Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: weaselsan on June 14, 2006, 09:20:36 AM
-
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Link (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)
-
Lie often enough, loud enough, in chorus with other lies..
(why lookit that... they harmonize!)
wrap it all up in a power point demonstration..
...wallah!
itsa movie! starring Al Gore the potato, and fer 20 bucks, he'll scare the hell outta the liberal soccer moms!
I think Michael Moore will sue for production plagerisim.
-
"Kevin Hennessy from CSRO Division of Atmospheric Research in Aspendale, Victoria who’s preparing a response for the newspapers. He says, “Bob Carter didn’t mention the greater body of evidence for global warming documented by the IPCC, paid little attention to flaws identified in the papers by Soon, Baliunas, McIntyre and McKitrick, and failed to alert us of the latest research by Mann and Jones in 2003, which confirms that the 20th Century warming in the Northern Hemisphere is greater than at any time in the past 1800 years.” That’s Kevin Hennessy from CSIRO."
It's also helpful to know that Exxon is secretly paying him for those soundbites:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
-
Nah I think moore probably helped to write the stuff for them.
-
So this Bob Carter guy is on exxon's payroll?
If that's the case, maybe Hangtime was right, just not in the way he thought.
It was what, about 20 years ago when Bush senior stood in front of Boston harbor and made it a political issue?
-
IT'S MANBEARPIG, I'M THUPER THEREAL!!!
-
global warming is good , i don't like being cold.
-
My sister is still in highschool. She is taking AP Environmental Science next year. Her teacher mandated that over the summer, the students watched "An Inconvenient Truth."
It makes me wish it was me who was going through that school still. I'd stir up so much ****...
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
IT'S MANBEARPIG, I'M THUPER THEREAL!!!
LOL :aok
-
Weaselsan, you must realize that it is waste of time to argue with religious zealots. They will not listen to anything that deviates from their religious dogma or contradicts their High Priests of Environmental Doom.
Environmentalism is the new urban religion and the Global Socialist Government is their promised land. Global Warming is their "Book of Revelation", their "Judgement Day" if you will.
"Repent, or we shall all surely die!"
Lastly, always remember this. No matter what tragedies Liberal/Leftist policies produce it is never, ever their fault.
===========more facts you don't want to hear=============
The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'
Greenhouse, global warming - and some facts
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html
Fanatics, heretics and the truth about global warming
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0506/0506fanhergw.htm
===============================================
Of course you are more than welcome to "shoot the messenger" as that is standard practice for the zealot when faced with an "unbeliever".
Just for the record. No I'm not being paid by Exxon Mobile, I'm not an activist for the republican party, in fact I don't even work for a US corporation. (I work for a UK corp.)
But before you get all wired up, if you criticize me to much I'll bring out a tried and true liberal tactic. I'll run to the media and claim I'm receiving death threats.
;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Lie often enough, loud enough, in chorus with other lies..
(why lookit that... they harmonize!)
wrap it all up in a power point demonstration..
(snip)........
Um....that describes both major political parties in both Houses of Congress as well as the current Executive Branch, within the U.S.
Nothing but soundbites these days, presented in a propoganda form that Goebbels would be proud of.
A pox on both their houses.
-
Yeah, burning hyrdocarbons at full blast for 100 years does nothing to the environment.
-
"Yeah, burning hyrdocarbons at full blast for 100 years does nothing to the environment."
I'd wager the effect is far less than volcanic activity over a few million years. 100 years is virtually nothing on a geologic scale.
We humans have an amazing ability to overestimate our own importance.
J_A_B
-
LOL..... Turns out this guy is a paid shill for Exxon. What do you think he's going to say?
It aint so suprising that Exxon has to contract out for this kind of thing - all of Exxon's regular payroll shills are too busy writing policy papers for the Bush admin.
By all means, enlighten us when you get the opportunity to hear from bonafide scientists who don't happen to also be getting paid by either the government or the oil companies.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by rpm
Yeah, burning hyrdocarbons at full blast for 100 years does nothing to the environment.
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson is a shill for Exxon ? Link?
How about.....
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
An Exxon shill?
It's Al Gore throwing a tantrum....If I can't be President, your all gonna die!!!
-
paid politicans humping trees is no way to insure the future of humanity.
-
Of course there are gonna be guys that are sceptical of global warming who aren't getting a paycheck from Exxon.
Maybe you shoulda looked to these Canadian and Finnish scientists in the first place. :)
But then, at least to my knowledge, they didn't write '"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists,' attacking Gore's film... and... it woulda made your post a heck of a lot less interesting.... because there's already a massive thread here about global warming.
In otherwords (and it's okay, you can admit it), your thread was simply an attack on Gore irrespective of the actual science surounding his film, made obvious by the fact that you leapfrog off of an article attacking the film, whose author is a paid oil co. shill.
If you're interested in the science alone, why the new thread?
-
I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.
the whiney petulant potato.
Of course, he's a bit of a Bore...
but, since he's democrat;
and they can't figure this from that..
what they think ain't worth all that much, anymore.
-
Al Gore is not believable to me, and a lot of other people see it the same as I do. He is simply too convenient in his own skin. No vulnerability. A wax figure if you will.....a top notch politician? yes. Not to be trusted any further than the reach of a full bladder? absolutely.
I watched him on Larry King the other night. The man is souless, heartless, clueless, as to what people in the real world do, think and believe in.
He is the last person on earth I would trust to provide scientific data on any critical matter.
Just my opinion....lots of people adore the guy.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.
As long as we know what this thread is about...
Recess ends in 15 minutes, and for heaven's sake Trevor, stop pulling Kate's hair!
In the meantime, have at it.
-
The common misconception these days is that most scientists aren't politicians.
They are. They need money and they need a way to get it.
1) Create a crisis
2) Ask for funding to solve crisis problem
Some interesting statistics would be how much money, in the U.S., is being given in grant for research on global warming.
Motivation is a key to understanding pseudoscience.
-
I totally agree, Deja....
Although one could just as easily flip your example on its head:
1) Recognize crisis
2) Get funded for "debunking" crisis
Either way, your point is still valid.
I've personally never seen quite this level of the corporations' involvement in creating governmental policy, writing the government's position papers, the paid media advocating, or such direct involvement in editing the work product of the various agencies as what's going on now, but I can only remember 20 or so years back.
Yeah, motivation is indeed the key.
The thing is.... I don't get it. Why is the environment so divided right down the party line?
I'll make a (presumptuous) statement from the Democratic point of view, then pose a question to you/those on the other side of the divide.
Democrats are open to the possibility that mankind is indeed leaving a measurable and precarious footprint on this earth. They base that on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. On the other hand, Democrats don't want to see everyone revert to hunter/gatherers, living in huts, and propelling ourselves by foot or by horse.
What's the Republican's point of view?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'm comfortable with just bashing Gore.
the whiney petulant potato.
Of course, he's a bit of a Bore...
but, since he's democrat;
and they can't figure this from that..
what they think ain't worth all that much, anymore.
You did not follow the rules for a limerick.
Its two - two - one, and you have a three - two - one thing going.
There was an old hermit named Dave
Who kept a dead potato in his cave
(see that's two)
Though she's covered with lice
She's still somewhat nice
(see, two again)
And think of the money he's saved
(The punchline is one)
see 2-2-1
-
Originally posted by Nash
What's the Republican's point of view?
State of Fear by Michael Crichton pretty much sums it up.
-
Mmmm.... Hows about you sum up Crichton who sums up the Republican point of view?
-
Crichton (http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/)
But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power."
-
Originally posted by Nash
I totally agree, Deja....
Although one could just as easily flip your example on its head:
1) Recognize crisis
2) Get funded for "debunking" crisis
Either way, your point is still valid.
I've personally never seen quite this level of the corporations' involvement in creating governmental policy, writing the government's position papers, the paid media advocating, or such direct involvement in editing the work product of the various agencies as what's going on now, but I can only remember 20 or so years back.
Yeah, motivation is indeed the key.
The thing is.... I don't get it. Why is the environment so divided right down the party line?
I'll make a (presumptuous) statement from the Democratic point of view, then pose a question to you/those on the other side of the divide.
Democrats are open to the possibility that mankind is indeed leaving a measurable and precarious footprint on this earth. They base that on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community. On the other hand, Democrats don't want to see everyone revert to hunter/gatherers, living in huts, and propelling ourselves by foot or by horse.
What's the Republican's point of view?
The Dems like to portray Reps as "big oil, wealthy, ruthless, religeous fanatics....etc..."
They like to portray themselves as "for the people, trees, fargs, the little guy ......etc"
The only devide I see on the environment is the one the tree huggin liberal dimwits are trying to create. There is no issue.
Remember when Ronald Reagen let the forests burn? The libs went nutz. Turns out that mother nature really does know how to manage itself......she's done the job for all of time, afterall.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Mmmm.... Hows about you sum up Crichton who sums up the Republican point of view?
(http://fayez.com/movies/vinny2.jpg)
Everything that guy just said is bull****... Thank you.[/B]
That's it in a nutshell.
Why don't you just read the book?
-
Is this thread going to be quotes of Vincent LaGuardia Gambini too?
-
You got a problem widdat?
-
Absolutely, Holden.
Who is most guilty of that? (we're going to disagree)
So lets nevermind that for a second. Lets instead break it down.
The Democrats acknowledge an impact, based on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and aim to mitigate the impact, whilst not reducing everyone to something even close to cavemen.
Nothing freaky. Just.... responsible stewardship. Something resembling conservatism.
So again, what's the Conservatives' take?
-
This needs to be hashed out in the journals, not in the political arena. And no one on this board has the expertise to make the call one way or the other.
-
Let me tell you a little story from work, Nash, that I think will help explain why things are so divided right now.
We have storm drains in the middle of our campus. These drains are closely monitored by the DEQ for any kind of chemicals. Any chemical hits those drains and a serious fine is levied against us. We also have alot of structures on our site that birds like to nest in. Birds are commonly reffered to as "crap makers" and are glad to show their tallent on any sidewalk available. We have sidewalks and walls litterally coated with bird crap. We can't wash it off because that will then go down the drain and get into the water table and we'll get fined for it. We'll get find for washing off bird crap.
I look at what restrictions we have and what we have to tolerate on a corperate level and then I go into a home depot and look at the paint thinner/paint stripper section and understand the view of republicans much better. The restrictions we put on corperations greatly outweigh any restrictions put on private citizens. I've only seen one community where there was any kind of parity (Boise, Idaho where they banned burning wood in a woodstove to prevent smog during inversions).
The chemicals going into the Willamette river right now are predominantly contributed by homehowners in both raw sewage and chemical use/disposal (detergents, chemicals, fuel, draino, whatever). But we still choose to believe that big buisness is responsible for all of our polution.
The republicans want less panic because that costs big buisness money and it's not healthy for the economy. Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government. Two sides of the fence are created.
I'm for big buisness being kept in check because I know that the only reason our waste water at work is so clean right now is because of restrictions. I'd like there to be more common sense used in making some of the decions, though.
I don't think there's any real reason to disallow drilling in the Alaskan tundra for the sake of "pristineness". Let the state regulate this.
I don't think that there needs to be an increase in restrictions on industrial emissions right now (enough already).
-
the republican point of view, I think, is to maintain the integrity of the national economy as it comes under constant and unrelenting attack from the economies of europe/asia/UN who promote the junk science of global warming (Kyoto Accords) in order to confuse and panic people like Algore, hoping that there will eventually be enough of people like Algore to derail the western economies allowing the competing economies of europe/asia/UN to gain the upper hand and control the western economies for maximum profit and outright control.
-
Nash, which Dems do you most admire for their work on saving the environment?
How does John Kerry or Ted Kennedy rank, in your book?
-
Originally posted by Nash
The Democrats acknowledge an impact, based on the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community, and aim to mitigate the impact, whilst not reducing everyone to something even close to cavemen.
Which Democrats? Which Democrats actually walk the talk? Can you list any prominent Dems who actually lead by example?
I don't see any of the big Dems cutting down on their impact on the environment.
Ted Kennedy pretty much shut down the windmills in his backyard, because.....well, it's in his backyard. It's okay if SOMONE else has them in their backyard though.
Kerry said that "earth day" is not something that should be observed one day a year, rather it should be a lifestyle. Yet Kerry has twp private jets, a yatch, and a few houses he keeps cooled and heated.......while not living in them.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I'd like there to be more common sense used in making some of the decisions, though.
Common sence in Portland?:lol
-
Great anecdote Deja.... (really).
I'm gonna cut right to the gist, because you're the only one who seems to want to broach the subject:
Originally posted by Mini D
The republicans want less panic because that costs big buisness money and it's not healthy for the economy. Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government. Two sides of the fence are created.
I can easily understand why "big business" would want the government off its back - free to do whatever it wants. So we're good here, it's a no-brainer.
I'm a bit less certain when it comes to your explanation of the Democratic point of view. You say:
"Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government."
Democrats want big government for..... erhm.... big government's sake?
I know how much "Big Government" is ingrained into people's heads wrt Democrats, but it, like your example, says nothing. And if we want a real lesson on big government all we have to do is bone up on this administration.
If you had said "Democrats want panic because it shows the need for big government in order to... blah blah blah" or something.... that'd help.
Right now, all you're giving me is that Democrats are fools for lending an ear to the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community in order for them to be, somehow, big government.... for, no appearent reason.
Your whole "motive" thing is absent.
.... and it doesn't make any sense to me.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Which Democrats? Which Democrats actually walk the talk? Can you list any prominent Dems who actually lead by example?
I don't see any of the big Dems cutting down on their impact on the environment.
Ted Kennedy pretty much shut down the windmills in his backyard, because.....well, it's in his backyard. It's okay if SOMONE else has them in their backyard though.
Kerry said that "earth day" is not something that should be observed one day a year, rather it should be a lifestyle. Yet Kerry has twp private jets, a yatch, and a few houses he keeps cooled and heated.......while not living in them.
If they wanted to live like normal people they wouldn't be politicians.
-
Yep absolutely correct. Global warming is all the fault of people, using oil, burning wood and smoking tobacco. Now please, let me know if the previous statement is true, who the **** is responsible for all the other periods of global cooling and warming that seemed to happen wouthout those nasty industrialized humans around? I've heard a claim that industrialized man is making the globe warm up "faster". Uh who timed the last 2 global warming events that ended the previous ice ages? Where is the data on them and how fast did it happen back then?
-
'xcuse me Maverick, but y'all need to get on the same page....
On the one hand, Clifra Jones here is saying:
"You must realize that it is waste of time to argue with religious zealots. They will not listen to anything that deviates from their religious dogma or contradicts their High Priests of Environmental Doom."
And on the other....
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
And yet, on the other hand the real "religious zealots" are claiming that the earth was only formed just six million years ago.
So.... that leaves us with the bizarre spectacle of a group of people branding those concerned about the world we inhabit "religious zealots," using supporting data that dates back to hundreds of millions of years ago, while at the same time taking it on faith that the world was created a mere 6 million years ago.
Someone didn't read the memo....
-
Nash, maybe all you have to do is read a little more.
The truth is out there.........as far humans have been able to record it through time. All you have to do is read a little.
The earth's climate has changed frequently and dramatically, before man even existed.
Don't be such a dummy.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, maybe all you have to do is read a little more. All you have to do is read a little. Don't be such a dummy.
Duh.... what is this "read" you speak of...?
Thanks for the advice, Einstein.
-
You know, Einstein wasn't so bright.
It's I before E and he got it wrong twice in his own name.
-
lol, I had to google the spelling, and even then I had to backspace over the natural inclination to put "I" before "E." :)
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson is a shill for Exxon ? Link?
How about.....
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
An Exxon shill?
It's Al Gore throwing a tantrum....If I can't be President, your all gonna die!!!
That says nothing about ozone levels along with an abundance of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality. I don't give 2 cents for Al Gore, but I have to bet the farm on my grandchildren.
-
You're overcomplicating things nash.
The democrats (in office) are hell bent on showing everyone they are needed. They are needed to protect the people from big buisness. They are needed to protect the people from religious zealots. They are needed to protect people from themselves.
That's the "big government" aspect of things. You need the government to protect people from things they don't really need protection from.
And... nobody said unchecked on big buisness. I don't even believe the republicans are saying that. I do believe that it is cool to use "cripple big buisness" as a campaign sloagan right now... nevermind if there's any logic behind it other than convincing the voters you're protecting them by doing it. The voters love to hate the wealthy.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
You're overcomplicating things nash.
That's what I do. It's all I know. :D
Anyways, too bad... I guess I was expecting more, but instead, more gibberish:
"Democrats....are hell bent on showing everyone they are needed. They are needed to protect the people from big buisness. They are needed to protect the people from religious zealots. They are needed to protect people from themselves."
It would sooooooo help me out if I understood WTF guys like you were talking about half the time. Instead, you expect me to take everything on faith.
"Democrats are for big government because.... Democrats are for big government."
Trust me.
"Democrats....are hell bent on showing everyone they are needed."
Just, ah..... trust me.
"They are needed to protect the people from big buisness."
Trust me on this.
"They are needed to protect the people from religious zealots."
Come on.... you even have to ask? Trust me.
"They are needed to protect people from themselves."
Like, duh.... trust me.
Christ..... give me one.... ONE reason to trust you.
Not gonna happen. You wanna paint Democrats into a corner? Fine, but lets use real world examples. I'm so over the dogma. That ****'s tired.
-
has anyone actually seen the gore movie?
-
Originally posted by john9001
global warming is good , i don't like being cold.
The warming puts more fresh water in the ocean, slowing its natural flow, which will eventually cause massive cooling.
On Discovery science the ice drilling results indicate the weather the entire human existence has enjoyed on this planet is an anomaly that will end.. perhaps sooner than later. Earth has always recycled itself, we are after-all little more than parasites to nature.
Its been discovered that the ice caps have several times in the past been covered in a layer of Volcano ash; the ash being dark not reflecting sunlight like snow and while in the upper atmosphere volcanic dust crystallizes and reflects sunlight back in to space like millions of little mirrors... this is believed to have wiped out the so called mega-mammals.
I found that very interesting, yet I don't care since it won't alter the fact life's a ***** & then you die.
-
Actually the religious zealots believe the earh is only six thousand years old, not six million.
-
According to Hindu Zealots, the four yugas are said to be respectively 4800, 3600, 2400, and 1200 god-years long. A god-year, in turn, lasts 360 human years.
Of course that maybe just the ascent of gods and man.
Aussie Aboriginal dreamtime is at least 65,000 years ago, but the dreamtime stories are more of what happened and not when.
Now Christianity, Islam, and Judaism share the same creation story.
So maybe it makes a difference what kind of religious zealot you are.
-
(http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/gore.jpg)
(http://images.nzcinema.co.nz/movies/images/Chicken_Little_1865_medium.jpg)
I think someone owes chicken little an apology
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's what I do. It would sooooooo help me out if I understood WTF guys like you were talking about half the time. Instead, you expect me to take everything on faith.
"Democrats are for big government because.... Democrats are for big government."
Trust me.
Not "trust me"... open your eyes. What are the fundamental platforms of the democratic party right now?
"Democrats....are hell bent on showing everyone they are needed."
Just, ah..... trust me.
Not "trust me"... open your eyes. I'd have let a "the republicans do it to!" go because it's true. This is why they are so opposing on everything. Do you think the Democrats would survive if their campaign were "you don't really need us"?"They are needed to protect the people from big buisness."
Trust me on this.
Not "trust me"... open your eyes. Big buisness will kill the earth. Big buisness will force you into slave labor. Big buisness will gladly embezzle all of your retirement money. Big buisness is responsible for every natural dissaster known to man and the Republicans are it's ringleader.
I've not seen this sentiment echoed more than the last 6 years. I'm not exagerating. I'm not making this up.
"They are needed to protect the people from religious zealots."
Come on.... you even have to ask? Trust me.
Not "trust me"... open your eyes. We can debate the need to keep "religious zealots in check" all you want, but you cannot sit there and tell me that this is not the cornerstone of arguments against teaching creationism, abortion, gay marriage or any other "morality" based subject. I'm thinking back to a "THIS IS WHY RELIGION SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN GOVERMENT!" statement by someone earlier.
"They are needed to protect people from themselves."
Like, duh.... trust me.
Not "trust me"... open your eyes. Stances on taxation (protection from the wealthy not considerate enough to give their money away), gun control (protection from the citizens vile enough to own weapons), discrimination (protection from people too insensitive to respect you as an individual) and virtually any other issue known to man. We NEEEEED the democrats to keep these things in check because the republicans seek to destroy all of it.
That's not an oppinion. It's a campaign strategy. It's a sentiment I've seen echoed repeatedly on this board. Regardless of your stance on the issues, you cannot deny the platform. It's obtuse.
Christ..... give me one.... ONE reason to trust you.
Must you be told anything? I'm not asking you to trust me. I'm telling you to pull your head out of your bellybutton and take a good look around at everyone, not just the people you don't like. Learn a little more about motivation, cause and response. Get a fricking clue. The term "idealist" is not a compliment.
Not gonna happen. You wanna paint Democrats into a corner? Fine, but lets use real world examples. I'm so over the dogma. That ****'s tired.
I'm not painting anyone into a corner. You see, it's the party that has done the painting. It's a square room, both parties have brushes and the floor is 99% painted. They're sitting at opposite corners screaming at each other.
Even in this thread, you're ignoring the "save the world from mankind" separation by the democrats and insisting I'm telling you to "trust me" on that. Sheesh.
-
"A day to God is like unto a thousand years."
But enough about that.
I was already in bed when this thread started...so I'm getting a late start.
I must say I am shocked...SHOCKED...that German and Swiss scientists had to be the ones SENSIBLE enough to remember that there was a SUN in the sky...and that it is the source of all heat on the earth.
Why couldn't U.S. scientists have been the first to think of this?
Why have they conveniently forgotten that there is a massive nuclear candle one million times the size of the earth less than 100 million miles away?
Could it possibly BE because there is no political influence or funding to be had from pursuing a line of research into the SUN'S impact on the global environment?
-
LOL... nash wanted gore.. nash thinks ted kennedy is a great guy...
I do work with the EPA and can tell you that they don't have a clue. They are liberal wussies that are junk science based. They have no idea what to do about anything so they do too much... an example would be.... not allowing water with certain levels of salt to be put on land.... Turns out that in some places... the salt in the ground was holding the clay together.. when the non salt water washed out the salt in the clay it began to slide (mudslides).
That sort of thing is what nash is talking about by "good stewardship" of the democrats.... Someone calls something a pollutant and every democrat jumps on it to make a law and build their empire.
All of you here that are hooked up to city water and sewer will see your bills go to $100- $300 a month for the service before the decade is out... All of this will be based on science that does not exist.
The new EPA will make you yearn for the gentle old IRS
lazs
-
Don't be too hard on them lazs. Afterall, this is a brand new religion. It'll take 'em some time to get their doctrines, dogma, and sects sorted out. ;)
-
Nash,
You are quite correct in one regard.
Someone didn't read the memo. Please note that no where in my post did I speculate nor comment on any religious belief or religious zealots. Neither did I mention any conflict in how old the earth is. Please read for comprehension. If you have a point to make, do so without trying to put words in my mouth.
Originally posted by Nash
'xcuse me Maverick, but y'all need to get on the same page....
On the one hand, Clifra Jones here is saying:
"You must realize that it is waste of time to argue with religious zealots. They will not listen to anything that deviates from their religious dogma or contradicts their High Priests of Environmental Doom."
And on the other....
"There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."
And yet, on the other hand the real "religious zealots" are claiming that the earth was only formed just six million years ago.
So.... that leaves us with the bizarre spectacle of a group of people branding those concerned about the world we inhabit "religious zealots," using supporting data that dates back to hundreds of millions of years ago, while at the same time taking it on faith that the world was created a mere 6 million years ago.
Someone didn't read the memo....
-
Originally posted by Nash
So.... that leaves us with the bizarre spectacle of a group of people branding those concerned about the world we inhabit "religious zealots," using supporting data that dates back to hundreds of millions of years ago, while at the same time taking it on faith that the world was created a mere 6 million years ago.
Someone didn't read the memo....
You can't argue with either one of them nash.
I once explained in stark detail how Carbon-14's decay rate can be measures and used to determine the age of organic matter to a committed born again creationist christian. He absolutely refused to believe anything I said was fact. Claimed it was all propaganda inspired by Satan.
In regards to the religions of God you must understand one fact. "Everything you know about God is told to you by Man."
It is up to you to decide which "man" to believe.
In regards to science. I know the flame is fire because it burns my hand. We know much regarding climate because it can be measured. What we cannot measure is how much human activity has in fact effected the current climate situation. So, the same saying applies:
Everything you know about climate change is told to you by Man.
It is up to you to decide which "man" to believe.
-
Originally posted by rpm
That says nothing about ozone levels along with an abundance of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality. I don't give 2 cents for Al Gore, but I have to bet the farm on my grandchildren.
I do wish someone would produce the "abundance of scientific evidence" for me. I'm always hearing about it and hearing about these "prominent scientists". Yet I never have yet seen this so called "proof".
I googled your sentence "abundance of scientific evidence that global warming is a reality", now you would thing that the 1st sites on the list would be prominent scientific journals right? Here is what I got.
1. e.wikipedia.org (we will discount this one)
2. Americans-world.org. A site run by World Public Opinion.org. Founded by The Program for International Policy Attitudes. Not positive but this looks like your typical lefty leaning group here.
3. http://www.fromthewilderness.com. Pretty much a left-wing hit piece site.
4. petty-larseny.blogspot.org. Some unknown blogger.
5. http://www.cjr.org. Columbia Journalism Review. This was actually an article chastising the media for falling for the GW hype. Kudos to CJR.
6. dieoff.org. Your basic lefty scare site.
7. http://www.reason.org. Libertarian site. They don't seem to have to much of a cause but a lot of their articles seem to attack the right and give the left a pass.
8. http://www.kabbalahforwomen.com. :huh
9. thinkprogress.org. Yeah, these guys are objective. An attack piece on George Will. Who do they quote? Science magazine, and who does science magazine quote? the World Meteorological Organization of the UN. Getting the picture here?
You see not a single credible scientific journal in the 1st page of a google search. So just where is this overwhelming evidence?
-
forget it clifra.... these guys "want to believe" they like the drama and they like the religion of it.
For some of em.. a crisis makes their small problems even smaller..
For others... the evangelical complex appeals..
Still others seek out any opportunity to make others fell guilty..
Still others search for any excuse to tell others what to do.
Many simply use any excuse to blame the politics/policies of others.
athiesm and environmentalism are two of the sickest and least honest religions I have seen.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nash
Of course there are gonna be guys that are sceptical of global warming who aren't getting a paycheck from Exxon.
Maybe you shoulda looked to these Canadian and Finnish scientists in the first place. :)
But then, at least to my knowledge, they didn't write '"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists,' attacking Gore's film... and... it woulda made your post a heck of a lot less interesting.... because there's already a massive thread here about global warming.
In otherwords (and it's okay, you can admit it), your thread was simply an attack on Gore irrespective of the actual science surounding his film, made obvious by the fact that you leapfrog off of an article attacking the film, whose author is a paid oil co. shill.
If you're interested in the science alone, why the new thread?
My thread WAS a direct response to Chicken Little's Movie..... What is needed in this debate are a few more facts on World climate change. The utter complete non-sense of statements such as " Bush's failure to sign Kyoto is a major cause of Global Warming is ridiculous. One, not ten, not twenty, but ONE US Senator has publicly stated they would vote for Kyoto. This may come as a shock to you but it would take 2/3 of the house and Senate to make Kyoto law. Al Gore would have had 0% chance of even getting anyone's attention on Kyoto had he been elected. Of all of the European Nations that adopted Kyoto only a small number have came even close to their target for greenhouse ommisions. That doesn't even take Asia especially China "Probably one of he biggest polluters in the World today" into account,since it will "pardon the pun" "be a cold day in Global Warming" before they would ever adopt an inept policy like Kyoto.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Actually the religious zealots believe the earh is only six thousand years old, not six million.
By religious zealots you mean Fundamentalists? They all believe the Earth is much older than 6 Million years, Where did you get the understanding the Earth was only 6 Million years old? Most take the Bible at face value, but almost all understand that it was written at a time when the written word was only available to an elite few. They would not understand the concept of Billions of years. As late as the 1400's they thought the earth was flat. They do all believe in a "Creator" They believe in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. I see you seem to have a problem with that.
Or do you mean Religious Zealots as in environmental wackos? No they think the Earth is only 6 Million years old.
-
Yes, the Fundamentalists are the ones who believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
I have an interesting movie on DVD - a courtroom drama from c1960 called "Inherit the Wind", set in c1920. Apparently, the teaching of Darwin's theory of evolution was a criminal offence in the US at that time. This movie was all about the way the defence counsel (played by Spencer Tracy) got his client off the hook. The age of the earth came into it somewhere...
Divinity of Jesus Christ? I don't "have a problem" with any of that - I just couldn't give a monkey's arse about it - that's all. If not giving a monkey's arse consitutes "having a problem", then I guess I "have a problem". Unlikely though, as such a theory has as much credence as the belief that environmentalism = religion.
-
Beetle,
The teaching of Darwinism wasn't an offense in the United States in the 1920s, but in the state of Tennessee.
"Inherit the Wind" was very loosely based on the famous Scopes Monkey Trial. The real life lawyers involved in the case were Clarence Darrow, for the defence, and William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution.
While some left-wingers go all ga-ga over the triumph of Henry Drummond (Darrow) over Matthew Harrison Brady (Bryan), in fact the court records reveal that Bryan wasn't nearly the fanatical boob that the directors of the movie have portrayed him to be.
Regards, Shuckins
-
Evidence FOR global warming..
EPA
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Couple of real lefty wacko groups there.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, the Fundamentalists are the ones who believe the earth is only 6000 years old.
Yes it is 6000 years. It is derived from the litany of all the begats from Adam through Abraham. It just shows the blind faith of fundamentalism.
The difference between them and those like me is that we don't give a rats arse what they believe and have no intention or wish to change their beliefs.
Nor do we wish to use the power of government(i.e. the muzzle of a gun) to enforce out beliefs on others.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Yes it is 6000 years. It is derived from the litany of all the begats from Adam through Abraham. It just shows the blind faith of fundamentalism.
The difference between them and those like me is that we don't give a rats arse what they believe and have no intention or wish to change their beliefs.
Nor do we wish to use the power of government(i.e. the muzzle of a gun) to enforce out beliefs on others.
Not all, if even most, of Christians believe the earth to be only 6,000 years old. If it makes you feel superior to lump us all together then please enjoy your own blind fundamentalism.
-
do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old luckster?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
(http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/gore.jpg)
(http://images.nzcinema.co.nz/movies/images/Chicken_Little_1865_medium.jpg)
I think someone owes chicken little an apology
Your absolutly right. I should have wrote "with apologies to Chicken Little".
-
Originally posted by Yeager
do you believe that the earth is 6000 years old luckster?
No, I think it is much older than that. How much I really haven't a clue. I have no problem believing it to be many millions of years old though.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Evidence FOR global warming..
EPA
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Couple of real lefty wacko groups there.
Total nutballs. NOAA doesn't even have a damn window.. screwed up forcasts are legend. The EPA is packed with puppets.. second only to the IRS for insanity in a beaurcracy.
Next.. YES the planet is warming up, and after awile it'll cool down. Natural cycles are part of nature.
lastly, in the absence of any kind of real policy or message, disenchanted knee-jerk 'democrats' are becoming desperate to latch on to something to use as a rally cry for votes.. so this is the new dogma for democrats.
"democrats want to stop global warming! republicans want to kill us all!
more scare politics. i'm sick of it.
grow up, grow a brain and grow a bit of common sense.
-
It's actually more than the EPA, and more than the NOAA, Hang.
It's the EPA, the NOAA, the IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among many, many others.
But go ahead, have fun with your science...
(http://www.fisher-price.com/img/product_shots/77899_b_1.jpg)
... and I'll wager on the pros.
Just like I do every time I step into a car, every time I pop an Advil, and every time a friend or relative goes under the knife. I'm too busy. I've got too much on my plate to have to second-guess the - oh, I don't know - overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
-
The scientific community is staffed by an overwhelming number of folks that practice junk science on the government payroll.
It's how they get to keep their jobs. Toe the line.. or your out.
That's not a scientific community.. it's a freaking government orfice finishing academy.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Just like I do every time I step into a car, every time I pop an Advil, and every time a friend or relative goes under the knife. I'm too busy. I've got too much on my plate to have to second-guess the - oh, I don't know - overwhelming consensus of the scientific community.
Believe what you want. You don't push your religion on me and I won't mine on you.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Believe what you want. You don't push your religion on me and I won't mine on you.
Hole smokes.... :rofl
You guys are hilarious with your constant attempt to equate science with religion. I don't know about anyone else, but personally? It's a crack-up. How you manage to take the two most disparate things and struggle to reconcile them as being the same thing is absolutely bizarre.
Republicans are the anti-science, pro-fundamentalist party. Get used to it, if you haven't already.
And just because y'all drink cool-aid doesn't mean that when you say that my orange juice is actually kool-aid too, well, it doesn't mean I'm going to take you all that seriously. Get used to that, as well.
Republicans want to replace science in schools with fairy tales. They hate stem cell research. They think some chick in Florida with about 80 percent of her brain being liquefied will suddenly wake up one sunny morning and order scrambled eggs and hash browns off the hospital menu.
I'm sorry if you feel such disdain for those in your party who believe these things to the extent that you wanna brush some of that insanity off on the rest of us... but you're stuck with it.
Science aint religion, life aint fair, and one day we will all die. These are the sad but true facts that grown-ups have to come to terms with. No go clean your room before your mother gets home.
-
Nash, you are like a pre-programmed robot.
Republicans = bad
Democrats = good.
You seam very simplistic and naive.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, you are like a pre-programmed robot.
Republicans = bad
Democrats = good.
You seam very simplistic and naive.
everyone knows:
Republican = good
Democrat = bad
It is pretty simple really ... :)
-
LOL Nash! :lol
You have to remember that the camp which denounces the claims being made following scientific research includes guys who believe they know more about cars than carmakers themselves, and who will tell you that said carmakers "know nothing" about their own vehicles!
I'm with Nash on this religion claim. I'm not an environmentalist - I don't do kerbside recycling, I have my house at the temperature I want it, and I drive and fly where I like. But... I do believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which, when present in the atmosphere in excessive quantities, will lead to rising sea levels, more severe storms and flooding and loss of low lying land, concomitant with global warming. How anyone can get "religion" out of that is beyond my powers of reasoning, and I am led to believe that "reason" is the wrong mental faculty to deal with such a claim.
In short, twaddle!
:rofl
-
I'll see yer "twaddle!" and raise..
POPPYCOCK!
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hole smokes.... :rofl
You guys are hilarious with your constant attempt to equate science with religion. I don't know about anyone else, but personally? It's a crack-up. How you manage to take the two most disparate things and struggle to reconcile them as being the same thing is absolutely bizarre.
Republicans are the anti-science, pro-fundamentalist party. Get used to it, if you haven't already.
And just because y'all drink cool-aid doesn't mean that when you say that my orange juice is actually kool-aid too, well, it doesn't mean I'm going to take you all that seriously. Get used to that, as well.
Republicans want to replace science in schools with fairy tales. They hate stem cell research. They think some chick in Florida with about 80 percent of her brain being liquefied will suddenly wake up one sunny morning and order scrambled eggs and hash browns off the hospital menu.
I'm sorry if you feel such disdain for those in your party who believe these things to the extent that you wanna brush some of that insanity off on the rest of us... but you're stuck with it.
Science aint religion, life aint fair, and one day we will all die. These are the sad but true facts that grown-ups have to come to terms with. No go clean your room before your mother gets home.
Science? You're really reachin' callin' what you're practicin' "science."
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
The scientific community is staffed by an overwhelming number of folks that practice junk science on the government payroll.
It's how they get to keep their jobs. Toe the line.. or your out.
That's not a scientific community.. it's a freaking government orfice finishing academy.
Hang, you can't believe that... you know that government employees are altruistically motivated and always come up with the right answer.
Unless they work for the CIA or FEMA.
-
you got to understand that nash has a stake in the EPA growing... it means bigger government and more restrictions.... more democrats.
Not one person, scientist or not has explained how much we are affecting the natural global warming and cooling cycles... the "EPA" doesn't even try... they just act like they have the answers.
Not one so called scientist can explain what needs to be done to stop this so called man made global warming (except to give them money) or.... even if we all died of next week.... how many minutes it would save before the global cooling started.
Using nature and natural phenomina like the natural cycle of heating and cooling or the globe and the natural changes in the sun are....
Very much like the scientists taking on "high priest" roll and using nature to scare the faithful.
The parellel with the worst of religion is inescapable.... right down to the faithful elite not living by the rules the priests come up with.
lazs
-
So ....
If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, but can't tell you exactly when you'll die... you must not have cancer....
got it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you got to understand that nash has a stake in the EPA growing... it means bigger government and more restrictions.... more democrats.
lazs
That's absolutely right! I just LOVES me some big government!
I know it's irrational, and I don't even know what for..... but give me some more government! The sooner the better. I wanna see big tall government buildings being constructed on every block. I want my mailbox jammed full of governmet flyers, I want governemt employees to wear nametags and I want to see those nametags on every dang street I walk!
I WANT BIG GOVERNMENT, AND I WANT IT NOW!
(wtf are you talking about? do you know how ridiculous that claim is?)
-
not exactly MT... a better analogy would be..
A doctor tells you that a lot of people get cancer and so you must change your lifestyle completely or die of cancer in 10 years..... without even looking at you.
That would be more like it. Even that is not good... it would be more like..
doctors saying that...cancer never existed till people started driving cars. Now...everyone will get cancer in ten years.
Oh and... it can only be prevented by electing them to office and or.... giving them huge grants to "study" the "problem".
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
So ....
If a doctor tells you that you have cancer, but can't tell you exactly when you'll die... you must not have cancer....
got it.
I'd get a second opinion. Hmmm, seems the second opinion is that the tumor is not malign.
-
So nash... you believe that there is man made global warming but you don't want government to do anything about it?
Talk about ridiculous sounding...
lazs
-
Sorry lazs, but your wrong.
What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.
Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."
In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.
As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.
The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry lazs, but your wrong.
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere. In simple terms, however, the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total greenhouse effect. The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other "minor greenhouse gases." As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Not saying we shouldn't be environmentalists at heart. We should take care of this planet, it takes care of us. However, co2 is the rallying cry of activists and zealots. It takes attention away from real local and regional problems that can be addressed.
-
Originally posted by indy007
Not saying we shouldn't be environmentalists at heart. We should take care of this planet, it takes care of us. However, co2 is the rallying cry of activists and zealots. It takes attention away from real local and regional problems that can be addressed.
I feel the same way. Those of us that see the fear mongering for what it is should be careful to not let resistance to these zealots blind us to what could be a real problem about which something should be done. Even a stopped watch is right twice a day.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
Nash, you are like a pre-programmed robot.
Republicans = bad
Democrats = good.
You seam very simplistic and naive.
He seems simplistic. That's a laugh.
He's one voice in here getting shouted down by the usual AH crowd.
I wonder what the mob here thinks when they read something like this from the science writer for the San Fran Chronicle run in the AP:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/03/30/national/w112002S38.DTL
Just to be clear... what you guys are saying is the AAAS are a bunch of lefty wackos? The guys who publish Science magazine, a magazine with a huge subscription rate cannot be trusted? See here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/02/19/MNGE1BECPI1.DTL
At this point, I'm just wondering when the crowd here starts taking shots at the ivy league schools, then Cal-Berkley and Stanford, and starts letting us know that only the scientists at Oral Roberts University can be trusted with the "facts".
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Sorry lazs, but your wrong.
Yeah right MT, and anyone with a brain to look can find out who the IPCC is and who is paying their bills. It's the UN. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would not trust these crooks at all. The UN is dominated by pissant little countries who would like nothing more than to knock down the western economies. They and their socialist "handlers' use GW as just one tool to accomplish this goal.
Keyoto is costing Western Europe a foutune and the Eastern countries not bound by it are progressing. They are taking jobs and industry away from the west because of lower labor costs and less "liberal" regualtions.
You guys are so quick to point out who writes the paychecks the the GW detractors but you try and hide this fact regarding it's proponents.
I will say it again, find me a reputable, i repeat reputable scientific journal that states that GW is a fact!
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
He's one voice in here getting shouted down by the usual AH crowd.
Shouted down? Nice metaphor but his voice is still there like everone else's for anyone to "hear" anytime they like. Oh, and don't mistake reason for noise.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
I will say it again, find me a reputable, i repeat reputable scientific journal that states that GW is a fact!
Science magazine.
BTW, is that your Foghorn Leghorn voice?
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Science magazine.
BTW, is that your Foghorn Leghorn voice?
I believe Science Magazine lost their credibility in '96 over the Tulane research they heavily promoted.
If you're basing the veracity of it on the size of their subscription base... then obviously they're trumped by Popular Mechanics. Yet, I still don't have a flying car :furious
-
75 billion would end world hunger.
END IT. How many millon people a year could be saved RIGHT NOW?
How much has kyoto cost??
Fools.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I believe Science Magazine lost their credibility in '96 over the Tulane research they heavily promoted.
Hehe. For those scoring at home, her refers to this:
http://www.junkscience.com/news/ibdoped.html
Nature magazine called the research out. That's the great thing about the scientific method, having reproduceable results and all that.
Anyhow, I'm sure this has nothing to do with anything, but some of the sensors on some of the birds are coming out:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5780/1580
Sun Tsu, right? Take out the enemy's ability to see what's happening.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Science magazine.
BTW, is that your Foghorn Leghorn voice?
{sigh} Did you not read anything I have previously wrote? The article in Science Magazine references a report by the IPCC. This is a UN organization whose motives are seriously suspect. They claim a 100% consensus. Have you ever seen ANY issue gain a 100% consensus? I personally have read articles published in journals criticizing GW claims. Were these conveniently ignored? This is why I referenced religion. In the early days of the Catholic Church they excluded any writings from the Bible that did not adhere to their version of what the faith should be. We see that same practice being used by the GW faithful.
Science Magazine is not an un-biased source. Never has been on a lot of issues.
Here is a very solid refutation of that article, In fact the scientists quoted in this article ridicule Science Magazine. Yes some of these scientist are not climatologist, they are statisticians. Uniquely qualified to question how the author came up with her 100% consensus.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200412%5CNAT20041207a.html
Essay Claiming 'Scientific Consensus' for Global Warming is Ridiculed
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
December 07, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - A Science Magazine essay claiming there is a "scientific consensus" about human-caused "global warming" was ridiculed Monday by a British scientist, who compared such a "consensus" to the near-unanimous elections that existed in the old Soviet Union.
On Monday, Benny Peiser, a United Kingdom social anthropologist, called the Dec. 3 essay, "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," a "disturbing" study.
"A one-hundred-percent record of 'scientific consensus' on anthropogenic climate change would be a sensational finding indeed. In fact, such a total result would be even more remarkable than any 'consensus' ever achieved in Soviet-style elections," Peiser noted sarcastically.
The Science Magazine essay analyzed 928 abstracts containing the keyword "climate change," all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. The essay found that not a single one of the studies showed climate change to be naturally occurring.
The essay was written by University of California professor Naomi Oreskes, a member of the University's Department of History and Science Studies Program.
According to Oreskes, "None of these (928) papers argued that [current climate change is natural]."
"This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with [United Nations] IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies," Oreskes wrote.
"Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect," she added.
"The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic (human caused) climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen," concluded Oreskes.
But Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a "disturbing article.
"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.
"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.
According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science.
"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.
"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.
'Easily debunked falsehood'
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute, also criticized the idea that there is a "scientific consensus" on "global warming."
"Publishing such an easily debunked falsehood in an erstwhile reputable, peer-review publication (Science Magazine) demonstrates either a new low in desperation or a new generation believing there are no checks and therefore no limits," Horner told CNSNews.com.
After all, past nonsense brought increasing taxpayer funding for decades. What would make them think they can't just make things up?" Horner added.
Iain Murray, a senior fellow in International Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote a letter to the editor of Science Magazine questioning why the study was even published.
"I was surprised to see Science publish an article crowing over the existence of a scientific consensus on global warming and then advancing the non-sequitur that political action is therefore needed. Neither is a point worthy of consideration in an objective, scientific journal," Murray wrote in his letter to the editor, dated Dec. 6.
"...the message of the article -- that politicians must act on the basis of the science -- is clearly a political point rather than a scientific one," Murray continued.
"...the argument advanced by the author that 'our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it' is barely economically literate and has no place in a scientific journal," he added.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
{sigh}
Science Magazine is not an un-biased source. Never has been on a lot of issues.
H
Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the free market environmental group Competitive Enterprise Institute, also criticized the idea that there is a "scientific consensus" on "global warming."
And the Nation is a qualified source? I already debunked that Carter guy as being on the dole.
Also, what should somebody think when the Competitive Enterprise Insitute is also one of the center pieces of the puzzle at http://www.exxonsecrets.org/
It shows, based on publically available financial documents (because Exxon is publically traded) the amount of money that the oil company is dumping into counter institutes and counterspin ad campagns. If a scientist is being paid, either directly or indirectly, by a corporate interest - then any utterance has to be viewed through that knowledge.
This round of spinning one expert against the other is already going on in another thread, complete with graph vs. counter graph. It's come down to a game of who do you trust.
I have two points, then I dont see much point in going on:
The term scientific consensus is not a meaningful term, and I doubt it ever was. Science is being used as politics and the money being bandied around is making everyone think how to get some. Scientists, or people purporting to be scientists, are being bought off just like fake journalists like that gay prostitute the GOP hired to ask Bush softball questions in press conferences. Everything is up for spin.
If the effect of CO2 is causing a massive spike, and it is responsible for heating the panet up and changing the global climate - then there will be winners and losers. Invest wisely, and sell your coastal property now before the real estate bubble pops (more). Oh, btw, the entire state of Florida south of Orlando should be considered coastal.
-
mt... I was gonna answer you but the others did too good a job...
But... raised levels of Co2 have never been the precursors of global warming... just the opposite... higher co2 levels historicaly trail global warming. The highest levels of Co2 were after we had been into a global warming trend and were allready coming out of it.
Even the article you quoted states that there is "descernable" effect on Co2 levels by man.... what the hell does that mean? 2-4%? of a product that is in itself only 2-4% of the gasses that MAY cause global warming?
Sorry... all this is way too iffy for me to start getting into a goverment approved shelter that will protect me from falling chunks of sky.
I can't believe you guys don't have more concrete and immidiate things to worry about..... most of which would get a whole lot worse if you let the UN and junk science boys screw with your life.
lazs
-
BTW, the article I quoted came straight out of the EPA website. I believe the EPA is still run by an appointee of the President... I wonder who that could be????
(http://www.epa.gov/adminweb/administrator/images/slj-new-web.jpg)
Appointed in 2005
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
BTW, the article I quoted came straight out of the EPA website. I believe the EPA is still run by an appointee of the President... I wonder who that could be????
(http://www.epa.gov/adminweb/administrator/images/slj-new-web.jpg)
Appointed in 2005
And 99.99% that work under him are??????
Bronk
-
Originally posted by lazs2
not exactly MT... a better analogy would be..
A doctor tells you that a lot of people get cancer and so you must change your lifestyle completely or die of cancer in 10 years..... without even looking at you.
That would be more like it. Even that is not good... it would be more like..
doctors saying that...cancer never existed till people started driving cars. Now...everyone will get cancer in ten years.
Oh and... it can only be prevented by electing them to office and or.... giving them huge grants to "study" the "problem".
lazs
Unless you use Gores analogy...Cancer is part of nature, therefore you will die next year.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
And 99.99% that work under him are??????
Bronk
Smarter than you?
-
Aww did i hit a nerve. The 99.99% I was referring to are in fact.... wait for it...
Long time gov employees .
The appointee is a figurehead. You try and do anything when all who work for you actually work against you. On top of that it's almost impossible to fire the underlings.
So once again the article is moot.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Aww did i hit a nerve. The 99.99% I was referring to are in fact.... wait for it...
Long time gov employees .
The appointee is a figurehead. You try and do anything when all who work for you actually work against you. On top of that it's almost impossible to fire the underlings.
So once again the article is moot.
hit a nerve.. naw, just smacked me in the funny bone. I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?
And moot is in the eyes of the beholder... you all seem to define "moot" as "anything that disagrees with me".
(http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2005/04/07/inigomontoya_t180.jpg)
"I do not think it means what you think it means"
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?
I can't and this is why almost none of them can be believed.
If your paycheck comes from "the need for more study", or "we need more people to monitor xxx" how bias is your information.
Bronk
Edit: MT I didn't mean for this to look like an attack on you. I just quoted you so I could make the point about the fed employee mind set.
If you choose to believe the study fine by me.
I on the other hand don't trust the SoBs.
-
The EPA...
"Worse, Tulane's junk science survives in law. And EPA officials have stated that no changes in policy are forthcoming. So EPA will establish more onerous testing procedures, products will become more expensive or not available at all,and consumers will suffer. All for phantom protection from a nonexistent problem. "
This is from the cite that claims that science corrects itself... even it admits to the policy of the EPA..
The EPA thrives on crisis and junk science. I have given examples with salt and thermal "pollution" there are many many others.
Bronk owned you... you admit that government agencies are staffed by long time government employees that can't be trusted.. yet... you go to their websites to view and quote their junk science as if it were the saints themselves come down to save us all.
Global warming is not caused by rising Co2 levels to any real extent and the biggest cause of global climate change is due mostly to changes in sun.
We can't make it hotter or cooler here no matter how hard we try.
We should not pollute to the point of destruction tho (everything added to something is pollution unless it is exactly the same composition and even then... it can be considered to be a change in volume which is.... pollution).
lazs
-
First of all..
"long time government employee" does not equal "can't be trusted" no matter how much you want to believe it.
But then you also think that an example of a mistake is the same as a global condemnation. hehehe... owned.
So the EPA can't be trusted... lets look elsewhere..
Joint science academies’ statement
In 2005 the national science academies of the G8 nations and Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action [2], and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus.
US National Research Council, 2001
In 2001 the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions [3]. This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the science community:
The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue. [4]
The summary begins with:
Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. (ibid.)
American Meteorological Society
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems. It is a long-term problem that requires a long-term perspective. Important decisions confront current and future national and world leaders.
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments which concluded that there is "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." The study said that the only factor that could explain the measured warming of Earth's average temperature over the last 50 years was the buildup of heat-trapping gases, which are mainly emitted by burning coal and oil.
Yea but... Michael Crichton says....
LOL
-
MT who are the organizations listed funded by?
This is a serious question.
Bronk
-
I suppose either one of us could research that question, but more importantly... what kind of funding would you deem "acceptable"?
Admit it, the days of solving life's questions with a pencil and some scratch paper while working as a patent clerk are long over. Science requires money. That is a fact of life, but not a quid pro quo condemnation of science.
Don't get me wrong. Scientists aren't perfect little drones who wear halos and bow in the direction of Einstein's grave every day. I'm sure some are tempted to come to a conclusion that helps ensure food on the table for another year. But the cool thing is, science is not bound by the conclusions of one scientist. It is a systematic way of testing and concluding with the preponderance of evidence. Slackers will be exposed.. sooner or later.
So, the best we can do is look at the conclusions of as many groups as we can. The majority may not be right, but it is a pretty decent bet that they are.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
hit a nerve.. naw, just smacked me in the funny bone. I wonder if you could please point out a government agency that is NOT staffed by long time govt. employees?
Deparment of n00bs, lol:cool: :cool: :cool:
-
So I get a call from my dear university educated licensed architect brother Ken down in Portland. He says "you need to go see the movie (an inconvenient truth) and take your daughter too, she needs to see it" he says "she needs to learn the art of critical thinking". I tell him "Shes pretty smart all on her own and I will see it when it comes out on DVD in a few weeks", he tells me Im "copping out" and I tell him "I dont feel like "driving 50 miles into Seattle to go see it in the only theater its playing in the state".
Then he goes on about the evil Christian fundamentalists, and I remind him about the evil muslim fundamentalists and he goes "yeah them too". Then he tells me that "all couples should be limited to one child and everyone should be awarded carbon credits controlling the amount of pollution they make and controlling the amount of energy they can consume"......
I tell him in response "there will be radical environmental people that will tell you if you have two kids you need to get rid of one" and "thats all some people will need to create a violent revolt and then you quite simply have another reason for another war on your hands" then I tell him he is "preaching a radical form of fundamentalism, environmental fundamentalism" then he gets real quiet...says his wife just got home and he needs to go. So I say "See you later bro"
Until next time, when Gore meets Bush :aok
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I'll see yer "twaddle!" and raise..
POPPYCOCK!
I'll raise my poppycock, if I can see your bollocks!
-
Al Gore's movie will do nothing but make the doomsayers more shrill and the doubters more deaf.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
First of all..
"long time government employee" does not equal "can't be trusted" no matter how much you want to believe it.
But then you also think that an example of a mistake is the same as a global condemnation. hehehe... owned.
So the EPA can't be trusted... lets look elsewhere..
LOL
It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.
I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.
-
Ok MT... so most of the scientific communities belive that man by his existence has some influence on the environment and climactic change.
Gee... so do I. How could we not? My cat has some effect. Me taking a cup of water out of the lake has some effect on it's level.
Now... not one of the groups you quoted can tell us how much or... even what we should do about it or.... how much it will help if we all just disapeared.
They can't tell us what day the earth will be destroyed by global warming or even if it will be or... if we will or won't enter a period of global cooling no matter what we do.
All they can really say is that, IF Co2 is a cause of global warming then if Co2 levels double....DOUBLE then tempretures will rise maybe 1 degree in One Hudred frigging years...
Now... of that doubling.... man will contribute about 2-4% That is... if everything else stays really really stable and nature doesn't belch or we somehow come up with power sources more advanced than a coal fired powerplant or a 2006 honda civic in the next 100 frigging years!
So... none of em can tell us what we can do that will positively change the nature of climactic change much less how much difference it will make in the natural climactic cycles.
What would you have us do and how much will it change things?
You see the problem? No one can do anything but make computer models based on a stable nature and a stable mankind and a stable sun that would stay that way for 100 years.
What kind of "scientist" would make predictions based on that kind of thinking?
Oh... that's easy.... non of em... they are all full of "appears" and "might" and "believe" and that sort of thing.
One thing more sure than the sun or rising C02 tho..... they all got their hand out for more..
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.
I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.
Maybe now we're getting somewhere. You guys feel free to believe what you want. Practice your religion or "science" however you want. Just stop the proselytizing, or not. guess you have that right.
-
Yep... nothing wrong with "exploring alternative fuels" that is the way it should be.
As new tech comes on board, alternatives will be explored by the free market.
Solar cells have gone from 100's of dollars a KW to cents over the decades as energy prices rise.... And... all without scientists forming a kyoto and mandating it or pointing out a world ending global disaster.
Cars have doubled in comfort and efficiency over the decades due to demand... hybrids and electric cars were researched and developed with private money in order to meet a demand.
In the meantime... governments have created nothing except sink holes for tax money. They have slowed/stoped the building of nuke power plants.... they have stopped the exploration of oil to make us less dependent on foriegn oil... They have mandated junk science environmental laws that have often caused grave harm to the environment or... done nothing... they have created endangered species lists that are 90% insects.
Nope... the free market will take tech as fast and as far as it can go much better without government intervention and it will do it because it is fueled by demand not by mandate.
And that is what global warming scare tactics are all about.... make the situation seem so grave that only the government can save us....
The "opportunities" are in reality.... the fleecing of the sheep.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
It doesn't matter MT, how many quotes or journals you bring out. Some people will say "show me one example", and then no matter what you show them - they will refute it. When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin, and say things like the EPA are just green wackos, then you are dealing with dittohead wingnuts. You can't reason with them.
I've figured that out and moved on. So have a lot of other people. These forums have a certain demographic that seems to prevail. Best stick to playing AH and let them have their Gore and Hillary jokes, while they bury their head about climate change and miss all the economic opportunities around exploring alternative fuels.
Spot on, XX, spot on.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The "opportunities" are in reality.... the fleecing of the sheep.
lazs
Well I must admit that I`ve been pretty tied up salting horsemeat, mending broken ribs, ignoring lame "oil sensor" PMs, planting mystical magical forests with robotic, magicaly appearing machinery, turning down requests to speak at roadside cafe meetings in Qatar, propping up the sky with organicaly grown timber harvested with non-fuel usage machinery........all the while milking 35 cows.
I haven`t had much spare time to spend on this thread, but to borrow a few words from an environmentalist shcolar and climatic scientist, Larry The Cable Guy........."That there is a true statement. I don`t care who you are."
-
I still take the Sunday paper (Dallas morning news) though I threaten to quit even that every Sunday. Front page today, and a couple more pages, all about air pollution. The article(s) go on about how even though we have made gains in cars polluting less individually, we are driving more which does more than negate the gains made. The writer seemed to be pretty sore that people would not accept no driving days based on license plate number. Of course no where in the article is it mentioned that one reason we drive more is that there are a lot more of us driving now. Nor is it mentioned that a very large percentage of us driving have no right to even be in this country, much less driving old cars which tend to pollute more.
There was also a full page article on the evils of the new sport pilot license.
I've cancelled my subscription before. If it weren't for the "funnies" I'd never take this socialist rag again.
-
Snip
Originally posted by Dos Equis
When you are dealing with people who bring with them the Exxon funded counterspin,
And there in lies the rub.
Counterspin
What do you do when you see a group spinning a report to fit there agenda.
That's right ya spin up some of your own.
The truth is in this spin some place. But damn if ya can find it in all the bias.
Bronk
-
(http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/gore.jpg)
"The World is Flat and it's getting warmer. Anything Nash says is right because Like me, He is a True American."
*Bought and paid for by the I'mALumberJackandI'mOkay Foundation*
:D
Mac
or
"Free Prostrate Exams, Help Fight Global Warming!"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Yep... nothing wrong with "exploring alternative fuels" that is the way it should be.
In the meantime... governments have created nothing except sink holes for tax money. They have slowed/stoped the building of nuke power plants.... they have stopped the exploration of oil to make us less dependent on foriegn oil... They have mandated junk science environmental laws that have often caused grave harm to the environment or... done nothing... they have created endangered species lists that are 90% insects.
lazs
There it is, then. A distrust of government and regulation, to the point of reducing things to absurdity.
I happen to think that things like the Clean Water Act in '77 (http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/fwatrpo.html) and the clean air act - mainly in 1990 with amendments in 97 (http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa03.html) have radically improved the fishing and waterways of the country. So have technological improvements in filtering harmful chemicals.
Do you guys think the events in Erin Brockovich didn't actually happen? Do you think Monsanto didn't actually cause massive cancer and birth defects across an entire generation of the people of Anniston, Alabama? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_Defendant)
If warming is due to CO2, and there can be regulation or free market solutions to clean the air - shouldn't we try and promote them? Saying that we can't impact industry is the same argument that big oil and big chemical use against ALL regulation.
For all of you who have benefited from clean fishing lakes and well water that didn't make your kids sick, you have some form of regulation to thank for this. The old saying is that a republican is just a democrat that hasn't needed a trial lawyer yet, is probably true. What confounds me is the level of rhetoric against a film that doesnt say Katrina was caused by global warming, doesn't even insinuate it, doesn't do anything but point out that rising planetary temps and ice cap melting will raise the ocean levels and that may have some effect 20-40 years from now.
I guess with over 44% of the American public thinking that the rapture will occur within THEIR lifetimes, nobody cares anymore. Thankfully for us, people in 1977 and 1990 at the EPA thought 'hey, maybe the planet does need some protection'.
Since I don't know any milionares (personally) who play AH, I would suspect most people here count as the little guy. I wonder sometimes why they purposely rail against anything which is in their interest. Books have been written about the 'gun rack Republicans', guys who consistently vote against their own financial and health well being. Wake up and at least LOOK who is behind the research on your side. And ask yourself, are these guys looking out for people like me?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
The truth is in this spin some place. But damn if ya can find it in all the bias.
Bronk
Or, the truth might really be out there, waaaay out there. ;)
(http://www.playfreegamesarcade.com/downloads/arcade/antcity.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
There it is, then. A distrust of government and regulation, to the point of reducing things to absurdity.
Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.
Then there are the Imbusychasingmyowntaledogmas-->Beet.
There is another phrase for it, but you get the mental picture. :rofl
-
dos ekk.... nice try. First you assume that rising co2 levels are the sole or main "cause" of global warming even tho it would take a doubling of Co2 levels and 100 years to rais temps even 1 degree (all else staying the same... which it won't) and... that the highest levels of Co2 in history have been after a global warming and during a cooling cycle...
Then... you assume that the man made portion.... a pitiful 2-4% is gonna change anything.
Clean water and air acts have had many charlatons involved and junk science.... the clean air smog rules of the 70's made things worse till computer controlled fuel injection and catalytic converters were invented by.... private industry.
To simply regulate Co2 with no sight of how it could be done would be to repeat the mistakes of the 70's smog laws.
MTBE is the kind of thing we get when we give big brother too much control in junk science spawned regulation....Talk about your polluted waterways!
And lastly.... gun rack republicans? Well partner... If gun control is the only thing that keeps us from voting for the liberal socialist democrat party...
Then why do democrats all try so hard to destroy the second amendment? surely if they had our interests at heart they would allow us to be armed if we chose? Or maybe.... gun control is just one aspect of a party that is...
All about control and knowing more about what is good for you than you do?
Maybe us "gun rack republicans" just resent your whole "we know what's best for you attitude."
Tell me.... if it hurts the liberal socialist democrats so much and so many of their supporters are against the platform.... why do democrats support gun control so much? What is the reason that they would shoot themselves in the foot (so to speak) over it?
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes, XX - you're finding it too! My phrase for it is "reverse dogmatism". Whereas a dogmatist discovers material which he then presents as irrefutable fact, the Reverse Dogmatists - guys like Lazs and Jackal - do the reverse: They take material presented by others, dismiss it out of hand (if they think it's likely to affect their personal lifestyles), and then go in search of a justification for their rebuttal.
Catch 22 beet. Any material that is posted, and receives a well thought out refutation, is labeled evil b00sh hitler greedy capitalist spin.
Not sure how it is on your side of the pond.. problem with the environmental movement here was it was hijacked a long time ago by the anti-capitalist movement. Now it's about political agendas, the evilness of boosh and corporate explotation. Sad reality is, 99% of the people there don't know what they're talking about, and loudly protest against solutions to some of the very things they're trying to fix.
-
Yes Indy, that probably sums it up. As you suggest, it's very different over here. The global warming issue isn't political. It's recognised as a problem across the political spectrum.
-
I haven't seen nor am I likey to see Al Gore's movie. However, there's no lack of sensationalistic, sky-is-falling, fear mongering, some of which I do see and hear. The question is, is the boy crying wolf yet again? Maybe we'll all be eaten by the wolf this time around but that's a chance I'm willing to take to avoid jumping through hoops every time he yells. Of course I am watching the wolf crier and listening to his story, just not convinced, yet.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
Yes Indy, that probably sums it up. As you suggest, it's very different over here. The global warming issue isn't political. It's recognised as a problem across the political spectrum.
Ahh, then you're more screwed then we are. Politicans can't do anything right. :(
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk.... nice try. First you assume that rising co2 levels are the sole or main "cause" of global warming even tho it would take a doubling of Co2 levels and 100 years to rais temps even 1 degree
Then... you assume that the man made portion.... a pitiful 2-4% is gonna change anything.
Then why do democrats all try so hard to destroy the second amendment? surely if they had our interests at heart they would allow us to be armed if we chose? Or maybe.... gun control is just one aspect of a party that is...
lazs
You're like the Pink Floyd song, Us and Them.
Point 1, I said "If warming is due to CO2". Go look. read it again. But there seems to be scientific consensus that the greenhouse effect is real. As for the rest of your assertions, that curbnig emissions would do nothing, etc etc. At this point, as many have stated, it's not about reversing the effect, it's about mitigating the severity. As for your "science" behind 1 degree, let's shelf that until you can point at your research. In fact, don't. There's another graph filled thread if you want to do that.
AS for the 2nd amendment gun control troll. Open a new thread if you want to discuss gun control.
Let's stay on point. Most people haven't seen Gore's film, instead they choose to bash it and cite counterspin funded by big oil and big chemical. These companies really aren't in business to make the rural areas and wetlands of the USA nice places to live. The runoff from chicken and pig **** plus chemicals make the Arkansas river one of the most polluted on earth. Why would you bash Gore's film with Exxon funded FUD without at least LOOKING to see what you are saying, and even if you are representing what's good for YOU.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
You're like the Pink Floyd song, Us and Them.
Point 1, I said "If warming is due to CO2". Go look. read it again. But there seems to be scientific consensus that the greenhouse effect is real. As for the rest of your assertions, that curbnig emissions would do nothing, etc etc. At this point, as many have stated, it's not about reversing the effect, it's about mitigating the severity. As for your "science" behind 1 degree, let's shelf that until you can point at your research. In fact, don't. There's another graph filled thread if you want to do that.
AS for the 2nd amendment gun control troll. Open a new thread if you want to discuss gun control.
Let's stay on point. Most people haven't seen Gore's film, instead they choose to bash it and cite counterspin funded by big oil and big chemical. These companies really aren't in business to make the rural areas and wetlands of the USA nice places to live. The runoff from chicken and pig **** plus chemicals make the Arkansas river one of the most polluted on earth. Why would you bash Gore's film with Exxon funded FUD without at least LOOKING to see what you are saying, and even if you are representing what's good for YOU.
Just because we haven't seen seen his film does not mean we don't know him. Like Michael Moore, I don't have to see all of his crap to know that it is all crap.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Just because we haven't seen seen his film does not mean we don't know him. Like Michael Moore, I don't have to see all of his crap to know that it is all crap.
I see so many AH debates like this. The decision has been made already....
Reminds me of yet another of the global warming threads in which rotax (shades - don't know his real ID) was asking someone about a particular book, but wanted to know "what side it came down on" before he would commit to buying it. In other words, people only want to watch a film or read a book - if that book or movie is going to tell them what they want to hear.
-
Let's stay on point. Most people haven't seen Gore's film, instead they choose to bash it and cite counterspin funded by big oil and big chemical. These companies really aren't in business to make the rural areas and wetlands of the USA nice places to live. The runoff from chicken and pig **** plus chemicals make the Arkansas river one of the most polluted on earth. Why would you bash Gore's film with Exxon funded FUD without at least LOOKING to see what you are saying, and even if you are representing what's good for YOU.
See Beet! This is exactly what I meant. I could explain to him how a greenhouse actually works, and why "greenhouse" gasses function NOTHING like a real greenhouse... but it won't help. Any type of ability to debunk anything he says was blown out in his first paragraph. Look carefully at what he just said... agriculture runoff is now why the Arkansas river is nasty. Therefore, it's Exxon's fault for disseminating disinformation to bash Al Gore. I geuss we gotta shutdown those evil, corporate farmers?
Telling somebody they should switch to hydrogen, biodeisel, hybrids... I'm all for it. I full plan on micro-generating my own power with a combination of wind & solar when I build a house. Bio-alturism is a good thing. However, telling people that industry needs to be taxed and punished, when their combined effect in the next 100 years is equivelent to less than a 4% change in local humidity... that's just shennanigans.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I see so many AH debates like this. The decision has been made already....
Reminds me of yet another of the global warming threads in which rotax (shades - don't know his real ID) was asking someone about a particular book, but wanted to know "what side it came down on" before he would commit to buying it. In other words, people only want to watch a film or read a book - if that book or movie is going to tell them what they want to hear.
Come on now, do you really expect us to pay money to see yet another global warming disaster movie that's probably not the least bit entertaining since it's made by a politician? Tell ya what, send me 20 bucks (gotta have popcorn afterall) and I'll go see it.
-
we need to find a way to transform algore into clean burning energy.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Not all, if even most, of Christians believe the earth to be only 6,000 years old. If it makes you feel superior to lump us all together then please enjoy your own blind fundamentalism.
Unless you consider yourself a Fundimentalist I did not LUMP you together with them. If you are feeling LUMPED then the LUMPING was done only by you.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Unless you consider yourself a Fundimentalist I did not LUMP you together with them. If you are feeling LUMPED then the LUMPING was done only by you.
Fundamentalist has so many different meanings that use of the word is painting with a pretty broad brush.
-
Question for Nash and MT.
Are you voting to approve the next nuclear power plant to be built in your regions?
It's clean, cheap, non-puluting, non-CO2 making power.
I don't wan't to put words in your mouths but I just have a feeling how you'd vote.
-
Originally posted by lukster
Fundamentalist has so many different meanings that use of the word is painting with a pretty broad brush.
No, I think if you subscribe to the belief that the Bible (a book written, edited and compiled by men) is truth down to the last dotted I and crost T. then I would say your a fundimentalist.
-
dos ekk... you brought up gun control not me... it was right after your re4ligion bashing (also off topic) paragraph.
You are the one who brought up gun control as the reason we aren't all supporting the liberal socialist democrats..... all us... non millionare "little guys". What crap.
And yes... it is "us against them" their very existence depends on leach like sucking.
But you did say "if co2 is causing global warming" Sooo... I guess we can agree that until we are sure that it is AND that the man made portion is significant enough to do something about it...
That we will agree that we don't need to do anything about this particular boogey man except watch the studies and check their accuracy?
I don't need to fund any "excieting new programs" with my hard earned tax money to give opprotunities to millionaires... I'm a "little guy" remember?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk... you brought up gun control not me... it was right after your re4ligion bashing (also off topic) paragraph.
You are the one who brought up gun control as the reason we aren't all supporting the liberal socialist democrats..... all us... non millionare "little guys". What crap.
lazs
The term "gun rack republican" is not a term meant to denote anything about one's right to bear arms. I may as well have said "NASCAR-dad republicans". It's meant to highlight a demographic. Guys who like to hunt and fish, who live south of the Mason-Dixon line, and who get royally screwed by Republican policy over the long haul but continue to see the Democrats as weak-knee liberals out to tax and spend them to death.
See:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0715/p01s02-uspo.html
(It doesn't conflict with any of your beliefs, and it was written by a Christian newspaper, so it's ok to read laze)
It's mostly social issues like gay marriage that the Republicans have capitalized on. And being big business friendly is seen as helpful to the employees who tend more to tow their employer's line for them.
Back to the thread topic - you don't want to know that Europe and pretty much everywhere else has agreed that global warming is real, what causes it, and what the effects might be. To you guys, it's a boogeyman used by liberals to scare Congress into large appropriations meant to give to pot smokin hippes to think about alternative fuel. Whatever. I could care less. THe new Avalanche from Chevy runs of E85, I guess you guys will switch to Fords now.
Meanwhile, the real scientists that are off-payroll so to speak, the ones who supported Kyoto - will look at what effects rising temps might have on crop production, shoreline erosion and other stuff worth researching. And maybe, just maybe - when it gets realy bad - there might be some curbs on fossil fuel emissions. Because sometimes regulation is good and gives economic incentive to invent technology where none existed before.
But you guys hate that. Free market, lasseiz faire - don't tread on me - I'm proud to love Jesus and the flag, in that order - you guys go ahead and keep thinking that this is all bull****. Sing a hymn and pray for us sinners out here, the ones who would like to preserve the planet for future generations.
And to anyone reading this outside the States: not everyone IN the States is so stupid as to not see what is going on. We're just massively outnumbered by people who can't spell exciting.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
No, I think if you subscribe to the belief that the Bible (a book written, edited and compiled by men) is truth down to the last dotted I and crost T. then I would say your a fundimentalist.
I agree that is one use of the word, maybe even the most common. There are others who ascribe it to some that take different parts or even any part at all literally, for example the virgin birth of Christ.
-
AL GORE SAYS
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
An “over representation of factual representations?” Not only is he admitting there are lies in his new movie, but he is saying it is okay as long as it is for a good cause. Don’t let the facts get in the way of you Incontinent Truth.
Ya...global warming...man is bad..Buuusch is satan
-
Originally posted by indy007
See Beet! This is exactly what I meant. I could explain to him how a greenhouse actually works, and why "greenhouse" gasses function NOTHING like a real greenhouse... but it won't help. Any type of ability to debunk anything he says was blown out in his first paragraph. Look carefully at what he just said... agriculture runoff is now why the Arkansas river is nasty. Therefore, it's Exxon's fault for disseminating disinformation to bash Al Gore. I geuss we gotta shutdown those evil, corporate farmers?
Telling somebody they should switch to hydrogen, biodeisel, hybrids... I'm all for it. I full plan on micro-generating my own power with a combination of wind & solar when I build a house. Bio-alturism is a good thing. However, telling people that industry needs to be taxed and punished, when their combined effect in the next 100 years is equivelent to less than a 4% change in local humidity... that's just shennanigans.
You're right, it's the Illinois river.
http://www.argentco.com/htm/f20060508.377356.htm
I would like to smack some regulation down on Tyson farms, if I could get past the fact they own every elected official in the state of Arkansas. So much so that Oklahoma had to do the suin'.
As for the rest, when you equated tax with punishment - you said everything we needed to know.
-
Over-represenation of factual presentations??? He must have let Bill write that. ;)
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
AL GORE SAYS
An “over representation of factual representations?” Not only is he admitting there are lies in his new movie, but he is saying it is okay as long as it is for a good cause. Don’t let the facts get in the way of you Incontinent Truth.
Ya...global warming...man is bad..Buuusch is satan
You guys are like little birdies, waiting for Hannity & Colmes to feed you the slander of the day.
over-representing facts is not exaggeration. Kind of a nuanced point, perhaps, and certainly lost on you "plain speakin" folks.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
You guys are like little birdies, waiting for Hannity & Colmes to feed you the slander of the day.
over-representing facts is not exaggeration. Kind of a nuanced point, perhaps, and certainly lost on you "plain speakin" folks.
It's pretty ambiguous which when you stop and think about it is appropriate considering the topic. But preach on brother Gore, you're gettin' plenty amens from the faithful.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
You guys are like little birdies, waiting for Hannity & Colmes to feed you the slander of the day.
over-representing facts is not exaggeration. Kind of a nuanced point, perhaps, and certainly lost on you "plain speakin" folks.
ex·ag·ger·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zj-rt)
v. ex·ag·ger·at·ed, ex·ag·ger·at·ing, ex·ag·ger·ates
v. tr.
To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate: exaggerate the size of the enemy force; exaggerated his own role in the episode.
To enlarge or increase to an abnormal degree: thick lenses that exaggerated the size of her eyes.
v. intr.
To make overstatements.
exaggeration
n 1: extravagant exaggeration [syn: hyperbole] 2: the act of making something more noticeable than usual; "the dance involved a deliberate exaggeration of his awkwardness" 3: making to seem more important than it really is [syn: overstatement, magnification] [ant: understatement]
I think dictionary.com disagrees.
-
I think ole Dos meant that "plain spoken" comment to be jab. I'll take plain spoken honesty over intellectually eloquent prevarication 7 days a week.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
You're right, it's the Illinois river.
http://www.argentco.com/htm/f20060508.377356.htm
I would like to smack some regulation down on Tyson farms, if I could get past the fact they own every elected official in the state of Arkansas. So much so that Oklahoma had to do the suin'.
As for the rest, when you equated tax with punishment - you said everything we needed to know.
I said earlier in this thread we should fix local problems first. Thanks for finally agreeing with me. Now, that article says of many farms, a number are associated with Tyson foods. It doesn't even say what number. Now, you can tax Tyson foods for where their supplier is located. Somebody has to pay, and it should be Tyson because they're the evil corporation. Well... that's your idea. I happen to think there's better solutions out there than relying on our government. I'd be willing to be there's people on this board who know a thing or two about irrigation and could propose a solid, cost-effective solution to controlling the runoff.
You have to be the best troll ever. You've got me hooked. I didn't know it was possible for somebody to scream about corrupt government that's in bed with corporations, and then expect the government to know best and punish those evil corporations with taxes. Big Government is only good at talking about problems, not doing anything about it. It doesn't matter who's in charge.
-
Words for the wise: Beware the progressive socialist elitist that try to subvert this board with indignity. They come off as real smart and happily degrade plain speaking (aka straight talking) folk but all they really are is fancy talking self righteous bigots.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Words for the wise: Beware the progressive socialist elitist that try to subvert this board with indignity. They come off as real smart and happily degrade plain speaking (aka straight talking) folk but all they really are is fancy talking self righteous bigots.
And secular humanists. Don't forget that.
-
Originally posted by indy007
I
You have to be the best troll ever. You've got me hooked. I didn't know it was possible for somebody to scream about corrupt government that's in bed with corporations, and then expect the government to know best and punish those evil corporations with taxes. Big Government is only good at talking about problems, not doing anything about it. It doesn't matter who's in charge.
Quite in line with my anti-federalist leanings. Those hick state governments need real intellectuals from Washington to keep them from letting the local business baron run roughshod over them.
-
Originally posted by indy007
ex�ag�ger�ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zj-rt)
v. ex�ag�ger�at�ed, ex�ag�ger�at�ing, ex�ag�ger�ates
v. tr.
To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate: exaggerate the size of the enemy force; exaggerated his own role in the episode.
To enlarge or increase to an abnormal degree: thick lenses that exaggerated the size of her eyes.
v. intr.
To make overstatements.
exaggeration
I think dictionary.com disagrees.
As I said, nuanced. Too nuanced for you.
Bringing up facts and more facts and keep harping on all the studies that show global warming to be real - thats over representing the facts. He shouldnt have to harp and harp on it, except he knows that there are still backwater folks who deny that global warming even exists.
As for liar, well that's a stretch. Better than a guy who doesn't even know reality:
Bush in September of 2004:
"And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. And the people of Afghanistan are now free. (Applause.) In other words when you say something as President you better make it clear so everybody understands what you're saying, and you better mean what you say."
This months press conference:
"BLITZER: Let's move on and talk about some other issues. I know your time is limited. Afghanistan. Is the Taliban making a serious comeback right now?
SNOW: I think what the Taliban is doing -- and it's predictable -- is that they are trying to test in the south, where the U.S. forces are handing over to NATO...But A, it's predictable, and B, in the encounters, as you know, the Taliban fighters have overwhelmingly been losing. Now, I think it is predictable...you can expect there to be pushback by the Taliban."
Wow. Pushback from something that doesn't even EXIST.
Now that's some trick of language.
-
Al's wasting his time. Hillary will never let him run again and he doesn't wanna cross her. He might wind up in that other thread. ;)
-
And secular humanists. Don't forget that.
====
nah...its a might sum we be better else talkin bout the one thing first then other some time later on a spell. Dont ya rekkon?
-
dos ekk...LOL... you are so transparent... Ok, so you like socialism and big government but the best you can do is repeat the mantra of all limosine liberals in that the "poor" republicans (or those who vote republican) are just too...... stupid... to know what is best for them....
You, and the christian socialist monitor, wonder why the JFK democrats are gone... They are gone because the democratic party left em... the democrats want to indocrtrinate their children and take away their rights to bear arms and tax them into oblivion and ban everything in sight including the family pickup.while ruining marriage and making us pay for it...
So tell me... are you liberals really that dumb? Do you really believe that the repuplicans are just people who have been conned and are too stupid to know what is good for them or..... is it simply that your arrogant and elitist message is so bad that they shun you?
As for opportunity.... the opportunity is there....You don't want to compete in a free market.... you want a government controlled and mandated one so that your junk science has a chance against real inventors and a real free marketplace..
like asbestos and mold.... your idea of "opportunity" is for the government or some lawyers to invent a crisis and then for the government to come up with bans and regulations based on the junk science so that all the flim flam men can rush in.
As an example... there are some really bright guys working on solar but they got screwed by the government... The government offered "incentives" for installing solar electrical systems.... every flim flam man is putting up whatever junk they can get... so long as it is the cheapest and worst there is... The real incentive.... the incentive to make better panels is lost to the "incentive" to make a lot of money on anthing you can throw on the roof..
That is the kind of government help you are asking us to buy into.
I don't like your politics and I don't like the way you do business. I would very much like to never have to deal with you.... but you know that don't you? that is why you want the government to force me to.
lazs
-
I think this guy pegged it:
"I have been attending fundamentalist churches for the last 20 years, and have gone to countless conferences during that time. I can't remember a single time when positions were taken in those meetings that were so pompous, so biased, or so lacking in humility. Those in the leadership of the Christian "right" never say that the debate is over. In this conference, that was the refrain. I think there is a problem in our scientific community. The consequence of this problem may only result in horrible science, but it could result in tyranny."
http://ideaplace.blogspot.com/2006/06/extreme-bias-of-scientists-at-global.html
-
lukster... that could also be a defining feature of liberals... they enjoy making fun of anyone who doesn't tow the line and poking fun at other peoples saints..... but
dare anyone make fun of their saints.... the teachers/professors and the in the pocket "scientists" and the liberal politicians....
make fun of those saints and your average liberal goes into a selfrightious and apopleptic rage.
lazs
-
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml?s=ic
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.
-
I'll ask the question again, is there any way we can convert AlGore to a clean burning gas? The world would be a better place....:rofl
-
He already IS a clean burning "gas."
-
Soo... if you don't tow the man made global warming line.... You lose the lucrative government contracts and have to....
get honest work?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Soo... if you don't tow the man made global warming line.... You lose the lucrative government contracts and have to....
get honest work?
lazs
Laz
You should just stop, doss knows what’s best, just listen to him, he has stated he is smarter then everyone here who disagrees with him.
Shouldn’t that be enough? I mean he can spell man! He must be able to know that all the Science behind global warming is fact and we have more then enough info to know its true. They can prove it without any doubts right? I mean only a smart guy like our buddy doss can know the truth, just trust him, he has said he is smarter then you, you dolt. How many times does he have to tell you he is smarter and better then your Christian self before you see the truth man! Wake up! The planet is on the line! Think of the children!
He KNOWS it man!
Your sooo dumb for not believing him, I mean really, HE knows! Science tells him! It’s a fact you dolt!
Stop listening to your Sunday preacher Laz, he is just a stupid person who only believes in the bible and will prolly any second now strap a bomb belt on and take out a boss abortion doctors. Stop being so selfish and have the Elco crushed! Do it for the children, and because doss is so much smarter then everyone here.
Maybe next he will want to force all those dumb republicans he is so much better then to camps or something. Maybe Nash can be the camp commander, when you come out you will be an arty pansy and will HAVE to own a Prius because it’s cute.
Really.
:rolleyes: :D
-
:lol
This is great. Thanks GTaRA2. You got it. Except the part about me. You don't have to listen to me, just listen to the people whose science is based in fact and empirical studies. And take note of the Bob Carter's of the world, who go to work for "Competitive Enterprise" groups that are really funded by Exxon.
Is that so hard? To know who is buttering your bread and to think for yourself and do a bit of research? I found out Bob Carter was an Exxon shill in about 2 minutes.
As for religion. Well... it's very premise is flawed. Don't accept anything on faith.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Don't accept anything on faith.
You must have one hell of a research facility at your house.
Either that or you don't "accept" anything.
-
Where are the empiracal studies from the last saw 2 cycles of global cooling and warming? A sample of only 2 cycles is hardly a statistically significant amount but so far even that is absent.
-
Data? what data? I have seen nothing that even says that co2 was the cause of increased global climate change in any cycle since the earth began. I see no evidence that man has any significant effect on global warming or cooling much less..... how much.
Not one scientist can tell us what needs to be done nor how much any solution to man made "pollution" will change the outcome.
Seems that most scientists believe that global climate cylces have more to do with variance in the suns energy than anything else.
As for Carter... if he is a shill for some evil empire bent on global warming.... then he (his reasoning) should be extremely easy to disprove... all you have to do dos ekk is to show us the parts where he is wrong.
Instead... he simply points out that the "scientists" that dos ekk worships are not being completely truthful with us... al gore has admited that he is not interested in the truth... why would they be?
lazs
-
what about farts? is there any empiracal data on the impact of farts on global warming?
With 5 billion fartmakers running amok 24-7-365, there must be a fart impact on the environment???
-
Originally posted by Yeager
what about farts? is there any empiracal data on the impact of farts on global warming?
With 5 billion fartmakers running amok 24-7-365, there must be a fart impact on the environment???
Al gore should just kill himself then, everything coming out of his mouth is pretty fart like.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Instead... he simply points out that the "scientists" that dos ekk worships are not being completely truthful with us... al gore has admited that he is not interested in the truth... why would they be?
lazs
Guilty as charged. Science is my religion.
This is an uphill battle, and I'm getting tired of being the only one here arguing. You guys win, I'm worn out from typing.
My last point, I can't disprove a negative. Nobody can. You learn that in logic class, btw. Carter says that the vast majority of scientists that draw conclusions about CO2 gas net effect are wrong. And that Gore is an alarmist. That's it. He says more study is needed.
That's just a stalling tactic to prevent any potential punative actions regarding emissions or get Congress to start funding E85 or something that would start putting money in farmer's pockets and not theirs.
At some point you have to say scientific consensus is reached. It's never going to be uninanimous, not as long as some people are for sale.
My take is that everyone else, and I mean everyone else besides the US says that many of the major studies are right. Even our buddies in the UK aren't going to hang with us on this one, they have way to much to lose from rising sea levels.
-
If you want some great information on this subject watch the NOVA program called a dimming sun.
-
Originally posted by icemaw
If you want some great information on this subject watch the NOVA program called a dimming sun.
NOVA is on PBS. lazs and the gang here hate that stuff. Ivy league intellectuals do that stuff. If there was a show on community access that had BBQ tips AND dismissed global warming - they would be all over it.
-
disprove a negative? you can't even prove a thing. You (your scientists) will not even tell us how much man made C02 is affecting global tempretures or.... how switching to e85 will change anything..
So you tell me... we all switch to e85.... will global warming end because of it? will it slow down global warming? how many minutes will it change either global warming or cooling? What exactly or... even roughly (within decades) wil it do for us?
Ok... you want farmers to grow crops... great... as fuel prices go up that will be a good idea... it is allready happening... what is your problem with letting the free market drive it?
Why do you have to create a crisis to get what you want? I guess that is all I am saying.... why be so dishonest about the whole thing? Is it because, like gore, you think that the rest of us are just to dumb to know what is good for us and.... the end justifying the means.... that you have to lie and exagerate "for our own good"?
no thanks... go try to sell it to some less gullible people.
I trust that carter guy at least as much (or as little) as all the "scientists" (who aren't even climate scientists BTW) who you believe.
lazs
-
LOL... your true elitist colors are showing wide and strong dos ekk..
Only you are smart enough to understand.... course.... you aren't smart enough to explain much less convince are you?
Should be easy to convince us BBQ dumb rednecks.... Points to a flaw in your abilities I would say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
NOVA is on PBS. lazs and the gang here hate that stuff. Ivy league intellectuals do that stuff. If there was a show on community access that had BBQ tips AND dismissed global warming - they would be all over it.
Maybe you should stop ASSuming you know what people are thinking. You would stop looking like such as arrogant ass. But maybe being an arrogant bellybutton is your thing. Seems like it so far at least.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
My last point, I can't disprove a negative. Nobody can. You learn that in logic class, btw.
Huh? Try this. It is not now snowing on your front yard and there is no snow accumulated there. That sounds like a negative to me. Now, go outside and you will see the proof.
Or, if you like, it is not daylight in denver now. Can you not disprove that?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
what about farts? is there any empiracal data on the impact of farts on global warming?
With 5 billion fartmakers running amok 24-7-365, there must be a fart impact on the environment???
They already are studing bovine flatulance (gorees for cow farts).
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Maybe you should stop ASSuming you know what people are thinking. You would stop looking like such as arrogant ass. But maybe being an arrogant bellybutton is your thing. Seems like it so far at least.
So, you like PBS then?
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
So, you like PBS then?
Sure, depending on the show.
I found there show on China and tank man very interesting.
That's the problem with you, you made assumptions about people you who you don't know well (unless your a shade, then your just not paying attention)and really look silly.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
So, you like PBS then?
I always hated that time of month. ;)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Sure, depending on the show.
That's the problem with you, you made assumptions about people you who you don't know well (unless your a shade, then your just not paying attention)and really look silly.
I seem to be the only Democrat in the hornet's nest. I chose to disagree about Gore and Fonda, and I was labelled. A limosine liberal. All kinds of ****. Immediately. Read the threads.
Now, you want to put away the labels and have a debate - then I will stop baiting.
Here is Gore's problem:
He's not chicken little. He's chicken *****. He wrote Earth in the Balance in the 90's, and then wouldn't touch environmental issues with a 10 foot poll in 2000 when they weren't tracking well with his handlers.
Even with Clinton getting hummers, he was running on 5 years of boom and no war, no terror. That he lost, even with Florida irregularities, is ridiculous. Now, with nothing on the line he comes back for this film. So he has something, so he wont be forgotten.
He does more harm than good. All the wingnuts immediately see he is the host and write the film off, and go looking for counterspin.
It's the same with Jane Fonda. She is the butt of every vietnam invective in the last ten years of CK/WB/AH. You know what? She's an idiot, she was used. She was used by the French director who made her do Barbarella, she was used by Tom Hayden who got her to become anti-war, and she was used by Ted Turner as a trophy wife. Go after Hayden, he actually benefitted from his stance on Vietnam.
So really, when there is very little room for listening and debate - don't accuse me of being arrogant. THe height of arrogance is refusing to even look at what a large group of scientists is saying is an issue and instead bashing the messenger.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
THe height of arrogance is refusing to even look at what a large group of scientists is saying is an issue and instead bashing the messenger.
So who's not looking? I think you assume too much.
-
Yep... his arrogance won't allow him to see people... he loves humanity but hates people... a liberal flaw.
PBS? some programs are/were good. I will admit to not watching more than an hour or so per year these days. The reason? They are left leaning in the extreme. It is frustrating to listen to them say outlandish things and pass them off as proven facts.... Like saying man is the main cause of global warming/cooling and just tossing that remark off casualy.
These days... I use the internet... even more than books. I want to read an article of carl frigging sagans? I go to the internet instead of PBS... Or, Public extorted service.... PBS can't even have a show on atronomy these days without a lefty lecture in there somewhere...
At least with the internet I can find the articles without social comment or... find both pro and con social/political arguements... A person who watched only PBS would have a very strange outlook.
If a source is 80-100% one political leaning or the other... it is foolish to not take that into consideration when watching... Fox news is fun for me to watch during crisis but I know that they are about the same right as PBS is left. I keep that in mind.
Lately... I have enjoyed this BB and the links that a lot of you have provided.... they (taken as a whole) provide a lot more give and take than all the PBS or Fox news watching in the world.
lazs
-
There are billyuuuns and billyuuuns of stars........................ ......
:D
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Not to mention TWC attack
-
Originally posted by lazs2
If a source is 80-100% one political leaning or the other... it is foolish to not take that into consideration when watching... Fox news is fun for me to watch during crisis but I know that they are about the same right as PBS is left. I keep that in mind.
Fox is the only channel that is not tilted so heavily to the left that they seem like right wing. An example would be CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC and CNN, I exclude the BBC, they think Trotski was a Neo-Con, Facist Homophobic, Racist. Sexist, Gun Crazy, Nascar Lovin', Republican.
-
everyone is the centrist of their own little world
also
man who go to bed with ichy butt wake up with smelly finger
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Rule #4
Dude, put your dentures back in before you go off like that.
-
I'm not sure that "everyone" feels that they are "centrist"... I do feel that a lot of people who hold radical right wing and left wing views feel that they know what is best for individuals and..... worse... that they are being "fair" about it.
Fox news is great in that it allows people a choice and a balance to the normal far left only news. It should be watched with that in mind and we should be grateful that it exists. Some... who would want only the lefty party line to be expressed by the media, would want fox news gone.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm not sure that "everyone" feels that they are "centrist"... I do feel that a lot of people who hold radical right wing and left wing views feel that they know what is best for individuals and..... worse... that they are being "fair" about it.
Fox news is great in that it allows people a choice and a balance to the normal far left only news. It should be watched with that in mind and we should be grateful that it exists. Some... who would want only the lefty party line to be expressed by the media, would want fox news gone.
lazs
Ironic comment, given that the GOP coordinates every year to kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding and destroy PBS. I don't know of a single liberal who has ever advocated censorship of FOX News. We just make fun of it.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
Ironic comment, given that the GOP coordinates every year to kill the Corporation for Public Broadcasting funding and destroy PBS. I don't know of a single liberal who has ever advocated censorship of FOX News. We just make fun of it.
You make it sound like the left/socialist/liberal media is being kept down by the big bad GOP man. Did you forget about CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN? Won't even mention the predominantly socialist press.
-
Originally posted by lukster
You make it sound like the left/socialist/liberal media is being kept down by the big bad GOP man. Did you forget about CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN? Won't even mention the predominantly socialist press.
If you look at the USA Today logo upside down and squint, it becomes a portrait of Trotsky.
Please. Tell that to the Knight-Ridder shareholders.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
:lol
This is great. Thanks GTaRA2. You got it. Except the part about me. You don't have to listen to me, just listen to the people whose science is based in fact and empirical studies. And take note of the Bob Carter's of the world, who go to work for "Competitive Enterprise" groups that are really funded by Exxon.
Is that so hard? To know who is buttering your bread and to think for yourself and do a bit of research? I found out Bob Carter was an Exxon shill in about 2 minutes.
As for religion. Well... it's very premise is flawed. Don't accept anything on faith.
So if the scientist isn't employed by a 'proper'left-leaning group, his findings are null and void? You make the point that many on the right have been saying: the topic of global warming, for many scientists, is more a compilation of their left-leaning political views than it is science--you get to punish big business AND the United States all at once. The only sure fact is that the world's temperature has gone up 1 degree over the last century...someone will have to explain to me why -26 degrees instead of - 27 degrees is killing Polar Bears
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The only sure fact is that the world's temperature has gone up 1 degree over the last century...someone will have to explain to me why -26 degrees instead of - 27 degrees is killing Polar Bears
I don`t think it is the temp that`s getting them. I think it`s from eating too much salted horse meat. :D
-
LOL dos ekk... you are such a socialist that you don't even see it in yourself..
Booo Hoooo mean old republicans want to kill funding for PBS!!!
I am fine with either party killing funding for both PBS and Fox news.
So go ahead and kill all the funding for fox news. Why should I support PBS with my money? Why should I hve to pay for them to get their lefty view out on the air?
If it is any good then they don't need to be subsidized. But then... you probly feel that school vouchers are wrong too.
I know you figure that government should be able to control globval climatic changes and that we should pay em to do it.
lazs
-
Uh-oh, 'ol Al got 5 stars from over 100 scientists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060627/ap_on_sc/gore_s_science
I guess they ALL must be liberal, huh?
-
Uh-oh, 'ol Al got 5 stars from over 100 scientists.
====
how many scientists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
-
Richard S. Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220)
Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen
-
Yeager,
In response to your question "How many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?" I would submit the following reply:
They would probably never actually get around to screwing a new bulb in.
The group of scientists would first have to study the phenomenon of the light bulb, formuate a hypothesis of why or how it works, study similar phenomena in other environments, test their hypothesis on both a random and a control group, observe the results, draw conclusions from their results, publish a paper and then submit said paper to a peer review board, conduct a series of lectures in various countries to win support for their study and its conclusions, and finally, start a new study to determine what impact said lightbulb would have upon the environment.
Lastly, they would probably, ultimately conclude that the lightbulb was NOT a result of "intelligent design."
Regards, Shuckins
-
...always cracks me up the way some people pooh-pooh science, despite a huge swathe of scientific achievement in the last 100 years alone, but place absolute faith in a Deity.
:lol
-
Beetle, it was a JOKE son! A FUNNY! A Yuk Yuk!
You've lost the ability to appreciate a good har-dee-har!
You're built too low to the ground...that one went right BYE ya!
You're educated beyond your CAPACITY!
Pay ATTENTION boy!
Nice kid, but he doesn't listen to a word ya say.
Regards, Shuckins
-
LOL Shuckins
"I say, I say , I say boy. That ain`t no chicken. "
-
allways cracks me up when people place so much faith in the theories of scientists even when allmost every long range theory/prediction they have ever agreed on turned out to be false or mostly so.
They seem to be very narrowly focused group of people who can't adapt rapidly to new information or even a lot of information when it comes to making long range predictions.
Sci fi writers have a better record for predicting the future.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
allways cracks me up when people place so much faith in the theories of scientists even when allmost every long range theory/prediction they have ever agreed on turned out to be false or mostly so.
They seem to be very narrowly focused group of people who can't adapt rapidly to new information or even a lot of information when it comes to making long range predictions.
Sci fi writers have a better record for predicting the future.
lazs
I don't think sci-fi writers so much predict the fututre as they do shape it. Didn't one of the greatest scientists of all time say "imagination is more important than knowledge"? Of course you might argue then that these Global Warming Alarmists are being pretty important. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
allways cracks me up when people place so much faith in the theories of scientists even when allmost every long range theory/prediction they have ever agreed on turned out to be false or mostly so.
lazs
Damn 'dem scientists. All that Jonas Salk and polio nonsense. Coulda 'bin cured with some gool ol fashion tonic I tell ya!
And 'dat Copernicus. Damn him, if it wasnt for him, we'd have the sun rotatin' 'round us! Like it should be!
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Yeager,
In response to your question "How many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?" I would submit the following reply:
They would probably never actually get around to screwing a new bulb in.
The group of scientists would first have to study the phenomenon of the light bulb, formuate a hypothesis of why or how it works, study similar phenomena in other environments, test their hypothesis on both a random and a control group, observe the results, draw conclusions from their results, publish a paper and then submit said paper to a peer review board, conduct a series of lectures in various countries to win support for their study and its conclusions, and finally, start a new study to determine what impact said lightbulb would have upon the environment.
Lastly, they would probably, ultimately conclude that the lightbulb was NOT a result of "intelligent design."
Regards, Shuckins
But you missed the real purpose of their scientific inquiry....they would all apply for a grant of 106.8 million dollars to better understand how the lightbulb may be contributing to climate change.
-
AP bias? no way! lol
AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE’S MOVIE (http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909)
-
IN
-
What do you call a guy named Gore from Texas?
GORETEX
get it?
====
sKUzzY is teh Threadinator!
-
:rolleyes:
-
How could you possibly think gore is biased in science. Nuts, gore INVENTED science!!!
Oh and IN :p
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
But you missed the real purpose of their scientific inquiry....they would all apply for a grant of 106.8 million dollars to better understand how the lightbulb may be contributing to climate change.
But the Republicans would have given all the money away already in a one time "enterprise zone" tax break to a corporation that contributed to their campaign. And the money would have gone to its rightful place - as bonuses to the executive board and to raise the dividend by a penny.
-
IN
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180107
-
Try this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24&search=al%20gore
Bronk
-
dos ekk.. I see that you have trouble following....
We are not talking about polio vacines here. We are talking about predicting the future. Scientists have a very poor record of that. Even something as simple as a polio vacine... they would have a much better chance of inventing it than of predicting when it would happen or.... even if.
You seem to be saying tho that if they are smart enough to cure polio then they most certainly can predict and understand global climate.
You might just as well as said that since they can't even cure the common cold... they have little chance of predicting the weather for next week.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk.. I see that you have trouble following....
lazs
Following your logic? I think most people do...
You think science and the scientific method are things to be scorned. I really don't think there is any point continuing then...
-
How could anyone possibly question the rock solid facts and statements made by global warming scientists?
Such as ...."Maybe/maybe not".."Could be/could not be"......"Possibly/possibly not".........."IF"..and my all time favorite....."I have a gut feeling".
So where is the confusion?
:D
-
Originally posted by Maverick
gore INVENTED science!!!
Wrong! Gore invented Kurt Tank then went on to invent the internet.
Oh......and the pay phone. Nearly forgot that one.
-
IN
-
yes lazs..you are complelty illogical
crazy ..crazy crazy
since my last post got deleted becuase of nannies..here you go...
Even with Clinton getting hummers, he was running on 5 years of boom and no war, no terror. That he lost, even with Florida irregularities, is ridiculous. Now, with nothing on the line he comes back for this film. So he has something, so he wont be forgotten.
Yes...Dos X..you are really smart..I guess Cobar towers 200 + dead marines..first WTC attack ect ....That was Peace and Harmony...
What Albright didn't say in her response to Kerrey was that back in the summer of 1998, at the time of al Qaeda's attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa, there were a lot of people talking — and talking and talking — about war. For example, when the U.S. retaliated by firing cruise missiles at al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, one high-ranking Clinton-administration official said: "This is, unfortunately, the war of the future. This is going to be a long-term battle against terrorists who have declared war on the United States. That is what Osama bin Laden did. He basically made clear that all Americans and American facilities were potential targets, and he used the word 'war.'"
-
Yes Dos X...you need to learn a bit more before you stand up behind the limpwristed linguine spinned socialist's.....
There was plenty of "Peace" during Clintons years....classic bury your head...
After the first World Trade Center bombing in March 1993, for example, Clinton warned Americans not to overreact, and, in an interview on MTV, described the bombing as the work of someone who "did something really stupid." That's not exactly tough talk.
The president had gotten the words down a bit better by June 1996, after the attack on the Khobar Towers barracks in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. "The cowards who committed this murderous act must not go unpunished," Clinton said the day of the bombing.
But the next day, Clinton stumbled a bit. "Let me be very clear: We will not resist," he said before quickly realizing he had said something wrong. "We will not rest in our efforts to find who is responsible for this outrage, to pursue them and to punish them."
Clinton got the rhetoric right by the time of the embassy attacks. "We will use all the means at our disposal to bring those responsible to justice, no matter what or how long it takes," he said then. "We are determined to get answers and justice."
By October 2000, when al Qaeda attacked the USS Cole, Clinton had the routine down. "We will find out who was responsible and hold them accountable," he said.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
yes lazs..you are complelty illogical
crazy ..crazy crazy
since my last post got deleted becuase of nannies..here you go...
Yes...Dos X..you are really smart..I guess Cobar towers 200 + dead marines..first WTC attack ect ....That was Peace and Harmony...
I said 5 years. The first attack on WTC was in '93. From 95-00, we had the Cole in 98. We had Somalia. The attacks on the embassies in Africa in 98 that killed 228, many of the Americans.
A low hum compared to a major domestic attack, no? And, of course, you missed the major point about the economic boom of that time being able to carry an incumbent party through. You always ignore anything that you don't like or makes a point, huh?
You can't even define socialism. You think anybody who advocates the role of government in anything is a socialist. You couldn't pass a poli sci 101 test on the definition of the word. To you, all Democrats are 'Red'. Boring.
-
Rogue Scientist Has Own Scientific Method
TALLAHASSEE, FL (ONION)—Only months after abandoning a tenured position at Lehigh University, maverick chemist Theodore Hapner managed to disprove two of the three laws of thermodynamics and show that gold is a noxious gas, turning the world of science—defined for centuries by exhaustive research, painstaking observation, and hard-won theories—completely on its head.
The brash chemist, who conducts independent research from his houseboat, has infuriated peers by refusing to "play by the rules of Socrates, Bacon, and Galileo," calling test results as he sees them, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"If you're looking for some button-down traditionalist who relies on so-called induction, conventional logic, and verification to arrive at what the scientific community calls 'proof,' then I'm afraid you've got the wrong guy," said the intrepid 44-year-old rebel, who last month unveiled a revolutionary new model of atomic structure that contradicted 300 years of precedent. "But if you want your results fast and with some flair, then come with me and I'll prove that the boiling point of water is actually 547 degrees Fahrenheit."
Armed with only with a Bunsen burner, a modest supply of chemical compounds, and a balance scale—the last of which Hapner has "yet to find any good reason to use"—this controversial nonconformist defies every standard definition of what a scientist should be. From his tendency to round off calculations, to his rejection of controlled experiments, Hapner is determined to avoid becoming "one of those cowardly sheep who slavishly kowtows to a tired old methodology."
"I'm sure my opponents would love to see me throw in the towel and start using empirical evidence to back every one of my theories," Hapner said. "They'd have a better chance convincing me that metals, like copper, are naturally strong conductors of electricity."
Shrugging off criticism as "self-limiting," Hapner says he plans to proceed with his study on the water-purifying properties of hydrocyanic acid.
"What my hopelessly pedantic colleagues fail to realize is that their scientific method is just that—their method," said Hapner, whose self-published 2004 thesis argued that matter exists in four states: solid, liquid, gas, and powder. "After all, would a chemist who closely observes a phenomenon, formulates a hypothesis, predicts a likely outcome, and then tests the hypothesis be capable of proving that photons, far from being subatomic particles, are actually the size of a child's fist?"
While his peers employ meticulous testing and protracted deliberation, Hapner often refuses to formulate a hypothesis until midway through an experiment. "Anyone who tells you that chemistry is an exact science is overthinking it," he said.
"Yesterday alone I solved Kauzmann's Paradox, improved Hund's Rule Of Maximum Multiplicity, and disproved what is known as the 'cage effect' of a molecule," Hapner added. "All without having to rinse out the one beaker I was using."
Had he used the outmoded scientific method, Hapner said, few of the scientific advancements he has made would have been either achieved or remotely interesting.
Despite his innumerable achievements, Hapner faces many experts who remain skeptical and have even declared his findings corrupt, irrational, irresponsible, and unscientific.
"It's true that I've been condemned and ridiculed by the world's most prominent chemists, as well as by a good number of amateur hobbyists," Hapner said as he rubbed a balloon on his head to demonstrate a basic principle of hydrodynamics. "But then, wasn't Einstein ridiculed when he unveiled his theory of relativity, or Copernicus when he posited that the Earth revolved around the sun? True, I have since proved them both wrong, but at least they took risks."
Hapner is undoubtedly taking a great risk with his latest study, but the maverick scientist is confident his work will pay off.
"Bombarding a plutonium nucleus with accelerated electrons, long believed to produce a nuclear fission reaction, has, in fact, no consequence at all," Hapner said. "I'm going to prove that if it's the last thing I ever do."
-
Originally posted by DiabloTX
(http://fayez.com/movies/vinny2.jpg)
Everything that guy just said is bull****... Thank you.
That's it in a nutshell.
Why don't you just read the book? [/B]
rofl awesome!
-Sik
-
" a low hum"
yes..dead americans.."Lo hum"..
So whats your "death count" when its worth killing the scum who did it/support...or even not call the death of hundreds...."lo hum"?
and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
...and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder
Then what, pray tell, is your excuse?
-
dos ekk... are you now saying that because scientists cured polio that they can predict global climate changes decades.... even centuries into the future? That they now have the ability to calculate the exact energy the sun will produce all through those years? That they have modeled every possible effect on global climate with complete accuracy?
And.... haveing done that.... they can now tell us exactly what we need to do to adjust global climate changes? How much of it can be affected by us?
lazs
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
and yes Liberalism is a mental disorder
Does that picture of Strom Thurmond over your bed talk to you at night?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
dos ekk...
And.... haveing done that.... they can now tell us exactly what we need to do to adjust global climate changes? How much of it can be affected by us?
lazs
lazy,
You're right. Science is bunk because it doesn't have every answer for every question any quack like you can propose. So, like you - we should give up and put our faith in prayer.
-
Originally posted by Dos Equis
You're right. Science is bunk because it doesn't have every answer for every question any quack like you can propose. So, like you - we should give up and put our faith in prayer.
LOL
-
"Bombarding a plutonium nucleus with accelerated electrons, long believed to produce a nuclear fission reaction, has, in fact, no consequence at all," Hapner said. "I'm going to prove that if it's the last thing I ever do."
Now this is a real faith in the correctness of his theory.
-
Do Ted Kenedy and Slimstein ..Byrd talk to you?
Liberalism is a mental disorder
-
dos ekk... I am not asking them to have the answer to every little thing but.....
before I decide to quit eating or start eating eggs or milk because of what they tell me or to stop driving cars because of what they tell me....
I expect em to have some pretty compelling evidence....
They said they did about eggs... when they change their mind they say that they have new compelling evidence... they have a history of reversal. and... worse... a dismal history of predicting the future based on what they know....
They also have a history of exaggeration and then backtracking..... at first second hand smoke was suppossed to be 10 times worse than first hand smoke.... once they got the panic driven bans in place.... they backed off...
Doctors told of all the brain dead non helmet wearers.... once the panic driven helmet laws were in place they admitted that maybe there never were any...
So why would I believe that I should radicaly alter my lifestyle and grow government at my expense based on even more long range and even more flimsy data and predictions?
let's give a practical example shall we?
in 1960 most of the worlds scientists said that we were running out of many of the worlds vital resouces... they named I think, 10 metals and resources that we would deplete in 10 or 20 years.... turns out than known amounts of every single one of those is more now than then.
You can put all the faith you want into scientific predictions but if you had invested based on what they said.... you would be up crap creek...
If you had quit eating dairy products based on what they had said you might now be unhealthy.
so yes.... I want em to get it right before I let their predictions affect my life...
Politicians of course and socialists are not driven by the same things tho.... their intent is simply to grow government so.....
Any prediction of doom is good enough for them.
lazs
lazs