In my previous post I mentioned that my average workout for the first half of this year was approximately 37 minutes long. Within the average day, those 37 minutes make up about 2.5% of the day. Inverse that, and that means one can spend an average of 97.5% of the day not exercising and still put in quality workouts that garner results over a period of time.
For example, in 37 minutes I know I can:
- run four miles
- bike six at slightly above leisurely pace
- get a basic weightlifting workout in
- walk about 2.5 miles
Swimming: I don't swim for exercise but my guess is that 37 minutes of doing laps, at any pace, isn't a bad workout. In fact, 37 minutes of any constant movement forward is probably a good workout [yeah, sounds funny, I know; [insert your own sexual innuendo joke here if that pleases you]].
Seriously, though, take 37 minutes out your day and see what you can do. You may be surprised. You may start slow like I did, but improvement will come if you persist. Believe me, I know, and about 1/39th of your day is all it takes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 131705.htm
This report shocked me.
The slow death of phytoplankton in the world's oceans can only mean that thuh gummint will have more excuses to threaten MY MONEY.
I mean I can live with wearing a rebreather everywhere (as long as it's a designer rebreather) but how can I live without my seven yachts?
Haven't these nasty people read Atlas Shrugged?
I think I'm going to cry...
Mr. Raaby - very OT.
Nonetheless, I have a radical theory. Maybe the animals will evolve and adapt and some may even, **gasp** go extinct! Radical theory, yes; surely that's never happened before!
The ocean can take care of herself. She'll do just fine. Evolution is not a reason to tax the clothes off someone.
That kind of resilience can't be relied upon when they're being slaughtered like they are now:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 29325.html
No mass extinction event has taken place on the scale of mere decades so we don't really know what we're in for do we. This time it's happening 10,000x as fast as normal and, more likely than not, we are most directly responsible.
Now, the obvious question: have you read ecology or evolution? I have to wonder. Here, it's almost all I've read as of late:
http://i29.tinypic.com/2ip34m.png
Ideologues on Fox News who probably don't even believe in evolution are not really go-to guys for accurate scientific information. Just saying. I remember one time you were bemoaning the state of science education in this country. Of course, liberals were to blame. Well the famous racist Mohandas Gandhi once said: "Be the change you want to see in the world." I think that old saw is very appropriate here. Fight back against the liberals at Fox News who have hoodwinked you for years, put down that battered copy of Atlas Shrugged and learn some real science. It will change your outlook completely.
Also your reply is a lot like "I get high on nutmeg all the time brodude it's fine"
Except this time you're taking 10,000x as much nutmeg as usual.
"Don't worry about it maaaan it'll work itself out"
Well, on the upside, since the fastest growth (population, construction, pollution) is in Asia, maybe America won't be blamed for this.
I understand the science but I've been hearing that "the sky is falling" for 30 years and acid rain hasn't killed me, SARS never panned out, killer bees never took over, the next Ice Age never came, the US and USSR didn't nuke each other into oblivion, Y2K was a bust. Science can be used to prove what happened but it's not always a sure thing to prove what will happen. To think that maybe we're wrong on something (AGW, for example) shouldn't be considered blasphemy or ignorance but rather a possibility that may happen. We don't know as much about the earth as we think we do and 200 years from know people will be laughing and some of the ridiculous theories and ideas proposed by leading scientists of our day. Yes, they'll marvel at the inventions and philosophies that were ahead of their time. We'll never know which are the good ones and which will be viewed as laughable.
"Well, on the upside, since the fastest growth (population, construction, pollution) is in Asia, maybe America won't be blamed for this."
Yes. Blame falls hard on Asia too. Particularly China. Except instead of the Jesus Bush Gospel Choir, they've got the Deng Xiaoping Gospel Choir drowning out everything else in their head. I suppose you thought I was going to be one of those myopic "I only hate America" people who buys $500 supplements "to recalibrate my qi" or something. I'm not. Next item.
"I understand the science"
Forgive me; I have cause to doubt this.
"and acid rain hasn't killed me, SARS never panned out, killer bees never took over, the next Ice Age never came, the US and USSR didn't nuke each other into oblivion, Y2K was a bust"
Acid rain and other phenomena you are likely to dismiss out of hand are still serious issues in some parts of the world. Not everywhere is like Palmer Township. Most of those other issues are not even remotely analogous to the current issue of climate change and "the next Ice Age" urban legend is so tired I'm just going to link to someone else rebutting it this time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
tl;dw version: one article from Time Magazine isn't a scientific consensus. More climatologists were predicting future warming in the seventies (despite the cooling trend at the time) than not. They turned out to be right.
"We don't know as much about the earth as we think we do and 200 years from know people will be laughing and some of the ridiculous theories and ideas proposed by leading scientists of our day. Yes, they'll marvel at the inventions and philosophies that were ahead of their time. We'll never know which are the good ones and which will be viewed as laughable."
Scientists are only correct when they're building Mooselimb-killing machines or advancing Free Market Capitalism™. It's only reliable in the form of a Reaper drone or oil rig. Findings that might contradict or interfere with the neoconservative ideology must of course be regarded with especial scrutiny. (i.e. rejected outright and never considered again)
Please watch that YouTube video. It's seven and a half minutes long. Not even. If you watch it once you will never trot out the thoroughly debunked "new Ice Age" myth again and save everyone a lot of time.
You miss my point. The sky is falling, it always has been falling, and it always will be falling. "___________ is going to kill us" or "__________ is going to destroy the earth" is nothing new. We adapt. We fix what we can. Deal with it. Some things we can control and some we can't. And that's a central issue: control. Find a problem, blame man, then use this to "fix" (often force legislation through) the problem by doing x so we can all feel good about ourselves. Then, lo and behold, another problem arises. It's a normal cycle.
You miss my point. The sky is falling, it always has been falling, and it always will be falling.
I like how your reply has nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate change (among a host of other environmental threats) is a fact or how severe it is.
You seem to be deliberately avoiding these issues.
Also: since I know you're proactive about handling terrorist threats (and sure enough there are some pretty scary dudes out there), consider that everything you've just said can be applied to all those Mooselimbs we armed and trained in Afghanistan but fell out with later.
Isn't the destruction of marine ecosystems that millions of people rely upon at least as scary as terrorism? If not more?
"Isn't the destruction of marine ecosystems that millions of people rely upon at least as scary as terrorism? If not more?"
No. An evolving (regardless of who may or may not be affecting it) ecosystem isn't as an immediate threat to wives, children, and capital like skyscrapers and airplanes.
No. An evolving (regardless of who may or may not be affecting it) ecosystem isn't as an immediate threat to wives, children, and capital like skyscrapers and airplanes.
I find it hard to believe a phenomenon that kills less people every year than lightning is to be regarded as a more serious threat than, say, starvation and its aftermath.
Would this change your mind?
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... pub862.pdf
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
And here's something that should raise eyebrows:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =120619082
Thanks to poor environmental stewardship and "pro-life" Mooselimb attitudes, large swaths of the Middle East, such as Yemen, are encountering acute water stress.
Do we really want angry disaffected Mooselimbs spilling out all over the place?
Are you willing to bet that water sources in the Middle East (and for that matter, the southwestern US) are going to "evolve" out of overexploitation?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 141424.htm
Isn't it unpatriotic to become blinkered with ideology and ignore environmental issues that affect our fellow Americans?
Our fellow Americans?
Frankly, with so much growth over the past few decades, I'm surprised they haven't drained the thing already. How you can sustain that kind of growth in a desert is beyond me. Add the decadence of Las Vegas to the mix and, yes, that doesn't surprise me at all.
As for starvation and it's aftermath, preventing my family from starving is my responsibility. Protecting the border is the government's.
As for starvation and it's aftermath, preventing my family from starving is my responsibility. Protecting the border is the government's.
That would be great if we were in the tens of thousands, all running around near-naked in the Kalahari Desert living off of game, wild roots, and waterholes.
Unfortunately, we live in a different society now.
As a case in point, I offer this (again):
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.ar ... pub862.pdf
GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: NATIONAL SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
It's hosted under the army.mil domain. It would be unpatriotic for you not to glance at it at least. The first hit for "Middle East" in this book-length document says:
Even if we dismiss the worst case scenarios and assume that we will be spared the worst of what climate change can bring, we should note that climate change does indirectly pose very real national security concerns. Take terrorism, for example. The “war” against terrorists is very high up on the current list of national priorities. And there is persuasive evidence that extremism draws strength from the presence of poverty and inequality.^20 While images of streams of displaced persons swarming across the border are likely exaggerated, we know less than we should about how to integrate migrants into our society.^21 In some parts of the world, significant population movements could further destabilize volatile regions which we have a profound interest in keeping peaceful. The Middle East, for example, is vulnerable to water shortages, and climate change promises to exacerbate this problem.^22 The United States will also certainly have to deal with a rapidly changing strategic picture which may challenge its efforts to preserve world-wide stability.
If you care about border security then I assume you care about climate science and its implications.
Unless, of course, you are like the Sandinistas who taught that the Apollo moon landings were hoaxes, or the Lysenkoist agronomists who rejected Darwinism with catastrophic results: rejecting perfectly good science on purely ideological grounds.
Ok, I'm sold. Taxing the piss out of anything that emits carbon will secure the border. Gotcha. I feel safer already. Next discussion..........
Ok, I'm sold. Taxing the piss out of anything that emits carbon will secure the border.
[url]http://www.reoiv.com/images/random/strawman.jpg[/url]
You've basically admitted to being the Republican version of a Lysenkoist now. Isn't it even slightly embarrassing to live so far out of reality?
Haha, good one. You should do stand-up.
Hahaha yeah except neither climate change nor denying it on ideological grounds are really altogether too funny.
Let me clarify:
First of all, I don't watch Fox News. I don't TV news channels at all. Secondly, Atlas Shrugged is not my bible. In fact for pure reading value, I found The Fountainhead much better.; IMO her best novel.
Next, I haven't dismissed anything on ideological grounds. I've heard "the sky is falling" theme over and over again. The content of the message changes but it's always the same bleating. Something is happening somewhere and if we don't act soon, it's all over. ***yawn*** The earth is dynamic and it changes. Deal with it.
Everyone is a salesman - politicians, religious leaders, capitalists, communists, artists, teachers, newspapers, scientists, et al*. The products are different, but the methodology is the same. Who I chose to buy from may be based on ideology or maybe it isn't and that's my decision. Some may say that intuition is no reason to ignore logic and the accepted truths of the day but it's intuition that makes us people and leads to progress.
*Each of these groups will have altruists too though.
We are sorry. New comments are not allowed after 21 days.
BRIAN'S BLOG
Archives
