Orton's Arm

Overall, that article sounded encouraging. However, I wish that human rights organizations were allowed greater access to Gitmo.

A four foot post. Keep up the improvement.

I'm glad to know that you, at least, are able to dismiss allegations against Washington Democrats out of hand. As for myself, I haven't researched this topic enough to know what I should believe or disbelieve.

Not very pleasant reading, Kurt.

CO2 levels and global warming is a subtle and complex issue, and arguably an inappropriate one for a bull in a china shop such as yourself. It's true that over the very long term (think tens of millions of years) a slight imbalance in the Earth's carbon cycle has caused CO2 levels to gradually fall. This is, perhaps, why the Earth is cooler now than it was during the days of the dinosaurs. Now let's look at a shorter timespan: the 10,000 years before significant industrial activity. During those 10,000 years, carbon levels in the Earth's atmosphere varied from 260–280µL/L. After significant industrial activity started taking place, the level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere gradually rose to its present level of 381 µL/L. Correlation does not prove causation, so it's not known with any certainty how much of the increase is due to human activity. But people affect the carbon cycle in two ways: we increase the rate at which carbon is pumped into the atmosphere by burning coal, oil, and other fossil fuels. We decrease the Earth's ability to take carbon out of the atmosphere by chopping down forests. Sometimes human activity can destroy aquatic plant life. Even if humans left 95% of nature's carbon absorbsion capacity intact, and even if humans only increased carbon emissions by 5% above their natural levels, these two factors would combine to create an imbalance in the carbon cycle. Over time, this carbon surplus would add up, and would result in a gradual increase in the Earth's atmospheric carbon. I realize there are other factors at work here beyond human activity. I also realize that many things affect climate change beyond changing levels of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. But, in general, human activity tends to push carbon levels in the same direction (always higher). I don't like the idea of messing with the Earth's ecosystem in this way when we know so little about how it works. I'm especially reluctant to mess with the Earth's ecosystem when there's evidence of dramatic climate changes from the past. That evidence shows that a dramatic climate change could easily happen again.

Are you trying to tell us that you chose a longer than normal bungee cord because you were compensating for a shorter than normal something else?

I advise against it. Before this most recent draft, I argued that the Bills should use their first round pick on a guy like Cutler. I added that if the Bills could get a 3rd round pick for Holcomb in a trade, they should probably take it. It felt a little awkward to say these things given my screen name. In the future, BlueFire may want to say similar things about Losman.

I suggest you keep the name, and grin and bear the BF situation.

Six feet.

You are accusing moi of being a pain to argue with?!?! I'm in a state of deep and utter shock. You do the following: a) Claim that you've proven your case beyond any reasonable doubt when you've merely made an incorrect and unsupported assertion. b) Make at least three argumentum ad hominum attacks before breakfast, just to help with the digestion. c) Claim that those who don't buy into your generally unsupported assertions must be brain dead. d) Make vague accusations, because specific accusations are easier to refute. So instead of saying, "I felt the article was flawed because of point X," you'll say, "You must not have read the article. " e) Make vague, grandiose claims about having won a given argument, even if there isn't a shred of objective evidence to support that. Even in the post quoted above, you've demonstrated traits a), c), e). No doubt you think this makes you an ace.

If you actually have to ask whether I was being sarcastic, I'd say your cord was too long by at least 5 feet.

I am not an environmental scientist, so I can't answer your questions with perhaps the thoroughness that you'd like. But even those scientists who don't think global warming is taking place still agree that human industrial activity is almost certainly the primary cause for the increase in carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere.

I'm sorry, but you've deeply offended me. My experience here on the PPP board has been an entirely a positive one. When people disagree, they consistently express their disagreement in a mild, civil tone. They always made sure to give careful thought to whichever points the opposing side happens to raise. Because people worked so hard to maintain a mature and reasonable tone, the discussions I've witnessed or participated in have always been constructive and informative. I've never seen any namecalling, and I've never seen a poster express disagreement without providing a thoroughly thought-out and well-defended reason. The only persuasive tools I've ever seen anyone use are information and logic. Partisanship and deliberate deception are utter strangers on the PPP boards. Argumentum ad hominum is never seen here; and a dishonest argumentum ad hominum is utterly unthinkable. The pristine atmosphere I've described is largely a credit to the moderators. Should a thread ever become slightly heated, the moderators will be quick to urge both sides to caution and moderation. In the unlikely event that these tactics should ever fail, the moderators will certainly close the offending thread, lest it become a flame war. I cannot understand your reasons for thinking so poorly of the PPP boards. My only hope is that additional interaction with them shall ultimately overcome your cynicism.

You bring up a valid point in saying that for some people, the subtext of the environmental message is that the U.S. or Western Civilization is to blame for the world's problems. I feel hatred neither for the U.S. nor Western Civilization, and my environmentalism is motivated by the same impulse that motivated conservative Republican Teddy Roosevelt to be a strong proponent of environmentalism. You bring up an additional valid point in saying that volcanoes and other natural sources can create dramatic variation in the world's carbon dioxide levels. In fact, the Earth's past contains examples of such natural forces such as volcano eruptions creating major changes in the Earth's climate. However, the carbon dioxide increases we've been seeing since the Industrial Revolution are generally seen primarily as the result of human industrial activity.

Like it or not, the society we've created is already messing with procreation, and in ways which tend to select for the absence of intelligence.

That's because I haven't made any negative comments about Jews. But I think that a few of my more contentious opponents have reached the point where they no longer care about what's true and what's false. (I may be going out on a limb in assuming that they cared about these things in the first place.) But there is a natural human tendency to put one's ideological agenda ahead of objective truth.

I'm actually getting a little tired of this whole flame war, so I'll merely focus on the portion of your post that deals with the environment. Scientists agree that carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have dramatically risen over the last 100 years. The debate to which you're referring is about whether the increase in carbon dioxide has produced global warming, and if so to what extent. Measuring carbon dioxide levels is simple: you go out and take a bunch of air samples from various places around the planet. That tells you what the carbon dioxide level is like today. Because people have been doing this for a few decades, you can get a pretty specific idea what these levels were like a while back. And by taking core samples from glaciers, it's possible to see what CO2 levels have been like for hundreds or thousands of years. Based on such research, scientists have concluded the Earth's atmosphere is getting more carbon dioxide. This conclusion is not controversial, and is pretty much what you'd expect from burning a lot of coal and oil and other fossil fuels. But measuring global warming is very hard. Weather varies a lot from year to year, it varies by location. Also, the data are incomplete--you may not know what the temperature of Mt. McKinley was on Oct 5, 1895. Adding to the confusion is the fact that cities represent localized heat sources. All those cars in Los Angeles represent a significant local source of heat. If you noticed the ten year moving average temperature of Los Angeles was 4 degrees warmer now than it was in 1895, is it a sign of global warming, or is it just a local effect from all those cars and asphalt and other urban junk? This is an area where very smart scientists debate other scientists of equal intelligence. My own feeling is that we should be messing with the environment as little as possible, because we don't understand the long-term effects of the changes we're creating.

Does creating fact free posts bother you at all? Even in the slightest? Take the issue of whether East German scientists and engineers were selected based on patronage (as you contend) or ability. You provided precisely zero support for your contention. Yet for disagreeing with your baseless and erroneous assertion, you label me "tenaciously dedicated to being an utter moron." I've successfully addressed each of the objections you've raised. I guess that explains why you've resorted to namecalling and to bold-faced but baseless victory claims.

I can't believe you're even trying to debate this. The level of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has dramatically risen due to human activity. The consequences of this are unknown, but probably not something we should be messing around with any more than we have to. Therefore, carbon emissions should be reduced inasmuch as is practical.

Not necessarily. The cord slows you down gradually, and elongates in the process. So the 51' cord (fully stretched) probably started to apply tension when it was 30' or 40' long.

Speaking of unnecessary carbon emissions sources, look who just showed up!

Try this on for size: A. Good environmental decisions require the elimination of unnecessary carbon emissions sources. B. Kelly the Fair and Balanced Dog is a carbon emissions source without any conceivable justification whatsoever. C. If you want to be a good environmentalist, jump off a cliff.

In other words, it's easier for you to criticize my system than it is for you to make one of your own. I thought as much.

I've noticed a number of my opponents claiming victory in this eugenics thread. I'm guessing that had, say, Bungee Jumper been a member of the Bills, he would have claimed victory after the Chicago game. "We had them, man. It was total domination." "What about the fact that the Bears beat the Bills 40-7?" "Did you get dropped on your head or something? The Bills totally dominated every aspect of that game." "But what about the final score?" "What about it?" "Don't you think it shows the Bears actually won?" "You're an idiot. Those final score numbers are a lot more complicated than you make them seem." I'll review the objections raised against the eugenics program, as well as my responses. Objection: intelligence may not be determined by genes. Response: the link to the document which demonstrates that 40-80% of differences in intelligence are driven by genetics Objection: intelligence may not be passed from parent to child Response: the study which demonstrated that intelligent parents were much more likely to have intelligent children than were unintelligent parents Objection: the study's method of measuring parental intelligence was flawed, because it relied on occupational data and educational achievements. In East Germany, occupation was determined more by political patronage than by ability. Response: Generally, jobs like "nuclear physicist" and "chemical engineer" are given only to those with appropriate training and ability. If you're giving someone a plum job as a favor, it would generally be something like "bureau chief" or "construction foreman" or "sanitation supervisor." Something which a) you'd have authority over other people, and therefore seem important, and b) where you could do an adequate job without having an excessively high level of intelligence or of specialized scientific or engineering knowledge. Presumably, the Soviet-style East German system responded for the "need" for patronage jobs by expanding the bureaucracy and creating plum jobs that way. No evidence was presented that well-connected but unintelligent people would have preferred jobs as physicists or engineers to jobs as bureaucrats or managers. Nor was any evidence presented that such people were, in fact, given such positions. Objection: a eugenics program would result in too low a level of genetic diversity Response: The U.S. has a diverse population of 300 million people. We're not talking about some inbred, endangered species with only 100 members left. Nor are we talking about the thousands of years of genetic isolation which Bungee Jumper described in relation to Native Americans. Not only were those tribes isolated from Europe and Asia, to a large degree their breeding populations were isolated from each other. People were much more likely to marry members of their own tribe than of other tribes. Modern America is very different. Smart people in particular are likely to relocate to new cities in order to pursue specialized jobs. Encouraging smart people to have more children would not reduce the diversity of the gene pool.