West Marine Jumps on it's Privates

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

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.

The fact is that government grants were very sensitive during the Bush years, while the administration famously confused its politics and its science (much as others have done here). There's strong evidence that grants were contingent on agreeing with administration dogma on climate change:

NASA scientist rips Bush on global warming - Environment- msnbc.com

so, it's understandable that there was some ambivalence about issuing strong policy statements that contradicted the Bush White House.

[camaraderie]

This report from the Royal Society on Arctic ice cover:

‘It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them, not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.’


GOOD for SAILORS eh?

Oh BTW...the source for that report....

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817, Minutes of Council, Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London. 20th November, 1817.(from) The Top of the World

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

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.

it's one vast conspiracy, i'm just too ignorant to see it.

while it's quite possible that the overwhelming number of the climate scientists have it wrong, I do not (nor do you) have the scientific background to challenge them. So, I will go with what 99% of climate scientists (and my own two eyes) tell me is true over the 1 percent who say otherwise.

[cdennyb]

I don't think there's a single person who has followed this heated thread that would think the "sea of plastic crap" out in the North Pacific is "OK". That being said, at least clean up your act...it's the least you can do... and tell your political leaders to get together and share the cost of cleaning it up. I would think an old whaling ship could be converted to a 'clean up' vessel gathering the plastic like a big snow plow and compressing it into managable bales or something and disposing of it properly or even recycling it. Yes, I know there a billion square miles of plastic floating out there but you have to start somewhere... right?

[David_Old_Jersey]

Just in case anyone was wondering, the Goat thing worked again yesterday

[Tellie]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

Just in case anyone was wondering, the Goat thing worked again yesterday

LOLOLOL

[camaraderie]

Originally Posted by cdennyb

I don't think there's a single person who has followed this heated thread that would think the "sea of plastic crap" out in the North Pacific is "OK".

I agree with the sentiment but disagree with the fact of a "sea of plastic crap" . ALL of the reports I can find on the internet of this fact...and there are hundreds...trace back to ONE source. The source is an environmentalist group that directly benefits from collecting funds to research and do something about this plastic soup. I am not denying that the soup exists...just wondering why after several years of reporting this sea of plastic the size of Texas (as reported by them) has not been noticed or commented upon or analyzed by any independent source. Color me skeptical on this one too! .... but not at all skeptical that plastic in our oceans is bad or that millions of tons of it are floating around in our oceans and up on our shores.

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by wsnock

Originally from anotherT34C:





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.

I suppose you can try and make me a hitleresque straw man. However, the fact is, when parents tell their children incorrect things (black people are inferior, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution doesn't happen, global warming is a myth, etc...) the schools are there to teach them what is correct. I'm sure the parents don't like this. Too bad.

[slomotion]

Originally Posted by captmick39

WM did a takeover of BoatUS's retail locations (& the rest of the .org) at the same time.

According to the BoatUS web site West Marine acquired only the product division:

"2003- West marine acquired BoatUS product Division and agreed to sell BoatUS Membership in all 400 of its stores. West Marine added 62 stores to its chain while BoatUS Membership grew to over 638,000 in 2005, including over 100,000 members brought in by the West Marine and BoatUS stores."

According to the West Marine web site:

"In early 2003, West Marine marked another historic milestone in the boating industry by acquiring the retail and catalog divisions of long-time competitor BoatU.S."

BoatUS claims to be a non-stock association run by officers elected by a board of directors with advice from a national advisory counsil. I see no mention of West Marine in its annual report. One of the 17 members of the national advisory council is: Chuck Hawley, Vice President of Product Information, West Marine. He is not an officer or director:

BoatUS Membership Contact Us

BoatUS further claims to be affilliated with Boat America Corporation and BoatUS Foundation for Boating Safety and Clean Water.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by camaraderie

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...

Originally Posted by GordMay

...
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 ...”

As indicated in the post you quoted (#111), in 2008 the APS reaffirmed the 2007 statement, and scolded on-line reports suggesting otherwise.
There' no excuse for not knowing where APS came out, or what their opinion is. They are, and always have been very clear.

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

APS Press Releases through July 21, 2009
➥ Press Releases

No further updates, and no later re-review indicated.


July 22, 2008

APS Reaffirms Position on Climate Change

American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

WASHINGTON, DC (July 22, 2008) — American Physical Society (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement:

"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.

“Global warming and energy use have been on the minds of many Americans for quite some time. Recognizing the importance of these issues, the governing body of the American Physical Society announced its position on Climate Change on November 18, 2007. The Society’s position has not changed, and APS remains engaged in this issue that has considerable international consequences.

“APS is reaffirming its policy on global warming because an article at odds with the official APS position recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. This newsletter is not a scientific journal of the APS, and it is not peer reviewed.

“Online reports erroneously implied an APS policy change. These reports did not include the disclaimer, ‘Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum,’ which was attached to the newsletter article.”

[Endojoe]

A few more interesting facts,

That will fan the flames.


We'll all believe what we want to believe anyways, a discussion like this is strikingly similar to a debate about religion....there's some grand philosophy in it somewhere, whether you want to see it or not.

[gonesail]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Although you might not want to acknowledge it but most of the real climate experts are in government already. More to the point, this isn't about the naturally recurring climate cycle - it's about how carbon emissions have altered it adversely, all of which is a result of emissions, not naturally occurring events.

government climate experts? well maybe on the payroll as long as they agree with al gore. the theory on carbon dioxide emissions is just that .. and ocean acidification is an estimate about what might happen in the future.

[Tellie]

Quote:
Originally Posted by wsnock
Originally from anotherT34C:





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.

Originally Posted by anotherT34C

I suppose you can try and make me a hitleresque straw man. However, the fact is, when parents tell their children incorrect things (black people are inferior, the earth is 6000 years old, evolution doesn't happen, global warming is a myth, etc...) the schools are there to teach them what is correct. I'm sure the parents don't like this. Too bad.

Man that IS scary.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Endojoe

A few more interesting facts,

That will fan the flames.


We'll all believe what we want to believe anyways, a discussion like this is strikingly similar to a debate about religion....there's some grand philosophy in it somewhere, whether you want to see it or not.

yes, well of course Danielle Steel is also entitled to her opinion on climate change. So, what does it prove?

and it is only like a religion in this respect: those who have little or no evidence rely on dogma and refuse to entertain facts.

"What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way." – Bertrand Russell (an atheist, btw)

[anotherT34C]

Originally Posted by Tellie

Man that IS scary.

Yes... I'm after your children muhahahahaaaa!

Of course, you can always not send them to college. See how that works out for them.