Oh dear! Another invisible video (at least to me, and I have pretty advanced Mac equipment).Would you please be good enough to post a printed YouTube or website link?Thanks.
Here's the link:http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/
FT, what browser are you running?Do you have any add-ons installed?Blockers?
Because of affirmative action blah, blah, blah ,the Progressives/Democrats have enslaved the blah community blah, blah, blah into gin and tonic poverty.Even my saying so will cause the Progressives/Democrats to scream "Racist” blah, blah, blah but who cares? Let them keep laying to themselves. That's EXACTLLY what the loft has been doing for years. Blah, blah, blah the.... has just gotten worse, for BLAHS and minorets. But, they LIKE it that way, because it keeps the Dems in power. Problem is the condy store is going bryke and the froobies are going to have to stoop and blah, blah, blah, blah, whine, whine, whine...woof!
Sorry, Shaw, but ocean acidification is largely just another scare tactic (acid is such a scary/Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde term) by the global warming alarmist crowd. First of all, the ocean hasn't been acid for over 600 million years and it obviously isn't acid now (the pH level is well over 7 and the limestone isn't dissolving). And, secondly, the ocean already has far, far, far, far, MORE CO2 than the atmosphere and this has historically been a good thing (marine organisms and coral reefs both need CO2 in order to flourish - the former for skeletal and shell growth, the latter for photosynthesis) for oceans/ocean-life...................................................................................Now, this isn't to say that the oceans are in tip-top shape. They obviously aren't. But to try and blame it on atmospheric CO2 going from 270 ppm to 390 ppm (yes, some of which is due to human activity) and not on garbage, waste, chemicals, tailings, plastics, etc. is almost comical if you truly think about it................................................................................Oh, and, get this. What the AGW people are advocating here (i.e., a reduction in atmospheric temperatures) would probably cause MORE "acidification". This, in that the oceans actually hold more CO2 when they're cold and would in fact probably get more cold if we were to reduce atmospheric temps. I mean, hello!
Ocean acidification is another symptom (and proof of) the fact that global climate change is real (despite the denials of some... see comment above). My belief is that humanity is doomed, thanks (in part) to attitudes like the denier commenting above me. The proof mounts yet they continue to deny.The fishermen and women in the video have firsthand experience of the reality (not "scare tactic") of this aspect of our continuing to burn large amounts of fossil fuels (and the resulting CO2 that enters the atmosphere).FYI, I am NOT coming out of left field and throwing Will Hart's name into the mix purely trying to start an argument with him (an accusation made against me on another blog simply because I disagreed with one of his comments). I suspect there may be other comments in the cue voicing disagreement with Will's position... if not I'm sure there will be.
Thank you, Ms Shaw. I have seen the video now. Having once lived on the Delmarva Peninsula, I knew the waters of the Chesapeake Bay, justifiably famous for oysters and crabmeat of superlative quality, were troubled by the runoff from the use of modern fertilizers and pesticides on the farms close to the bay, but I'd never heard anyone claim that running automobiles was making the oceans hostile to shellfish -- or any other forms of marine life.If true, I can't imagine what anyone could realistically expect to do about it. Being something of a reactionary and a bit of a Luddite, myself, I've often wished we could go back to the agrarian way of life of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but once any sort of "Pandora's Box" has been opened -- in this case the Industrial Revolution and the Modern Life it brought -- there's just no going back.It's a lot like Miss Emily's poem "The brain within its groove. " She used a wonderful metaphor in that likening the onslaught of insanity to a flash flood that splits the hillsides with deep channels that forever change the landscape. The water thus escaped can never be scooped up and returned to its source.
The enemy of realism is hubris (Reinhold Niebuhr).There is another Genesis story. It begins 400 million years ago, between the Devonian and Carboniferous Periods, when the earth was still hot and humid and long before the polar ice regions formed. As newly evolved forests drew carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fell where they stood - their carbon buried and sequestered under layers of sedimentary rock - the climate cooled and glaciers formed.Hundreds of millions of years later, a peculiar Pleistocene creature walked the earth and learned in short order how to dig up and burn those fossil fuels to warm homes, build cities, drive Hummers, make microchips and Barbie dolls and a myriad of trinkets to delight the fancy ... all far removed from basic survival needs. In less than 25 generations, these peculiar Pleistocene creatures released into the atmosphere as much carbon as earth had sequestered over hundreds of millions of years. This is what is known as the anthropogenic cause of global climate change.But who am I - your humble mudsquiggle – to doubt the expertise of skeptics far less informed than 2,000 of the world’s leading scientists? I make the case here: CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS AND BOILED FROGS.
Those more knowledgeable than I can argue this out. Unless of course it would involve one Al Gorlione. In which case I would then know it is suspect.
If Gertrude Stein were still alive today, she might very well say, "A fanatic is a fanatic, is a fanatic."Fanaticism of any and all varieties appears to be an incurable disease of the mind that does incalculable harm to anyone who comes within its thrall. He preached upon breadthTill it argued him narrowThe broad are too broad to defineAnd of Truth, until it proclaimed him a liar.The Truth never flaunted a sign ...Miss Emily may have seemed shy, retiring, pale and meek to the casual observer, but she knew as well as anyone ever has how to skewer a mountebank.The difference between Miss Emily Dickinson and The Modern Liberated Woman is that Miss Emily wreaked vengeance upon the absurdities and inequities of society in the privacy of her room where she wrote unique poetry filled with pithy observations and frank confessions of doubt -- but never dismissal -- about God, about human interaction, romance, disease, death, grief, and the wondrous delights and glories of Nature.I found a quotation from C.S. Lewis that applies to Miss Dickinson and all the others like J.S. Bach, who was considered "old Hat" by his own children, who quietly performed miracles in the pursuit -- not of fame, not of glory, not of applause, not of power -- but of excellence.Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.~ C. S. Lewis (1898-1963)" ... Avoid loud and aggressive persons. They are a vexation to the spirit. ..." ~ Max Ehrmann in Desiderata"
Ahh, yes! A string of non sequiturs - all of them off topic but strung together in such fashion as to insinuate the commenter into any conversation and call attention to oneself.
________ Enemetics in Action________Officially, this day’s for celebrationNot complaints or tearful lamentation.It’s tempting to succumb to fretfulnessNegators can’t can’t enjoy forgetfulness ––Deny their overeager plaintivenessErupting fulsomely with put on saintliness –– Pouting as though martyred for a Cause, when Everyone knows they only crave applause. WhenNeeding to be noticed takes the Stage,Disingenuousness will soon take over.Ego run amok expresses rage ––Needling challengers’ interest and invention,Creating tension, refusing to engage,Endowing Honesty with bad intention.Doubts about oneself make fields of cloverA potent allergen, which should one mention, Yields fits of pique that might define our Age.~ FreeThinke
Wheat Fields Under Threatening Skies with Crows(Auvres, July 1890)Megarea Tisiphone Allecto -They show you what you really areand every painting is a self portrait:fierce crimson poppiesthe cool green roomthe horror of crows risingfrom yellow fieldsin a too-blue sky.You paint what they show you:the bullet beating near your heart.You wereyou areyou will remainthe wretched vessel of delusion.You paint a self-portrait.
"The difference between Miss Emily Dickinson and The Modern Liberated Woman is that Miss Emily wreaked vengeance upon the absurdities and inequities of society in the privacy of her room where she wrote unique poetry filled with pithy observations and frank confessions of doubt -- but never dismissal -- about God, about human interaction, romance, disease, death, grief, and the wondrous delights and glories of Nature."There were other differences between when Miss Dickinson lived and the times we live in now:Women had no voice in who represented them.Women could not own property and were totally dependent, if married, upon their husbands. Most never attended college.Women who sought non-traditional occupations, or occupations at all, were frowned upon.What women did in Dickinson's day and where they are now represent a vast improvement.Nothing that improves the lives of oppressed peoples gets done by sitting in one's room and writing. It is activists like our founding fathers who effected change. Real change. No oppressive group ever, ever ceded power to the oppressed, who wrote about their plight alone--although that is admirable. People who were willing to speak out against injustice and influence others to march and take action it are the ones who change the world."Well-behaved women seldom make history."
Shaw,Another distraction, one of many, with the intent to hijack a comment thread and annoy people.
You guys are really funny the way you respond with predictable, pre-digested, canned, propagandistic attack rhetoric. It's obvious you've never had an original thought to call your own, and have instead allowed yourselves to be used in service to a cause you may not fully comprehend by endlessly paraphrasing sentiments that originated in sources such as the Communist Manifesto, the Soviet Constitution of 1928, writings from the Frankfurt School that show in your persistent practice of their "Critical Theory," tactics from Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and pearls of poison from shining lights of the Left such as Susan Sontag, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Greg Pallast, Sy Hirsch, Wlliam Rivers Pitt, the Ratner siblings, Joe Conason, Amy Goodman, Betty Friedan, Van Joneset al.I assure you I am impervious to your insults and your cheap, quasi-erudite analysis, and relentless negativism. In the manner typical of leftists you seek to make personal attacks intended to shame, embarrass or frighten your opponent into capitulating or taking flight. Either that or you throw stale, doctrinaire, overworked leftist shibboleths at him rather than logical arguments based on actual THOUGHT.These practices remind me of a favorite quotation:He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts—for support rather than illumination." ~ Andrew Lang (1844–1912) Quoted in The Harvest of a Quiet Eye, Alan L. Mackay (1977).If Ms Shaw, whom I personally like, respect and admire in many ways, and have come to regard as a personal friend, would like me to stop posting here, I will comply with her wishes, and that will be the end of it, but as long as I'm here, I'm NOT going to accept insolence, belligerence, specious twisted logic, mischaracterization of my motives, willful misunderstanding and outright mendacity as a proper response to anything I might have to say.
Did you know that the A MURDER of crows is the proper collective noun for designating a group of the fabled blackbirds.The poet's very effective imagery -- highly reminiscent of Van Gogh's bold, painting style by the way -- might have been further enriched had she thought to use it.But then, this was a translation from the French, n'est-ce-pas?Unfortunately, poetry usually loses a great deal in translation.MISANTHROPIC poetry is simply unfortunate.
wd can't argue the science and so he calls me a denier. The fact of the matter is that the oceans already have 40,000 gigatonnes of CO2 in it and the adding of a couple more (humans emit only 5 gigatonnes a year and plant life has been absorbing a massive chunk of that) a year is hardly anything to be concerned about. And the death of those shellfish could have been caused by anything. To say that it was caused by additional CO2 when we know in fact that CO2 is beneficial to shells (reefs are also growing) and that there hasn't been a control of the other variables shows an extreme lack of understanding of the scientific method.
Post a Comment