• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 10 of 13

My comments

• We use these obsolete technologies because 50% of Americans
  have obsolete brains.
  
  Proof positive: Bush is in the White House.
  
  Geez! He couldn't have become president in any other developed country. Only in America only in America.
  
  I bet most of these denialists here didn't watch Gore's movie but they still "know" it's just a big hoax.

  December 15, 2006

  2 replies

• Yeah you KNOW that the planet goes thorough some UNKNOWN stages/cycles.
  Now you should publish that discovery in Science.
  
  And this one in Nature:
  
  "IF our species can adapt to whatever the climate will be here in the future, and can live for another 100,000 years, the Y chromosome will be in such an advanced degraded state that we will be unable to have offsprings anyway"
  
  Whooha! I didn't know that. Thanks for the info.
  No reason to worry about the next 100 years, indeed. Can we just get out of Iraq tomorrow?
  After all we are all doomed anyway no matter what Sunni extermists do in the next few years over there.
  Or maybe we just should sell our own nukes to Kim Jong Il. Who cares? We are doomed, anyway.
  
  The rest of your post makes just as much sense as that statement. One can understand that since you get your scientific education from South Park.
  
  You know nothing about climate models so go fishing and leave climatology to climatologists and those who listen to them, not Trey Parker and Matt Stone.
  
  BTW Gore never said that anything we should do would have a "fast positive impact". Strawman.

  December 15, 2006

  1 reply

• Yes, 86 evangelical Christian leaders broke with Bush on global warming
  Evangelical Leaders Join Global Warming Initiative
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national/08warm.html?ex=1297054800&en=c3998565b07f9657&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
  
  But they hardly represent most born-again Christians in the US.
  Those 'Jesus will come back in my lifetime' creatures are not afraid of global warming. They are afraid of hell and that fear consumes 90% of their lives. Unfortunately, unlike you, I met many of them.

  December 15, 2006

  0 replies

• Of course you are paranoid. You are worried about non-existent threats.
  If you worried about global warming that would make you right.
  You see the difference?
  
  If a threat is real it's logical to be worried about it otherwise you will not look for and find solutions.
  
  If a threat is not real - like OMG I will lose my car because of the tree-hugger wackos! or OMG Saddam will nuke NYC - then it's illogical to be worried.
  
  You are in the later category.
  
  This comment perfectly shows it:
  
  "The problem is the people who use force to make them support some idea they have."
  
  Force? Noone talked about using force. It's about using common sense.
  If GM does not want to produce more efficient cars they are screwed because other companies will overtake them on the marketplace.
  
  There's a reason why Honda and Toyota are doing so well today and GM is struggling because of diminished sales. They understand this. They know wasteful ICEs are starting to become obsolete. But they are too stupid to change their habits.
  
  So yeah in a free society you have the right to be stupid and paranoid. You are the best evidence for that.

  December 15, 2006

  1 reply

• Well said.
  But I think there is another factor beyond religious dogmas.
  
  These wackos deny AGW not because they can explain how +100 ppm CO2 would not make the Earth warmer or what was the cause of this increase
  if not man-made emission or why there has been a warming trend since the industrial revolution at all but because they have denied it for so long they simply don't have the guts to admit they were wrong and people like Gore were right.
  
  You can see the same phenomenon with Bush and Iraq right now.
  And not coincidentally most AGW denalists support Bush. They share the same type of cowardice.
  
  Hence they ignore Every major institute that deals with climate related science
  http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/scientists-arent-even-sure.html
  while desperately look for every little non-peer-reviewed opinion and discredited "sceptic" like Bill Gray and Fred Singer to "prove" that the "science is flawed".

  December 15, 2006

  0 replies

• If you think the "science is flawed" prove it in peer-reviewed papers.
  If you can't do that and still deny AGW you are just another dilettante wacko.

  December 15, 2006

  0 replies

• America is alone with that in the developed world
  40 percent of Americans --- and 49 percent of Southerners --- believe "the physical world will eventually end someday as a result of some type of supernatural intervention."
  
  Among people who believe the world will end, almost two-thirds said they believe it is "very likely" that Jesus Christ will reappear on Earth; 15 percent rated it "somewhat likely." Among Southerners, 73 percent said it is "very likely" Jesus will appear.
  
  Asked specifically about the "Left Behind" books, four of five people questioned who were familiar with the series said it is possible that the events will happen in real life; 41 percent said they "agree strongly," while 42 percent said they "agree somewhat" with the possibility. Of those who said they had read some or all of the "Left Behind" books, 44 percent were Southerners.
  
  http://www.rickross.com/reference/fundamentalists/fund106.html
  
  Jesus will come back blah blah blah
  They said the same thing 50 years ago. Nothing happened.
  Well, maybe the Earth is not 6000 years old, after all.
  
  The very same people who don't care about global warming believe we had to invade Iraq otherwise the boogeyman would have blown up NYC.
  
  These are the same nutjobs who still believe Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
  
  It's not that they are not afraid. They are. In fact they are the most paranoid people on Earth.
  They just happened to be afraid of non-existent threats while ignoring real ones so they learn climatology from South Park. Hooray!
  
  American now can be proud of being the most irrational country in the developed world.

  December 15, 2006

  1 reply

• You are not a bad person. You are simply
  a paranoid troglodyte.
  
  The issue is not eliminating cars. Duh.
  It's about using cars which do emit less CO2 or do not emit CO2 at all.
  Gee, incredibly complicated, indeed. Let's not
  develop anything. Everything is just fine as it is. The internal combustion engine is God.
  
  Ehehe
  
  For example, in a page one story on 1/5/98, the New York Times reported that “American auto makers are stepping up their research into cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars.” And when the Times’ Keith Bradsher spoke with John Smith of GM, Bradhser says it went something like this:
  
  BRADSHER: “No car company will be able to thrive in the 21st century if it relies solely on internal combustion engines,” said John F. Smith Jr., G.M.’s chairman and chief executive, adding that the company was stepping up its research spending...
  John Smith! That total kook! Meanwhile, here was the Wall Street Journal (page one), reporting the very same story:
  
  BLUMENSTEIN (paragraphs one and two): Time is starting to run out for the internal-combustion engine. No one is saying that pistons and crank shafts...will disappear right away. But auto makers from Tokyo to Stuttgart to Detroit have reached a surprising consensus on an idea deemed heretical not long ago: A fundamental shift in engine technology is needed.
  And here was that wild John Smith again:
  
  BLUMENSTEIN: [Smith] predicts a “slow phase-off” of the internal combustion engine in 20 to 30 years...Any auto-maker that doesn’t do so risks being left in the dust.
  
  http://www.dailyhowler.com/h032499_1.shtml
  
  I drive, too. Except I drive a more advanced car than you do.
  
  You are obsolete.

  December 15, 2006

  1 reply

• If you were aware of the differences
  you wouldn't have started talking about Tim-Berners Lee when the issue was Gore's statement. He didn't talk about the Web. He talked about the Net. You're way over your head. But at least you are not alone:
  
  There is this "expert"
  "Tim Berners-Lee, the guy who invented the Internet (apologies to Al Gore)"
  http://www.port80software.com/200ok/archive/2006/05/03/1231.aspx
  
  and this one
  Tim Berners-Lee? I thought that Al Gore invented the internet
  http://gigaom.com/2006/05/02/tim-berners-lee-on-network-neutrality/
  
  and this one
  Tim Berners-Lee, who is the real "Al -Gore-'inventor'-of-the-Internet"
  http://www.intentblog.com/archives/2006/11/sir_tim_berners.html
  
  and this one
  Nonsense - We all know Al Gore invented the WWW
  http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t34463.html
  
  and this one
  This must be some kind of mistake? Al Gore invented the web, because it says so right here: "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet" - Al Gore
  http://slashdot.org/articles/04/04/15/1226200.shtml
  
  What the heck? I though cloning clowns was illegal in the US.
  
  Now, contrary to your wild fantasies he didn't talk about any kind of technical work, let alone "ownership" of the technology. That's your word not his.
  
  He talked about his congressional record - which is obvious not only from the statement itself but the context as well - and unless you think the Congress is a research lab you cannot interpret his words as an attempt to "try to take "ownership" of this technology".
  
  Until Cerf and Khan understand that it's completely irrelevant what you think, of course. You don't speak for those who developed the technology. Tim-Berners Lee himself would not be on your side. But since you yourself distorted Gore's words for "political expediency" (yes, voters are not better than politicians) you have no moral right to accuse him.
  
  "Initiative" in the Congress means this according to Webster:
  
  3 a : the right to initiate legislative action
  
  It does not mean invention. Especially not in the technical sense.
  And if Gore had not used the word "creating" but its synonym "developing" you would have absolutely no case against him -- not that you wouldn't whine then, you would. You would whine no matter how Gore had tried to take credit for his work. But we all know that you can always find the best words to express yourself. Duh!
  
  How strange that when Gore said this about his father on 08 December, 1998:
  
  "In 1956, he personally authored and passed into law the Interstate Highway Bill, the largest public works endeavor in the history of humankind.
  
  We traveled down here this morning from Carthage on Old Highway 70, the same road he first took to Nashville 75 years ago; it's a long way. He's taking his last trip home on I-40, part of the 44,000 miles of Interstate that he created."
  
  noone said boo. Back then somehow everyone understood that Gore didn't mean that Gore Sr actually built a highway.
  
  And how strange that when Trent Lott uttered this nonsense:
  
  "If the Vice President created the Internet then I created the Interstate highway system. Both were begun during the Eisenhower Administration and I think Ike actually deserves a little credit here."
  
  noone was eager to inform him that the Net was nowhere while Eisenhower was president.
  
  And of course there were the countless geniuses who claimed that Gore lied because the Internet was invented in 1969. Nevermind that DARPA's internetting project started in 1973 and the Arpanet was not the Internet. Apparently such inaccuracies are only relevant if Gore dares to have his own definition of the Internet.
  
  During the last presidential campaign, Al Gore received ridicule and inspired the best ever candy bar ad (by Snickers) by claiming he’d invented the Internet.
  The only problem was that he didn't say that. Here’s the exact quote: “During my service in the U.S. Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” Which, depending on how you define “the Internet,” he did, in 1988 when neither business leaders nor the party of business had any idea something important was going on.
  
  http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/01/31/05survival_1.html
  
  So under no circumstances should Gore have taken into account that there are weird creatures like you out there who would read all kind of things into his words just because they cannot keep their political bias under control.
  
  You say
  "Gore was not the only politician who had a hand in the funding, nor was he the only visionary."
  
  That's a strawman. Noone said that only he had a hand in funding the Net.
  Nor did anyone say that he was the only person on Earth in the 80s on who wanted to give Joe and Jane Q access to the Internet. But Gore was the first in the Congress who saw the potential of the "popular" Internet and he was the first in the Congress who took the lead to make sure that expansion was funded at a time when people like you didn't give a damn about it.
  
  Otherwise, if it was so obvious why did Joseph Traub say this:
  
  "In 1986 I chaired the Computer science and Telecommunications Board and Gore was our dinner speaker at the National Academy of Sciences. He spoke about the importance of a National Information Infrastructure. At the time he was a senator from a fairly small Southeastern state and I was amazed at his national vision. He has continued to be a national leader in promoting the importance of the internet for commerce and education."
  
  And why did Lars Poulsen say this:
  
  "Since NSFnet had no military funding, there was no longer a requirement for military contracts to be connected, but since it was paid for by tax dolllars earmarked for reasearch in the national interest, it was not available to businesses, except in support of government paid research. It was at this point that Senator Gore stepped in, and basically brokered a deal where NSF stopped paying for the network, and instead gave the universities money to buy network services.
  This made it possible to start network companies to compete with NSFnet and its regional affiliates. Several of the NSF-funded affiliates re-invented tehmselves overnight into for-profit ventures. NYSERnet became PSI, for example.
  Without this visionary plan, there would not have been a commercial Internet."
  
  And why did Marc Andreesen say this:
  
  "He had people buying into the concept of the information superhighway before anybody had an idea about what it would be"
  
  And what an irony it is to find things like this on the Net today:
  
  Information Superhighway : Internet
  http://www.amazon.com/Information-Superhighway-Internet-Various/dp/6303289444
  
  And if about the Web why did Phillip Hallam-Baker (a former member of the CERN Web development team) say this:
  
  "In the early days of the Web he was a believer, not after the fact when our success was already established -- he gave us help when it counted. He got us the funding to set up at MIT after we got kicked out of CERN for being too successful."
  
  Cerf and Khan and Traub and Paulsen and Andreesen and Hallam-Baker are idiots or liberals or whatever label you prefer but you know the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth. It was about "ownership of the technology" because you say so. Yep.
  
  Hallam-Baker called the campaign to tar Gore as a delusional Internet inventor "a calculated piece of political propaganda to deny Gore credit for what is probably his biggest achievement."
  
  And that's exactly what this madness has been. Nothing more.
  
  While I do believe that Gore should have used the world "developing" not "creating" for the sake of 100% accuracy his mistake was nothing compared to the dishonesty and stupidity of people like you.

  December 15, 2006

  0 replies

• Sure, everyone just should listen to you
  and damn those stupid scientists.
  
  You attack a strawman.
  Noone said that global warming will lead to an above average Atlantic hurricane season every year. If that was the case we would be in really big trouble already.
  
  It's that global warming increases the likelihood of very strong tropical storms like Katrina, Rita were in 2005 or Bilis, Larry were this year. It's not just the Atlantic season you should pay attention to. This is a global phenomenon.
  
  Only in the Americas are strong tropical storms called hurricanes. In east Asia, they are called typhoons, elsewhere, they are called severe tropical cyclones.
  
  When it comes to global warming they key issue is the link between the increases in the average temperatures of the ocean surface and storm duration and intensity.
  
  Katrina was a Cat 1 hurricane when it hit Florida. Then it moved over very warm water in the Gulf and strenghtened to a Cat 5 hurricane then made landfall as Cat 3.
  
  For the Atlantic season this year, there were 5 hurricanes (2 major) and 4 tropical storms: a below-average season when compared with the recent 1995-2005 average, yet similar to the average of the preceeding 25 years.
  
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/hurricanes06.html
  
  At the same time:
  
  The Eastern Pacific was above average with nineteen named storms formed in the East Pacific Hurricane basin during the 2006 season, which is above average. Eleven of these storms were classified as hurricanes and 6 storms were major hurricanes (category 3-5 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale). The average seasonal activity in the East Pacific Basin is 16 named storms, 9 hurricanes and 4 major hurricanes.
  
  http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2006/pachurricanes06.html
  
  As for the Western Pacific there have been 10 Cat 4-5 typhoons so far.
  http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/w_pacific/2006/index.html
  
  Global warming implicated in China's killer typhoons
  
  BEIJING, 14 August 2006: Global warming is contributing to an unusually harsh typhoon season in China that started around a month early and has left thousands dead or missing, government officials and experts say.
  
  "The natural disasters caused by typhoons in our country have been many this year," said Qin Dahe, head of the China Meteorological Administration. "Against the backdrop of global warming, more and more strong and unusual climatic and atmospheric events are taking place.
  
  "The strength of typhoons are increasing, the destructiveness of typhoons that have made landfall is greater and the scope in which they are travelling is farther than normal," he added.
  
  http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/553
  
  China Confronted by Unusually Active Typhoon Season, with Global Warming Threatening More of the Same
  
  Global warming is contributing to an unusually harsh typhoon season in China. Instead of late July, this year the first typhoon hit Guangdong province in mid-May—the earliest recorded typhoon in that region since 1949. The head of the China Meteorological Administration, Qin Dahe, said that the strength of typhoons is increasing, the destructive power of typhoons that have made landfall is greater, and they seem to cover a wider geographical area than normal. Natural disasters in China this year have killed 1,699 people in 2006 so far and left another 415 missing, according to the its Red Cross Society.
  
  http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4589
  
  Meanwhile Australian was hit by two extremely strong cyclones.
  
  Last month, Category-5 Cyclone Larry — the most powerful cyclone to hit northeastern Australia in decades — tore through the rural community of Innisfail, about 62 miles south of Cairns, destroying thousands of homes and devastating banana and sugar cane plantations.
  
  http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/2006-04-19-australia-cyclone_x.htm
  
  Severe Tropical Cyclone Monica was a tropical cyclone that affected northern Australia from April 17, 2006 until April 26, 2006. Monica is one of the most intense tropical cyclones ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere. It is the strongest tropical cyclone (in terms of wind) ever recorded in the Southern Hemisphere.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Monica
  
  So you don't have to wait for those big storms this year. They have already been here you just missed them because you don't care about anything that happens beyond your backyard.

  December 14, 2006

  0 replies