West Marine Jumps on it's Privates

[vera libertas]

Originally from anotherT34C:

We'll just have to work on their kids when they're in school, and wait for the crazies to die off.

Cam, I've discussed this subject with you in the past, and I'm sorry, but I don't consider you teachable.

These are simply some of the most frightening statements I've heard, and I think give a clear insight into the depth of the agenda that is in this movement. Though the basic thought of reducing our carbon footprint et all is a genuinely good one, the thought of re-education is scary.

I can remember a few other times in history when people were re-educated as well.

[sneuman]

Yes, climate change has been going since the dawn of time and has natural causes. Fire has also been around since the dawn of time and also has natural causes,

However, if fire erupts inside your house after the kids have been playing with matches, we can conclude two things:

a) The fire was probably NOT the result of a natural cause
b) We have a strong motivation to put it out.

I repeat (for the benefit of Bobsadler), that the AMS uses the terms "well documented" and "well established" in reference to climate change (and the position was updated as recently as 20 July 2009). Pauchari's is a minority opinion. He's entitled to it, but his position is not representative of others in the field.

Remember, highly intelligent men (and women) can hold daffy opinions. Francis Collins, who helped decode the human genome, is a Creationist. Among his peers, he is practically alone in that view. Sir Issac Newton spent decades experimenting with alchemy and the occult that got him nowhere.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by wsnock

I can remember a few other times in history when people were re-educated as well.

The ultimate defense of a losing argument is to compare the opponent's position to Hitler's. PLEASE.

[vera libertas]

Sneuman:

PLEASE explain how bringing up history is the ultimate defense of a losing argument. Your bringing up Hitler is certainly an extreme example of re-education and does not have much validity in this argument. I was using the idea of re-education to merely bring up the point that the idea of taking someones children and re-educating them is absolutely ridiculous, and quite frankly very wrong.

Re-education has been used throughout history, primarily in religious cults such as The Way International et all.

Also please look at my posts and you will notice I am not really arguing for or against Man Made Global Warming.

[svHyLyte]

Well--this thread has certainly become a nice kettle of fish as my sainted grandmother would say; but, to me, it seems to be an Ouroboros (Gordo--that's a dragon that eats its own tail.)

I don't think anyone disputes the notion that the seas--to say nothing of the land--have deteriorated and are now really showing the effects. And, like it or not, that is, to a large extent, an anthropogenic phenomena--we can see it, every day, every where. Humans have been using the seas as a garbage dump since the dawn of man and that has accelerated hugely in the last 100 years. It can be stopped--in fact must be stopped but that will require sacrifice and those that are having the greatest impact, at the present anyway, are the least willing to make such sacrifices--individually or societally. In fact, however, there is little doubt that if humans don't take matters into their own hands, nature will resolve the issue on its own terms.

China, India and many third world countries argue that they are just now emerging into the modern era and that they deserve the right to do so in whatever fashion necessary, just as the first world countries did in their own times. While there is a certain logic to that argument, there is also the fact that by their shear size; and, the efficiency of the means of their evolution, their impacts will far surpass the effects of the evolution of the current first world countries by many orders of magnitude. When Henry Hudson arrived on the scene, the island of Manhatten was a dense woodland described as "covered with trees, grass and flowers, and the air as filled with delightful fragrance". It took 400 years to reduce that woodland to the Manhatten of today. In the Amazon, an area the size of Manhatten is cleared every 63 hours on average. At that rate, world wide, humanity is certain to endure catastrophy and sooner rather than later.

I don't believe that anyone that posts on this forum dismisses the idea that "environmentalism" is a necessity. I do believe, however, that at least some of us are justifiably outraged by those that pull the Fire Alarm with one hand while reaching out to collect a fee as each party exits the building with the other; and, yet adds fuel to the fire--e.g. old Al Gore jetting around the country in a Gulfstream emitting 8,785 pounds of carbon dioxide per hour compared with the 89 pounds per passenger of a commercial airliner; and all the while demanding that industries be forced to buy "Carbon Offsets" from "Envronmental Brokerage Houses" of which he happens to chair one of the largest! It is no wonder his net worth has increased 5000 percent since he began his environemental campaign. It is an inconvenient truth that Gore is in the vanguard of a class that similtaneousy enobles itself with grandious perscriptions for societys ills while declining the medicants.

The foregoing not withstanding, there is nothing to be gained by people here attacking one another; or permitting the forum to become an Ouroboros. There just ain't no cheese down that hole. Accordingly, it might be wise to simply terminate this discouse...

FWIW...

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Dr. Stuart Jordan, science policy advisor to the CFI Office of Public Policy and retired emeritus senior staff scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center:

"As a result of our assessment, [Sen. James] Inhofe and other lawmakers using this report to block proposed legislation to address the harmful effects of climate change must face an inconvenient truth: while there are indeed some well respected scientists on the list, the vast majority are neither climate scientists, nor have they published in fields that bear directly on climate science."

Ummm...may I suggest that your quote attacking Inhofe's Climate Reports' credibility is :
1. Not relevant since my quote has NOTHING to do with Inhofe's report. It is a letter from a group of Physicists to the American Physical Society's Journal editors. That is the equivilent of debunking the statement "Chevy's are good cars"....with a quote that claims Ford's are not.

2. Very convenient. "Warmers" just love to attack the people instead of the science...and who better to attack Inhofe than the biggest "warmers" on the planet...the folks over at Goddard headed by James Hansen who was recently arrested in Britain for protesting the construction of a coal plant...and recently "Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature"... Putting Goddard in charge of evaluating Inhofe's Climate Repoort is like putting sheep in the Jury Box for the wolf's trial.

3. Oh yeah...the reason many of the scientists are not published in climate science journals is because you don't get grant money to prove warming is not happening. If you want to get along...you go along. The big money awaits. Tenure awaits. Don't buck the system.
**********

HyLyte...For the record...I am fully supportive of taking necessary steps to combat TRUE pollution and agree with you that man CAN and DOES have very bad effects on our environment. Air pollution, hazardous wastes, plastic trash etc. are all REAL problems that deserve our time, attention and $$. One of MY concerns about the whole CO2/Warming issue is that it diverts massive funds from TRUE problems and simply wastes them AND as it becomes more and more evident that warming is bunk, the credibility of ALL scientists who warn the public about real dangers will be severely impacted.

[fstbttms]

Originally Posted by sneuman

Why do global warming deniers insist on making the issue about Al Gore?

It's typical right-wing stratagy. They don't have any real facts to back up their assertions so they call up some bogeyman to drive their ignorant, sheep-like base towards the position they want them to have. They use Al Gore in much the same way they used Saddam Hussein to foment support for their war in Iraq. Just the mention of the name is enough to whip the morons into a frenzy.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

3. Oh yeah...the reason many of the scientists are not published in climate science journals is because you don't get grant money to prove warming is not happening. If you want to get along...you go along. The big money awaits. Tenure awaits. Don't buck the system.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

And THAT, boys and girls, is why I'm a Real Estate Appraiser today, and NOT a practicing scientist! The intolerance in acedemia, is beyond belief.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

Ummm...may I suggest that your quote attacking Inhofe's Climate Reports' credibility is :
1. Not relevant since my quote has NOTHING to do with Inhofe's report. It is a letter from a group of Physicists to the American Physical Society's Journal editors. That is the equivilent of debunking the statement "Chevy's are good cars"....with a quote that claims Ford's are not.

2. Very convenient. "Warmers" just love to attack the people instead of the science...and who better to attack Inhofe than the biggest "warmers" on the planet...the folks over at Goddard headed by James Hansen who was recently arrested in Britain for protesting the construction of a coal plant...and recently "Hansen has called for putting fossil fuel company executives, including the CEOs of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal, on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature"... Putting Goddard in charge of evaluating Inhofe's Climate Repoort is like putting sheep in the Jury Box for the wolf's trial.

3. Oh yeah...the reason many of the scientists are not published in climate science journals is because you don't get grant money to prove warming is not happening. If you want to get along...you go along. The big money awaits. Tenure awaits. Don't buck the system.

My point was that even a government report seeking to discredit global warming had to be "cooked" to give it any credibility.

The reason scientists don't get grants to study your point of view is the same reason so-called "intelligent design" advocates don't get grants. Science is peer-reviewed and other scientists are pretty good at seeing through this sort of nonsense.

[bstreep]

Originally Posted by sneuman

be sure to note a little thing called continental drift. Antarctica was once equitorial, hence the palm trees.

Whoa! Back up the bus!

Continental drift vs. age of Antarctic ice. You have your zeros in the wrong place. Antarctica broke off 100 MILLION years ago. The ice cores are only 1000s of years old...

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by GordMay

And here's the statement APS has made:

Excerpted from the APS* Statement on Climate Change:

“... The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now ...”

Goto ➥ Climate Change

APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change:

"... Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring ...
... Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change ...”

Goto ➥ July 22, 2008 - APS Reaffirms Climate Change Position

* APS: The American Physical Society is the leading professional organization of physicists, representing over 47,000 physicists in academia and industry in the United States and internationally.

Quite correct Gord...that is why the letter was written...these scientists are requesting the APS change its' policy to their statement. Latest word in a letter by six of the signers in Nature magazine is that....
"On 1 May 2009, the APS Council decided to review its current statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. We applaud this decision. It is the first such reappraisal by a major scientific professional society that we are aware of, and we hope it will lead to meaningful change that reflects a more balanced view of climate-change issues."

The statement you linked to is simply the existing statement from 2007. I don't know if the subcomittee has reported out yet but in the meantime the 2007 statement certainly represents the position of the Society even if it does not speak for all members.
I'm not sure where the APS itself will end up. My point was that some very respected physicists at some of the top institutions in the world, disagree with the notion that there is anything to be concerned about that at this point requires alarmism or action. Their simple point is we have no ability to predict with any degree of accuracy and find no confirmation in the data (rather than the models) that warming is a huge issue that deserves a massive re-allocation of resources and our way of life.

[texwards]

Originally Posted by captmick39

Then again, where were YOUR SHOES made?

-China

My lifestyle is very dependent of fossil fuels (as are most of ours) - it's the easiest, cheapest, most accepted way to live...which is exactly the problem.

-insert witty sarcasm to belittle those who disagree with me here-

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by bstreep

Whoa! Back up the bus!

Continental drift vs. age of Antarctic ice. You have your zeros in the wrong place. Antarctica broke off 100 MILLION years ago. The ice cores are only 1000s of years old...

You can put the bus back in forward, it was 120 MILLION years ago:

He is looking for evidence that Antarctica was an interstate of sorts for animals moving from South America to Australia 120 million years ago, before Antarctica's temperature dropped and changed the environment from forests to freezing.
Researchers think Antarctica served as animals' interstate » Knoxville News Sentinel

[Bash]

Originally Posted by bstreep

The intolerance in acedemia, is beyond belief.

It's not intolerance, it's competition, and it's fierce. Only the best and the brightest get to stick around, at least in the better universities. You learn quickly that it's going to take more than seven or eight years of grad school to snag a permanent position. For most it involves an additional five or so years of intense research and publication, all the while developing new courses to teach and fulfilling service requirements. It's back-to-back eighty hour weeks, year after year. When you're not teaching, grading papers or holding office hours, you're either conducting research or writing about it. Not everyone makes it, of course, and a great many seek careers outside the academy. It's a system designed to promote excellence, and the only thing not tolerated is the lack thereof.

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by sneuman

My point was that even a government report seeking to discredit global warming had to be "cooked" to give it any credibility.

You mean "cooked" as in the IPCC report? You mean "cooked" as in the GISS temperature record? You mean "cooked" as in the Mann "hockey stick"?
You mean "cooked" as in "An Inconvenient Truth"? You mean cooked as in the UK Met office that won't release its' data files so we can all see how they've been "adjusted"?
Right.