Capitalist Man

Members
  • Content count

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Fickle Gods of Global Warming

    I wanted to post this article done by Rex Murphy on this carbon neutral boat that got stuck out in the Atlantic and were saved by an oil tanker. The more I see Rex Murphy's work, the more I like him. It's amazing that they allow him to talk on the CBC. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...ialComment/home REX MURPHY From Saturday's Globe and Mail * Read Bio * | Latest Columns May 9, 2009 at 12:00 AM EDT I believe there's a God, and while it is legendarily difficult to pronounce on such questions, I believe he lives in Texas or Fort McMurray. It's one or the other. I'm driven often to the Bible, both for its wisdom and its prose. Strange that the only text that seriously can be said to rival Shakespeare in trenchancy and power of expression should be a work primarily of religion, not literature, a compound book by many authors and, for English readers, a work of translation as well. The King James Bible is the only - as we say these days, though perhaps with some impiety considering my subject - standalone creation that can claim equal status, for its literary excellence, with the otherwise unmatchable harmonies of Shakespeare. Apocalypse and end days are naturally powerful themes in biblical literature as they are in the traditions of most religious movements. The end of terrestrial or earthly history, the great summoning to judgment are urgent concerns of all religious minds as, for example, the quickest reference to modern-day environmentalism will very easily confirm. Not surprisingly, dramatic material produces the most vivid, electric prose. There is the Book of Revelation, with its many arresting images and surreal visions, but also other moments in the Bible, perhaps referencing post-apocalypse, the New Jerusalem, which address the end of all disharmonies, the mutual embrace of all that before was in conflict. These passages almost always speak of a bringing together in harmony of prior opposites, conjure scenes of exemplary reconciliation. Perhaps the most famous is from Isaiah: "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox." It is hauntingly arresting stuff: hunted and hunter, prey and predator, their differences resolved, the carnivorous lion going vegetarian, all with innocence their guide - the "little child." Well, there are signs, for "those who have eyes to see them" that these days may be upon us. On April 19, an expedition team set out from Plymouth, England on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free roundtrip to the Greenland ice cap. It was planned by an organization called Carbon Neutral Expeditions, one of whose founders explained the journey's focus, and very endearing it was: "The expedition will hopefully show how it is possible to explore some of the most beautiful places on Earth without contributing to their destruction." Their boat, the Fleur, was a 40-foot yacht fitted with solar panels and a wind turbine. On arrival, they planned to trek to the highest point of the ice cap, then return to their boat and make the journey home, by sail. The return, they noted, was the most significant part: "Return journeys are in the true spirit of expeditions, and essential if this is to be carbon neutral." Unfortunately even the most glassy-eyed idealism can be confronted by reality, and such was the case with Carbon Neutral's expedition. They hit a bad patch of weather. Their poor boat was thrice capsized. And the fickle Gods of Global Warming must have been taking a siesta, for in one of those incidents one of the team "hit his head and the wind generator and solar panels were ripped from the yacht." I can only imagine them at this moment, staring soulfully into the hurricane-whipped sky, and pleadingly imploring: "Al Gore, Al Gore, why has thou forsaken us? " They were in a powerless pickle. Solar and sail had failed them and green intentions will not float your boat - they were not so much "carbon neutral" as carbon deprived. Bobbing around the North Atlantic in a gale without motor power of any kind is not the most soothing experience. Fortunately, Providence, in one of its most artful facsimiles, was on hand in the shape of the Overseas Yellowstone - a ship that was, to put it mildly, not relying on solar power or a wind turbine. It was a 113,000-ton oil tanker, carrying 680,000 barrels of crude oil. We may reach for many adjectives to describe the Overseas Yellowstone but "carbon neutral" will not be among them. Indeed, the Overseas Yellowstone, looked at from a carbon-neutral perspective, is the Life Raft from Hell. Nonetheless the oil tanker picked up the eco-people. They are now being taken to Maine, from whence presumably they will fly home. By jet. Not kite. And verily, it is written, the carbon-spewing wolf shall lie down with the global-warming lamb ... the petroleum-devouring lion shall eat straw like the carbon-neutral ox, or something like that. And the Overseas Yellowstone shall lead them. The voyage was followed by up to 40 schools across Britain to promote climate-change awareness. And how. -----
  2. Daniel Hannon on PM George Brown

    I'm surprised I found this. When I first posted this, it had like a 150 views at youtube, now it has 167,000. It's on the front page of Drudge now too! I know what you mean. I was talking to some friends of the left wing persuasion and they were in love with the new bank plan that just came out. I think there's a problem when people fall in love with a politician and think they can do no wrong.
  3. Daniel Hannon on PM George Brown

    Oh sorry. I had a brain fart moment and wrote George lol.
  4. Daniel Hannon on PM George Brown

    I just had this forwarded to me by a friend. I've never heard of this guy, but he gave a nice speech.
  5. Right and Wrong

    Hi, I was having a discussion with someone about the recent event in Jordan that led to a daughter getting beat to death by her father and two brothers, for wearing makeup and talking to a stranger. It was basically an honor killing. This conversation was pretty scary because of what the other person expects me to believe. I made the comment that we should be bigoted against religious stupidity like this. The scary comment they made was that I should be tolerant of Islam because they're not honor killing me. That's the end of the discussion for me, but they kept bringing up the idea of right and wrong. I'm not exactly sure what the name is for this type of argument, but they were playing that card about what is right and wrong. What makes us our version of right and wrong correct and the right and wrong of Muslims incorrect. I was curious how this works. What makes something right and something else wrong?
  6. President Obama - Are You Listening?

    Rick's great like that. I remember I started watching CNBC before the market fell. I was doing it to learn more about markets. Not that I expect to learn much from CNBC, but I thought I'd be a little wiser. I was disgusted with the commentary after the fall. Everyone was like "The government bailout is going to make everything great", "oh the government will save the day", etc. Than Rick Santelli came along and blasted them all. He's truly the only one that understands things.
  7. President Obama - Are You Listening?

    I was watching it on television at the time it happened. My jaw dropped open. He rocks. Here is the youtube version of it. It's getting a lot of views.
  8. We're all government workers now

    Are they talking about all salaries or those that have been bailed out? I do know that all banks were forced to take the bailout, whether they wanted it or not, so it's pretty sick.
  9. The Clowns on CNBC

    Oh man, where do they find these people? I used to enjoy watching a few shows on there like Kudlow and Company, but Larry fell in love with the bailout. He appears to be upset about it now, but who knows. The only one that seems to have a brain is Rick Santelli (I think that is the spelling). They had a guy on today and he had a solution for the credit crisis. How they let a person like this on the air, I do not know. He said that all we need to do is change the accounting laws and let banks just not count their bad assets. He said that they're still there, we just won't count them. Rick Santelli fired back, sarcastically saying, we could solve housing prices by making everyone pay double the appraisal value. I can just picture this guy in a weight loss infomercials. "The key to losing weight, is just telling people you weigh 20lbs less than you really do."
  10. Generation WE

    Go to their page on We Declaration.
  11. Blaming America as an argument

    I see what you mean by what is pointing out. It's obviously some sort of epistemology difference. Like, the case the Iran. I'll argue that Iran isn't a rational country. It's not like Canada getting nukes, it's a country where if you're gay - you'll get hanged. A country where women are second class citizens. A country where they feel obligated to wipe Jews off the planet. They hate infidels and want to destroy them all. As an "infidel" I feel uneasy about them having nuclear technology. I just don't understand how someone can argue "well the US dropped the atomic bomb" as an argument. Like I know the lefties are typically anti-gun and anti-weapon. Would they hold the same argument if some crazy mental patient that has been talking for decades about his desire to mass murder as many people as possible was trying to acquire a howitzer for their backyard?
  12. Blaming America as an argument

    I seem to get this a lot. For example, if I'm talking about Chavez and what he's doing to his country, every single rebuttal I get involves the United States in some way. "Well, the US did..." I get the same thing about Iran too. I'm more curious why people do this? Like Iran's quest for nuclear technology is usually rebutted with "The US dropped the atomic bomb on Japan, so we have no room to talk." Like that some how negates the argument. I'm just curious what you think might be going through their head or what brings them to these conclusions. It's just odd. Unless I'm talking to someone that agrees with me, anything about Chavez is rebutted with something about the US.
  13. Belief and Global Warming Science

    What I find so sad about this is the ordinary people that see stuff like this. I often hear simple things like "they're a scientist", like that makes them some God you can't refute. What annoys me is that such shady pseudo science is getting the getting treated so nicely. Before I ever knew Objectivism actually existed, I felt the same way about this. I felt there seem to be some sort of ideology out there that man is evil. I always felt that there were people and societal pressures to make me feel guilty for living my life. I've unfortunately haven't been able to read much on Ayn Rand besides Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, but I need to read some more of her other books. It seems like there is a battle going, except it is hidden in their assumptions, rather than reality itself.
  14. Belief and Global Warming Science

    I've always been under the position that your preconceived belief in something will inevitably lead you to try and rationalize it, no matter what. And I think that is pretty apparent when it comes to global warming science. I was having a discussion with someone about GW and they posted some information about a particular scientist. The name escapes me. He might of worked for NASA. Basically he published work that showed the surface temperatures of the oceans went down, than he fixed some data points and republished them again showing them hotter. Obviously this was brought up to show that global warming is happening, but the obvious point about the bias of this guy was missed. Basically from 1993 to 2003 they measured the surface ocean temperature. Than he took the measurements from 2003 to 2006 and it showed significant cooling. Now a lot of people used that as fodder against global warming, but this guys study still concluded that global warming exists. He rationalized it by saying that glaciers were melting and cooling the surface ocean temperature. Than he concluded that there were measurement problems. Removed the data he thought were errors and it showed the warming trend. He republished the work and concluded this is proof of global warming. I don't recall the guys name, but that's what he did. When it comes down to it, it doesn't really matter what he measures - global warming exists. If the temperatures cool, it's because of global warming. If the temperature warms, it's because of global warming. What is the point of taking these measurements if you're just going to declare that it is proof of global warming and rationalize it? Basically what I'm getting at is that if you believe in GW, than any data you look at will "prove" GW to be true. If the air temperature goes up, it's GW. If the air temperature goes down, it's GW. If the air temperature stays the same, it's GW. If the air temperature is more volatile, it's GW. If CO2 goes down and temperature goes up, it's all the CO2 in the atmosphere making it get hotter. If CO2 goes down and temperature goes down, it's a success of Kyoto/Carbon taxes. You know what I mean? It doesn't matter what the truth is, they just spin it to fit their belief.
  15. Knowing Who to Debate/Discuss With

    Hey thanks for the replies everyone. My main reason for debates is to challenge myself. I just find that when I'm challenged, I'm forced to think about my views and sometimes work hard to rationalize them. I think there is a motive in the background to maybe want to change these people or at least knock them out of their way of thinking (not necessarily to my side). Like, for example, I was having a discussion with someone about abortion. I suppose the topic was enough to warrant not even engaging, but I did anyway. I noticed the person wasn't really interested in abortion, but rather a small niche of it. Instead of them arguing against abortion, they were arguing against the surgical procedure. I know damn well that they're against non-surgical abortion procedures, so I don't really understand why they'd argue like this. It seemed like they were more concerned with trapping me in my words than arguing. It was definitely one of the weirdest discussions I've been in. I ducked out once they announced the fact that they "trapped" me by my argument. His (or her) point was that a doctor is obligated to remove the uterus of a woman that gets more than 2 abortions due to tort law. Oddest conclusion I've ever heard, but they had to announce that I was trapped by this argument. Personally, I'd just like to save my time, instead of engaging when it degenerates to something like that.