice age. Or not.
In response to:

An Obama Defeat? Well, Maybe Not...

James64 Wrote: Nov 06, 2014 4:19 PM
To defeat the Obama machine and legacy, the Republicans need not "work with him", but perform in accordance with the will of the People - for the good of the greatest number - and let Obama veto what the People want, or get all unilateral in spite of the People. Putting it all up front and open - and with proper process - will show who is really obstructing.
In response to:

Wow! Just Wow!

James64 Wrote: Nov 06, 2014 4:12 PM
Yeah - "wow". Too bad that, for the GOP future, this was the easy part. If the established GOP does not embrace their base - and their more conservative New blood, they will undoubtedly throw this all away in '16. At this particular point, we may have only progressed to liberal-lite - and the last thing we need now is "less of the same".
In response to:

The Proper Theology Of Voting

James64 Wrote: Nov 02, 2014 8:59 PM
Don't vote? Don't whine! Only players have the right to critique their game, the rest are just background noise.
In response to:

Why You Shouldn’t Vote

James64 Wrote: Nov 02, 2014 7:23 AM
To many, a vote is expected to be a fix, when it is really just a step. The biggest problem with "all-or-nothing" is impatience; a hallmark feature of liberal "progress". Unfortunately, that leaves you nothing at least half the time - -and ALL might just be less than you need.
1 - 10 Next