Home News United States issues travel warning for Japan News United States issues travel warning for Japan By Reuters - March 13, 2011 Share on Facebook Tweet on Twitter WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The State Department urged American citizens on Sunday to avoid going to Japan because of the powerful earthquake that damaged the Fukushima nuclear power reactors. Read the full story. Share this:FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintGoogle Related RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR FUBAR Trump puts ‘America First’ over alliances FUBAR Trump says firing Mueller not under consideration FUBAR Return of overseas profits: Another Trump fantasy 18 COMMENTS Probably zero to a minus zero chance Woody… ; ) Carl Nemo **== What are the chances of someone that didn’t notice the news of the Japanese tragedy actually seeing the US State Dept. warning not to go there? As if anybody is of a mind to go there… Tsunami. Nuclear meltdown. Earthquakes. I’d take my chances in Japan over Mexico. Issue a travel warning for them. Gee thanks Washington. Couldn’t have figured that one out on our own. Ha Griff. : ) Yeah we need our dysfunctional ‘nanny state’ government to warn us to stay way from what seems to be the planet’s butt crack for a time. As I watch this incredible tragedy unfold, one realizes that modern civilization is ever so fragile due to its complexity. Watching thousands of cars and other vehicles bob like corks as they move along with the waters along with the salty sea washing across beautifully groomed fields rendering them useless, the loss of power to 2.5 million people indefinitely although their talking head leaders promised restoration within two weeks leaves one hushed, not including nuclear reactor meltdowns etc. Somehow I sense our nation is headed for a geological butt whipping soon. I’m not wishing for such, but it may the only thing that will rein in the militaristic madness that seems to reign supreme within the confines of our nation’s Capitol, now seemingly gone mad. There’s been too many record strength earthquakes over 8.0 within the past five years or so. Seemingly there’s some major adjustments occurring within the earth’s mantle; ie., entire plates shifting as they move about. Will it be the West Coast, the Midwest or even the East Coast, two of which represent major plate contact zones? I’m supplying a comprehensive link showing how the earth looked in the past and will in the future as a functon of plate tectonics. Click on “Earth History” , then move through ages watching the changing arrangement of the continents. There’s also interesting data to be had for those that are interested. This is one of my favorites that I keep on my desktop. http://www.scotese.com/ …”PaleoMap Project” Carl Nemo **== Ha. Not that most Americans can afford a trip to the grocery store, much less an overseas jaunt to a devastated Japan. It seems that we are in a phase of increased geologic activity. I haven’t looked into it very much, but it seems that sunspot activity and also the moon may have some thing to do with it. Now if only they can figure out a way to tax moon phases and sunspot activity, surely they can solve this for us too. Global Geographic Change? Maybe they’ll blame it on too many people walking due to high fuel prices, too many people stomping around. Get ready for new taxes on footwear. We have to fight this. I heard from a British official and a bunch of tweeters that it’s because of global warming. Maybe we could fix it all with carbon tacks and Tom Delay? Yeah me too. What a coincidence. By the way, feel free to point me toward any real evidence that climate change is caused by humans, or any evidence that taxing, trading and regulating a trace gas that makes up a minute percentage of the atmosphere will do any thing to reverse a natural climate cycle that has already reversed itself. Please, logtroll, show this fool how to be a mindless, true believer. I haven’t found religion yet. Pretty please? You’re on! As soon as I get a spare handful of minutes I will mount a valient search of all the Twitter dumpsters and BS blogs on the Web and give you such a mountain of trash to sort and refute that you shall never have another idle nor unproductive moment again in your life. (Oh, wait… you are already doing that). As for gas regulation, we are out of luck there… you know, free speech and all. However, a recent study by the Dally Shew proves that most of the gas can be traced to right-wing blowhards who are getting filthy rich from feeding “smart pills” to all the Nuh-Uh true believers. The study was triple-blind and backed up by a poll of most Americans who eat more than four Twinkies a day. BTW; How do you type with your head in the sand? Ha. We all know what ad-hominem arguments mean, logtroll. I won’t bother to rehash it for you. And you’re so vastly knowledgeable on both my reading on the subject and my political views that you would be so ignorant as to call me a right-wing blowhard. I’m some what disheartened by that. But I will admit, at least your moronic faith and the vigor in which you defend it (not with any real argument, by the way) is entertaining. So is your blind faith based upon the “science” from the sixties and seventies warning us of our impending ice age? The same scientists that warned us that most of North America would be covered in a hundred feet of ice by the year 2000? Or is it based on the science that warned us that our children would never again know what snow would look like? Or the same scientists who admit in their own writings that they couldn’t find any link between CO2 and global warming, or that they didn’t factor in the bright glowing orb in the sky which produces heat and radiation in their models? Or is it those same scientists who abandoned the scientific method entirely and molded the “science” to fit the desired conclusion, not out of any real desire to find the answers but to secure more funding? The AGW theory has been so shot full of holes that I find it amazing that some one as apparently bright and articulate as yourself would still believe in such nonsense. And to continually use one link to an article as the sole basis of your “argument” and the apparent tenacity with which you attack me for it only makes you look like the fool. At least to some one that actually has the capacity to think independently. I’m impressed by your command of the “ad hominem”, bravo! A few slight corrections; I wasn’t referring to you as a right-wing blowhard, that was about the “personalities” who amass their treasure through working the peoples into a topping for lemon desserts. I think that you are much more like some of my more crazy libertarian friends who are really smart but lack somewhat in the art of perspective balancing. What generally baits me about some of your posts is exactly what you accuse me of practicing – the creation of a Straw Man to attack. In the case of this string, it was that you chose a small set of comments from a few fringe wingnuts and presented them to us as though all climate change “religionists” believe that Japan’s earthquake was caused by global warming. I found that to be disingenuous and worthy of a poke. As for my beliefs on the subject of climate change, I am still open to the possibilities, given that it is a very complex set of issues and not likely to be confidently understood or predicted anytime soon. It would appear that you have settled on a “side” to come down on (CO2 is insignificant, it’s a “natural” cycle, etc) and you feel spurred to defend your religion by challenging others to prove you wrong. In the process you put words in my mouth about what I (and my supposed fellow true believers) believe. We all know what ad hominem means, don’t we? Here are a few tidbits of what I believe that form the basis for what I think should be done in relation to the management of CO2 in the atmosphere (I give you permission to attack these things as my beliefs, but you have to promise not to stuff straw inside my shirt): I don’t think that burning vast amounts of formerly buried carbon fuels is a good idea; I don’t think that the speed and convenience fascinated culture that we have created is a good idea; I don’t think that recklessly wasting resources for shallow entertainment is a good idea; I don’t think that allowing multinational energy corporations to have all the money and power on the planet is a good idea; I don’t think that those corporations should be allowed to own the political system; I don’t think we are going to enjoy life when the chickens come home to roost. As for climate change, my religious views can be summed up this way; if God had wanted us to burn all that coal, oil, and gas, then why did He try so hard to hide it from us deep underground? Hi logtroll and griff, I thought I’d wade in on this one. If you consult the supplied Scotese link which illustrates plate tectonics through the ages it also discusses earth’s climatology. The earth in general at this time is classed as a “cold period” in geologic history and we are moving towards a warmer “hothouse” environment naturally as function of plate tectonics and ocean flows. Truly hot eras were the Jurassic and the Cambrian periods. So granted our emissions are adding CO2, but won’t make a fly’s fart difference in a hurricane. The supplied graph along with the ability to see what the temperatures were at various period through ages should clear up this issue. Granted the emissions don’t help, but regardless of what we do, we’re headed for a warm to hot period, but will still experience colder nesting on our way to a hot earth. From the 10th to 14th century the Northern hemisphere experienced the “Medieval Warm Period” later to move into what was known as the “The Little Ice Age”. So even within the greater earth based cycles there’s smaller nestings of warm and cold periods too. It’s not like a switch where its either on or off, but a cyclical one that takes ages to move through its cycles. The phenomenon is also very dependent on the arrangement of the continents which affect ocean currents that have a major impact of climatology. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm There’s a vertically displayed graph on the lower part of the the page showing the cyclical climate change through the greater ages of the earth. In just 350 million years our oceans will begin to boil off into space with most of the planet too hot for any creatures we know today. Why so, because the sun is moving into it’s expansive phase towards becoming a “Red Giant”, then to eventually collapse vs. a nova event to that of a white dwarf at about the ten billion year mark. Most of earth’s animal and plant life have already enjoyed their “sweet spot’ in existence. Carl Nemo **== Re: Last paragraph “collapse vs. a nova…” should read: “collapse via a nova…” My apologies. Carl Nemo **== Lack of perspective balancing? I used to believe that global warming was real, although not an issue that I really got excited over. Then I turned off the television and learned to read. My initial comment was just to illustrate the idiocy by which the average mindless neer-do-well tends to jump to such moronic conclusions about some thing they have little or no knowledge about other than watching an Al Gore documentary. There is no straw man, it was just a comment. Some thing I do rather frequently. There is no valid scientific eveidence that shows CO2 has an impact on climate, therefore any scheme to manage or trade credits or tax the people for it is baseless. The only people poised to profit from these schemes are the same people perpetrating the lie – the scientists, the corporations, and the politicians. The only viable alternative to burning “fossil” fuels for energy at this moment is nuclear. Wind and solar are merely feel good supplements. If nuclear energy is safe and effective enough to power our naval vessels, then it surely is safe enough to power our cities. And it is clean. What particularly annoys me is the notion that the government should be in the business of dictating what form of energy we should employ and that the taxpayer should subsidize or fund these projects. Not only do we have to pay for the end product and pay taxes on its consumption, but we have to pay for its development while the profits go straight to the corporations. What ever happened to businesses assuming the risk for their ventures? I recently posted a link illustrating China’s nuclear and clean-burning coal power plants as oppsoed to the U.S. They are at the forefront of these technologies while we Americans haven’t built a new clean-burning plant or nuclear facility in decades. Most of the opposition to these endeavors stem from environmentalist lawsuits and regulatory burden. I don’t think its a good idea either, but its all we have right now. Furthermore, government favoritism and corporate lobbying have stifled any free market development of alternative solutions. The entrenched status quo is more than happy to keep any real alternatives locked away to protect their profits and monopoly. The “alternatives” advocated by the average greenie are nothing more than distractions aimed at keeping us arguing over “solutions” that are not viable. Take, for instance, electric vehicles. Where would the electricity come from to power these vehicles? That’s right – mostly from coal-burning power plants. I won’t mention the ability of our current infrastructure to handle such an increased load. That’s the kind of ridiculous solution these people advocate. As far as corporate ownership of the government and power companies, I couldn’t agree more. I could say the same about any thing else we need as a civilization. But its these same corporations that have a vested interest in keeping these false alternatives in play. And its the mindless belief in a monumentally flawed and baseless propaganda campaign that keeps our hands tied in finding real long term solutions to our energy needs. As for God? Well, He shouldn’t have given us brains then. In case you missed it, some excerpts from the “climategate” emails… “I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story. Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those names!” “It would also be very useful if progressive business groups would express their horror at the new economic opportunities which will be foregone if Kyoto is a flop.” “Attachment 4 shows the original Sydney data overlaid against the 11-year periodicity. It would appear that the solar cycle does indeed affect temperature.” “For climatologists, the search for an irrefutable “sign” of anthropogenic warming has assumed an almost Biblical intensity.” “Nor can they yet mimic the strength of the largest year-on-year variability in the natural system, the El Nino oscillation in the Pacific Ocean, which has a global impact on climate.” Nonetheless, the findings should serve as a warning, Barnett says, that “the current models cannot be used in rigorous tests for anthropogenic signals in the real world”. If they are they “might lead us to believe that an anthropogenic signal had been found when, in fact, that may not be the case.” Barnett knows how easily this can happen. Can I get Janet to come over and show me where the zipper is on these damn Depends ?….HUH ? Comments are closed.