Cafe La Petit Roche

[skirby]

Interesting film coming out: http://www.ageofstupid.net/ I plan on seeing it in my neck of the woods.

I took a class in spring semester from a NASA scientist that covered global warming from a solar system perspective. It really brought me up to speed on the phenomenon--and how complicated it actually is. E.g., higher temps mean more water vapor, which means more clouds, which means cooler temperatures (the color white reflects 90% of sunlight). Or the fact that the temperatures rise faster on the arctic extremes than they do closer to the equator due to the heat diffusion effects of CO2 (which is vastly abundant on Venus' surface, and explains why its polar and equator temps are the same). Or the carbon cycle, solar cycles, and their effects on the earth...and why global warming is clearly not a natural phenomenon or natural cycle.

Studying climate change from a solar system-wide perspective--as in, studying the atmospheres of other planets and their moons--really shed light on global warming. Irrefutable--no doubt. I hope to be doing more on this issue once I graduate.

If as you say above higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which in turn means more clouds and the results of more clouds are cooler temperatures then shouldn't global warming end up being global cooling?

By the way two of the three leading partners for "The Age of Stupid" are Greenpeace and MoveOn. org. Within the past two week a major player within Greenpeace confessed during an interview that the facts don't matter just the ends one is trying to achieve. As for MoveOn you can't say they don't have an agenda to promote, which is money and power for G. Soros.

[johnnydr87]

If as you say above higher temperatures result in more water vapor, which in turn means more clouds and the results of more clouds are cooler temperatures then shouldn't global warming end up being global cooling

I was wondering if you would ask that.

The answer is no. Formerly permanent ice is melting, for example, which reflects 90-95% of sunlight, and once it's gone, it's gone http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3922579.stm. This means that a huge portion of the earth's surface that once reflected sunlight is gone, which means higher temps, which means even more ice melting, which means even higher temps, etc. It's a positive feedback loop.

In sum, the resultant effect is warming, despite negative feedbacks, like more cloud cover/lower temps. Moreover, certain areas, like the arctic will receive the warming effects moreso than temperature regions---in other words, more degrees of change--and some areas may actually get cooler.

That said, I'm not interested in entering a full fledged debate here. I'm discussing the topic in pm with another member; I can forward you the details if need be. And no, all the hundreds of scientists whose intellects fall in the top 10% of of 1% and devote their lives to its study are not being taken on a ride by George Soros and Moveon. They're pretty apolitical people in general.

[EJC]

I was wondering if you would ask that.

The answer is no. Formerly permanent ice is melting, for example, which reflects 90-95% of sunlight, and once it's gone, it's gone http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3922579.stm. This means that a huge portion of the earth's surface that once reflected sunlight is gone, which means higher temps, which means even more ice melting, which means even higher temps, etc. It's a positive feedback loop.

In sum, the resultant effect is warming, despite negative feedbacks, like more cloud cover/lower temps. Moreover, certain areas, like the arctic will receive the warming effects moreso than temperature regions---in other words, more degrees of change--and some areas may actually get cooler.

That said, I'm not interested in entering a full fledged debate here. I'm discussing the topic in pm with another member; I can forward you the details if need be. And no, all the hundreds of scientists whose intellects fall in the top 10% of of 1% and devote their lives to its study are not being taken on a ride by George Soros and Moveon. They're pretty apolitical people in general.

Their funding isn't.

[skirby]

I was wondering if you would ask that.

The answer is no. Formerly permanent ice is melting, for example, which reflects 90-95% of sunlight, and once it's gone, it's gone http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3922579.stm. This means that a huge portion of the earth's surface that once reflected sunlight is gone, which means higher temps, which means even more ice melting, which means even higher temps, etc. It's a positive feedback loop.

In sum, the resultant effect is warming, despite negative feedbacks, like more cloud cover/lower temps. Moreover, certain areas, like the arctic will receive the warming effects moreso than temperature regions---in other words, more degrees of change--and some areas may actually get cooler.

That said, I'm not interested in entering a full fledged debate here. I'm discussing the topic in pm with another member; I can forward you the details if need be. And no, all the hundreds of scientists whose intellects fall in the top 10% of of 1% and devote their lives to its study are not being taken on a ride by George Soros and Moveon. They're pretty apolitical people in general.

In your previous post you were talking about clouds and now you come up with permanent ice melting as a cause of global warming. So are you saying the rise in temperatures since the last ice age are the results of your positive feedback loop? And where is this permanent ice that is melting located? It couldn't be in the Arctic because it is covered by sea ice and it comes and goes with the seasons. Contrary to what you may have learned when you were young there is no land under the North Pole.

As for your statement about the intellects of scientists do you have knowledge of each and everyone on their I.Qs. or is this something that you assume because they agree with you views? These scientists know where their funding comes from and their funding would not last long if they proved that carbon emissions do not produce global warming.

Interesting fact about "AgeofStupid" was the funding. For a little over $15,000 you can buy a percentage of the films profits paid out over the next ten years. Could this be another scam of the green movement.?Sort of like Soros pushing cap and trade, which he will be involved in the trading of carbon credits as well as his ownership position in Petrobras. If he was so concerned about global warming why would he invest in one of the larger oil development companies in the world?

[johnnydr87]

In your previous post you were talking about clouds and now you come up with permanent ice melting as a cause of global warming.

Re-read what I wrote.

[skirby]

Re-read what I wrote.

I did and you talk about clouds and then ice. But you didn't answer where this permanent melting ice is located.

Did you hear the latest: earth to go through a 20 year period of cooling before it starts to warm again. But according to Al Gore the temperature was to go up and up and up. All I heard was that carbon emissions will cause increasing temperatures but carbon emissions are still rising but now for then next 20 years the temperatures will decrease. I am not in the top 10% of 1% but I think there is something wrong with what has been viewed as gospel about carbon emissions and temperature. If you claim something will happen and it doesn't then you have a problem.

[Mith242]

And where is this permanent ice that is melting located? It couldn't be in the Arctic because it is covered by sea ice and it comes and goes with the seasons. Contrary to what you may have learned when you were young there is no land under the North Pole.

Okay I generally avoid these type of discussions but I wanted to point out a few things. Whether the ice is melting because of global warming or some other factor I'll let others discuss. But whether you believe in global warming or not I don't think there's any scientists who could argue that we've seen more ice melt now than in recorded history. Pretty much about every ice source has decreased in recent years, Arctic ice, Antarctic ice and glaciers. I believe there's only a handful of glaciers that have actually shown increases the past couple of decades. I believe are mainly located in the Andes of South America. Yes there are cycles in climate. But as I said earlier for whatever reason ice levels have dropped lower than what has been seen in recorded history. Arctic ice does shrink and grow during the seasons. But going year by year the past couple of decades it's pretty easy to see that there's certainly a shrinking trend going on. Areas in the arctic that didn't used to be navigable by ships because of permanent ice now are able to traverse these areas. Just wanted to point that out.

[johnnydr87]

Before and after pictures of glaciers in:

patagonia: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1176980,00.html

glacier national park: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...acier_melt.html

kilimanjaro: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2337023.stm

Others (more extensive, check it out): http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Skirby, there's always a permanent ice bed in the arctic regions. And in very northern reaches, like northern Canada, there's permafrost--permanently frozen soil underground. I misread your first sentence: I thought it said "global waming is caused by reduced ice"--so I didn't bother reading on. My mistake. (edit: actually rereading it that's what it says. No, ice melting doesn't cause global warming; it exacerbates it. CO2 causes global warming. It might be helpful to re-read over the basic definitions of global warming... My point with clouds was just to illustrate the complexity of the earth's feedback mechanisms.)

I'm fully aware that not all of the North Pole has land. In fact, US naval submarines have been keeping a map for several decades on where in the North Pole they can burst through the ice--it has to thinner than 3 feet. The US govt mapped the ice to see where this was possible, and more and more area has opened up to surfacing, revealed the startling trend of warming. A friend of my dad in Canada has been talking about how the ice is just different and there's not as much permafrost. As you probably know, huge chunks of Antarctica, the size of several states, have broken off. (Liquid water, on the other hand, absorbs most sunlight, so once melting pools start to form in glaciers, it breaks apart the ice much more quickly than scientists thought, as well as lubricates it...)

[EJC]

Before and after pictures of glaciers in:

patagonia: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1176980,00.html

glacier national park: http://www.livescience.com/environment/060...acier_melt.html

kilimanjaro: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2337023.stm

Others (more extensive, check it out): http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Skirby, there's always a permanent ice bed in the arctic regions. And in very northern reaches, like northern Canada, there's permafrost--permanently frozen soil underground. I misread your first sentence: I thought it said "global waming is caused by reduced ice"--so I didn't bother reading on. My mistake. (edit: actually rereading it that's what it says. No, ice melting doesn't cause global warming; it exacerbates it. CO2 causes global warming. It might be helpful to re-read over the basic definitions of global warming... My point with clouds was just to illustrate the complexity of the earth's feedback mechanisms.)

I'm fully aware that not all of the North Pole has land. In fact, US naval submarines have been keeping a map for several decades on where in the North Pole they can burst through the ice--it has to thinner than 3 feet. The US govt mapped the ice to see where this was possible, and more and more area has opened up to surfacing, revealed the startling trend of warming. A friend of my dad in Canada has been talking about how the ice is just different and there's not as much permafrost. As you probably know, huge chunks of Antarctica, the size of several states, have broken off. (Liquid water, on the other hand, absorbs most sunlight, so once melting pools start to form in glaciers, it breaks apart the ice much more quickly than scientists thought, as well as lubricates it...)

I chuckle at this. Kilimanjaro? Really? I mean didn't we already discover that temps were roughly the same but that forests below it were being clear-cut and that THIS might be an actual reason for the change in snow cover? This is the kind of "facts" that make me laugh at you guys.

[johnnydr87]

Kilimanjaro is still expected to lose its glaciers, though in 3-4 decades and not 1 or 2 decades. Its glaciers are also dependent on snowfall...so weather patterns play a significant role.

What say you of glacier national park--or any of the others? From Voice of America News (the govt's news service overseas):

Now, Dan hagre says the remaining glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. He blames global warming. "One glacier by itself can not invoke climate change. But, when you have all the glaciers in almost all of the mountain ranges of the entire globe responding the same way, then you know you have global phenomena. And in this case, the glaciers are responding to warming."

[...]

The water supply that feeds this mountain ecosystem is drying up, which is what happened to this dry creek bed. Some of these high altitude lakes are rich with Bull Trout, a hearty species that can only survive in the cold glacial waters. Their habitat is also in danger.

Scientists say change has always been a part of life on Earth and many species have survived dramatic change over thousands of years. But Dan hagre says this time will be different.

"What is different now is that we have these national parks that are these protected areas that are changing rapidly in many cases. But, the organisms don't have anywhere else to go," he said. "The landscapes outside these parks have been converted to other uses by humans."

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/200...09-03-voa42.cfm

http://globalchange.gov/publications/repor...pacts/southeast

Maps by US govt of glaciers in the park: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm

Glacier National Park’s namesake glaciers have receded rapidly since the Park’s establishment in 1910, primarily due to long-term changes in regional and global climate. These changes include warming, particularly of daily minimum temperatures, and persistent droughts. This warming is ongoing and the loss of the Park’s glaciers continues, with the park’s glaciers predicted to disappear by 2030.

Anyways, this won't get anywhere. It's an issue important to me, apparently not to you guys. I'll be going where I can be most effective in sustainability and the like. If nothing else, it's the right thing to do. Evolve.

[EJC]

Kilimanjaro is still expected to lose its glaciers, though in 3-4 decades and not 1 or 2 decades. Its glaciers are also dependent on snowfall...so weather patterns play a significant role.

What say you of glacier national park--or any of the others? From Voice of America News (the govt's news service overseas):

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/200...09-03-voa42.cfm

http://globalchange.gov/publications/repor...pacts/southeast

Maps by US govt of glaciers in the park: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glaciers.htm

Anyways, this won't get anywhere. It's an issue important to me, apparently not to you guys. I'll be going where I can be most effective in sustainability and the like. If nothing else, it's the right thing to do. Evolve.

The point you fail you understand young man is that frequently these problems are the cause of things other than CO2 emissions. Point being, it's not a global warming issue. Yeah, Kilimenjaro is getting less snowfall, but not because of CO2...but because of deforestation. Yet you report this as if "Global Warming" was the cause. As I noted to you elsewhere, CO2 levels have been catastrophically higher during other periods in Earth's history, yet temps were lower. Mother Earth suggests that the entire basis of of CO2 caused global heating is flawed.

Personally, I'd rather spend money on people dying in Africa of malaria than on the farce that is global warming. And of course we could rid ourselves of that for mere pennies compared to the waste on global warming. Meanwhile, even global warming fanatics have changed their tune to Climate Change because global warming statistics don't currently measure up.

[johnnydr87]

Some levity: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/03/b...m_n_308501.html

(Sept 23 09) NASA and universities find glacier melting in Antarctica and Greenland increasing at a much faster rate than predicted due to global warming: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...er-1792274.html

CS Monitor article that illustrates the complexity of issue:

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/...elting-mystery/

[Architect]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

[johnnydr87]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

We studied solar variation in our class.

Thanks for the additional evidence. The consensus of the article remains that man-made global warming is real; however, some scientists argue that other forces (e.g., solar variation) are lessening the extent of man-made global warming. Most in the article agree, however, that the strong global warming trend will resume--it's simply a question of how soon.

So what can we expect in the next few years?

Both sides have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly.

It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998).

Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely.

As the article linked says:

The UK Met Office's Hadley Centre, responsible for future climate predictions, says it incorporates solar variation and ocean cycles into its climate models, and that they are nothing new.

In fact, the centre says they are just two of the whole host of known factors that influence global temperatures - all of which are accounted for by its models.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling.

Facts are that ice is melting at significant rates--in addition to scientists, family friends living in Canada have noticed this. This sets up a positive feedback mechanism: it unlocks CO2 and CH4 (methane), which are both greenhouse gases. Positive feedback mechanism means that extra greenhouse gases further heats up atmosphere, which in turn melts more ice (which, by the way, reflects 90% of sunlight), which in turn unlocks more CO2/CH4 and reduced the reflectivity of the Earth, and the cycle repeats.

So the urgency remains unchanged: based on what we know, we have no choice but to act.

I'm happy to see you linking the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of hundreds of scientists working on climate change organized through the UN. I guess now that a member has (rightly so) raised the issue of solar variance and questioned the extent of man-made global warming, we can agree that it's a credible body.

Still, let's try to understand this article holistically among the complete body of evidence: there are hundreds of scientists in the IPCC, and it is unanimous that man-made climate change is real. A few, however, as the article notes, believe that solar variance, might be lessening the effects of man-made global warming. Basically all agree that global warming will continue to the same speed--probably faster--as it was in the late 90s. Thus, the need for action remains the same.

In fact, it would not surprise me if even more scientists are studying the strength of solar variance on climate (in addition to global warming), they just prefer to not even publicly mention it because they understand that global warming is still an issue, and it might confuse the public to come out with a more nuanced argument. In other words, people will post on message boards: "looky here, this article says global warming isn't an issue anymore," when in actuality it is...the effects of global warming in the system of forces are just more nuanced and harder to comprehend, though the essential trend remains warming.

[johnnydr87]

New Study via National Geographic on Kilimanjaro's snows confirming what I said earlier in the discussion:

The ice atop Kilimanjaro "continues to diminish right on schedule for disappearing, unfortunately, in the next couple of decades," said glaciologist Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State University in Columbus.

[...]

Whether Kilimanjaro's ice loss is due to global warming or more local factors, though, has been a point of debate. Some studies have suggested the ice loss is due primarily to what some see as local factors: less snowfall and more sublimation—a process that turns ice directly into water vapor at below freezing temperatures.

The new study appears to strengthen the argument that global warming is to blame—and that, in addition to sublimating the ice atop Africa's tallest mountain, rising global temperatures are also melting the ice.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/11/091102-kilimanjaro-glaciers-disappearing-ice-cap-snows.html

[skirby]

Climategate, uncovering the truth about the science behind global warming.

[johnnydr87]

Climategate, uncovering the truth about the science behind global warming.

So you, who never believed global warming existed to begin with, are willing to say it exists but not due to human activities? And just to indulge your political leanings. The truth is you really don't know what you stand for, but so long as it gratifies your political preferences, it must be right.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-1-2009/scientists-hide-global-warming-data

"But that's the point," Stewart said emphatically. "if you care about an issue, and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening for people inclined towards the scientific method and it's catnip to these guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight, drunk, roaming the Arctic Circle trying to scullf*ck polar bears. Which are quickly disappearing because of rising oceans. Caused now, apparently, by God's tears*."

*we learned in my class that rising sea levels has more to do with the expansion of water molecules at this point than melting ice, but as more ice melts, it will become the bigger factor.

Here is a nice review of reactions to Climate Gate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Reactions_to_the_incident

"There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' [Medieval Warm Period], no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

But those with the tin foil hats can't be swayed, I understand. Nevermind friends/students and professors independently working on projects in ecology and other sciences that corroborate climate change! E.g. a close friend who studied the migration of plants in Oregon due to climate change. We're all in on the charade! Oh wait, I forget if the opposition viewpoint is that "global warming is not real" or "global warming was not started by humans." It changes depending on the uninformed skeptic speaking at any given moment.

At the end of the day, it comes down to who cares enough to be informed (or who has the time to get informed) and who is capable of being informed. People who care to be informed understand what constitutes reasonable skepticism and what does not.

I really have to wonder if these views are more prevalent in certain regions than in others, due to the ultimately cultural underpinnings to the mostly farcical skeptic viewpoint. Scratch that: I know the answer. Sigh. My latte-sipping, Prius-driving self sticks out like a sore thumb.

If you were to calculate a multivariate regression between the dependent binary variable of whether a person believes global warming or not (yes or no; 1 or 0) and the independent variables of education levels, region of the country, urbanization, political preferences, you would probably find the following:

-lower education levels--> more skeptical of global warming

-lower levels of urbanization (i.e. more rural) --> more skeptical of global warming due to lack of proximity to educational institutions and the correlated variable of education levels

-Political preferences --> more conservative, more likely to be skeptical of global warming

-Region of the country --> since cultural/education/political preferences correlate with regions, you would find that the south is probably significantly more skeptical of global warming than the north, for example.

But I know. That last paragraph probably came off as black magic to some.

Again, if anything significant breaks with respect to the mainstream scientist view on global warming, it will be scientists who break the news--scientists, who, due to the structure and nature of scientific research, will want to be THE person(s) who gained new insight into the condition of our planet and universe. Including overthrowing a pretty bad-A scientific theory!

When that happens, you can dance in the streets like you understood what was going on in the first place.

[EJC]

Climategate proved to be quite interesting.

[skirby]

If someone from out of town ventured into downtown LR today they would have seen a very active place. When I was driving down Main a large number of students were leaving the Rep for what had must have been an afternoon at the theater. There were a number of school buses parked around the River Market and at the Clinton Library. As I drove north on Main starting at 4th all parking spaces were taken up. There was a sign in front of the parking deck between 3rd and 2nd saying it was full. Traffic was backing up on Main and women were all over the place. Then I remembered that my wife had told me that Holiday House started today at the Convention Center. Turning right on Markham towards the River Market the number of people increased all the way down to the Clinton Library and there were few if any parking spaces.

[johnnydr87]

The point you fail you understand young man is that frequently these problems are the cause of things other than CO2 emissions. Point being, it's not a global warming issue. Yeah, Kilimenjaro is getting less snowfall, but not because of CO2...but because of deforestation. Yet you report this as if "Global Warming" was the cause. As I noted to you elsewhere, CO2 levels have been catastrophically higher during other periods in Earth's history, yet temps were lower. Mother Earth suggests that the entire basis of of CO2 caused global heating is flawed.

Personally, I'd rather spend money on people dying in Africa of malaria than on the farce that is global warming. And of course we could rid ourselves of that for mere pennies compared to the waste on global warming. Meanwhile, even global warming fanatics have changed their tune to Climate Change because global warming statistics don't currently measure up.

It would be interesting to know what your opinions are on global warming, with another record breaking heat year, ever-dropping crop yields, and a planet that is fundamentally different than it was even 10 years ago.

(Shockingly, I realize that 10 years ago isn't that long ago, since I joined this forum 7+ years ago.)

[skirby]

Tech Park, where should it be located? A recent tax passed by voters allows for the construction of a Tech Park. UAMS, UALR and Children's Hopsital are supporters of the park and at first wanted the park to be a short distance from each campus. Three sites were picked around 12th Street but all included removing homeowners and a lot of them objected and supposely these sites are no loner an option. Twenty some sites have been mentioned for the park and the talk still goes on.

One site I would favor would be the Lions property east of I-30, south of Heifer International. This is mostly vacant property ready to be redeveloped. This is the only site that contains certain elements the others don't. These include: being a very short distance to the airport, within two block of the River Rail which could be extended to the park, nearby hotels, the River Market and downtown LR. With apartments now under works on Main Street. The park could be reached by the River Rail, bike or a very short car trip while the other sites can only be reached by auto.

[johnnydr87]

.

[johnnydr87]

I work in the tech industry on the west coast. Personally, I think a tech park is an ill-conceived idea. Smart people look for overall culture/coolness/progressiveness; hence the fact that every tech city is a progressive city (San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boulder, Austin, etc.) Energizing the progressive and cool spots, like downtown, would be a far better use of money. I find it very odd that people who have no tech background think they can just buy a tech center from top down, when it's notoriously difficult to replicate. When you speak of the tech industry, you're speaking of people who fall in the top 1% of intellectual ability, so the question is: what makes those kinds of people happy?

Arkansas has made great strides recently in tech, and the momentum should be kept up. I am impressed with what's been accomplished over the past year or two. That said, although I'd want to, I couldn't recommend Arkansas for any serious tech company. Maybe in the future, but not now. First, it has a largely anti-intellectual, anti-science culture--which is at complete odds with science-based technological change. The fact that climate change was called a conspiracy in this thread by a wide variety of people attests to that fact: in nowhere else I've lived have I encountered such resistance over what is the most significant issue of the next several decades. Forums are one thing, but I've also encountered this skepticism from thought-leaders in Arkansas--those who are supposed to be at the forefront of ideas and science. (Fortunately, BusinessWeek gets it http://www.huffingto..._n_2056407.html

) Then there are related issues: I can't think of one National Merit scholar of the 15-25 I directly or indirectly know who stayed in Arkansas, and when you deal with the tech industry, you're essentially speaking of people who are at or near National Merit-level talent. If you can't retain those people, how are you going to attract them nationally? The bulk of tech talent comes from top universities, but there is not a computer science program in the state ranked in the top 120, and nearly all of the smartest kids I know went to out of state universities.

Society's response to climate change and our transition to a sustainable world--where we more effectively deal with the constraints of a finite planet and our role on it--is the biggest issue of our time. Sustainability is partially a technology problem. I hope that on issues of tech and sustainability Arkansas can help lead the way. At the moment, there are bright spots here and there in Fayetteville and LR, but for the most part, Arkansas is pretty far behind. Like a lot of people I know, my path has led me elsewhere.

Cheers, A-state!

[skirby]

I work in the tech industry on the west coast. Personally, I think a tech park is an ill-conceived idea. Smart people look for overall culture/coolness/progressiveness; hence the fact that every tech city is a progressive city (San Francisco/Silicon Valley, Seattle, Boulder, Austin, etc.) Energizing the progressive and cool spots, like downtown, would be a far better use of money. I find it very odd that people who have no tech background think they can just buy a tech center from top down, when it's notoriously difficult to replicate. When you speak of the tech industry, you're speaking of people who fall in the top 1% of intellectual ability, so the question is: what makes those kinds of people happy?

Arkansas has made great strides recently in tech, and the momentum should be kept up. I am impressed with what's been accomplished over the past year or two. That said, although I'd want to, I couldn't recommend Arkansas for any serious tech company. Maybe in the future, but not now. First, it has a largely anti-intellectual, anti-science culture--which is at complete odds with science-based technological change. The fact that climate change was called a conspiracy in this thread by a wide variety of people attests to that fact: in nowhere else I've lived have I encountered such resistance over what is the most significant issue of the next several decades. Forums are one thing, but I've also encountered this skepticism from thought-leaders in Arkansas--those who are supposed to be at the forefront of ideas and science. (Fortunately, BusinessWeek gets it http://www.huffingto..._n_2056407.html

) Then there are related issues: I can't think of one National Merit scholar of the 15-25 I directly or indirectly know who stayed in Arkansas, and when you deal with the tech industry, you're essentially speaking of people who are at or near National Merit-level talent. If you can't retain those people, how are you going to attract them nationally? The bulk of tech talent comes from top universities, but there is not a computer science program in the state ranked in the top 120, and nearly all of the smartest kids I know went to out of state universities.

Society's response to climate change and our transition to a sustainable world--where we more effectively deal with the constraints of a finite planet and our role on it--is the biggest issue of our time. Sustainability is partially a technology problem. I hope that on issues of tech and sustainability Arkansas can help lead the way. At the moment, there are bright spots here and there in Fayetteville and LR, but for the most part, Arkansas is pretty far behind. Like a lot of people I know, my path has led me elsewhere.

Cheers, A-state!

What an arrogant beotch you are johnny boy. I'm glad you left all us dumbasses behind here in Arkansas.

As for climate change you are still licking Al Gore's boots. No one can deny climate change but the question still to be answered is what causes it. Climate has been changing since the beginng in one way or the other. According to data released this month from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia there has been no warming for the past sixteen years. This matches the 16 year period between 1980 and 1996 which saw temperatures rise. CO2 is still rising but the temperature is not, image that.

If your cronies are so damn smart then why the hell are they living on a major fault line in the San Francisco area?

[LRU1967]

It would be interesting to know what your opinions are on global warming, with another record breaking heat year, ever-dropping crop yields, and a planet that is fundamentally different than it was even 10 years ago.

(Shockingly, I realize that 10 years ago isn't that long ago, since I joined this forum 7+ years ago.)

I have no doubt that global warming is occurring. The scientific community seems to have reached a consensus that it's real, and that man-made increases in the level of co2 in the atmosphere is a major contributor. I'm not a scientist but it makes sense to me that the burning of coal and petroleum over a long period of time must have an effect. Will the nations of the world unite and attempt to stem the tide? No, you can't turn a big ship that fast and it will take major catastrophes world wide to bring about action.

As for the tech park, I think it's an ill-conceived idea that got off to a bad start with the initial site selections. I voted for the funding tax and feel I made a mistake in doing so. The $22 million raised by the tax isn't enough to do more than acquire the land, clear it and perhaps install infrastructure. Building a structure and equipping it is apparently dependent on private funding. The whole thing seems to have been conceived with the "If You Build It They Will Come" idea from Field of Dreams. I hope I'm wrong and the thing becomes a huge success, but I'm not holding my breath.

Your negative opinions about Arkansas technology show me that you haven't spent much time here lately. Next time you're here take a trip out to UALR and observe the work going on in electronics, nano-technology and engineering. Yes, we do have a surplus of people with anti-intellectural, anti-science views. But every state has a their Luddites even your new home in California.