Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton [Archive]

Kydorias

07-23-2008, 04:27 PM

Much thanks!

:smile_ok:

Honestly...I figured if that social phenomenon worked for the Nazis. Cheney, and Gore...it should work for me. It appears to be working. Our press release goes out next week with a site relaunch and a Google budget of $4,000 a month. I figure I'll get 1,000,000 hits by October.

How sad is it when the best quote I ever saw was from Marilyn Manson when he said the entire US economy is based on fear and consumption in the middle of a Michael Moore movie.

See? Even liberals don't like Al Gore!Well I think you're taking advantage of the anti-global warming phenomenon at the perfect time. Just like any "religous" crusade, the GW crusade is starting to cause backlash. And just like a religous crusade, those in support of preventing global warming are decrying the skeptics as ignorant, ill-informed and stupid.

But honestly, I don't believe its a conspiracy for profit. My previous response to your Goering quote was a bit sarcastic. I think the GW fanatics are genuinely concerned about our planet's future and have good intentions overall. I just don't like the zealousness with which they have embraced thier philosophy. It's exactly like religious fundamentalism: "How DARE you doubt the indubitable!"

Healthy debate on both sides of the issue is a good thing. I think both sides have lots of good debating points.

Soushia

07-23-2008, 10:07 PM

Well I think you're taking advantage of the anti-global warming phenomenon at the perfect time. Just like any "religous" crusade, the GW crusade is starting to cause backlash. And just like a religous crusade, those in support of preventing global warming are decrying the skeptics as ignorant, ill-informed and stupid.

But honestly, I don't believe its a conspiracy for profit. My previous response to your Goering quote was a bit sarcastic. I think the GW fanatics are genuinely concerned about our planet's future and have good intentions overall. I just don't like the zealousness with which they have embraced thier philosophy. It's exactly like religious fundamentalism: "How DARE you doubt the indubitable!"

Healthy debate on both sides of the issue is a good thing. I think both sides have lots of good debating points.

I totally agree.

I think one of the points of the site (that gets lost in the snarkyness) is that NEITHER side is right...and wanting to piss away billions on knee-jerk plans is pointless.

I'd rather see MY tax dollars go to propper R&D in the form of grants to proven scientists...not no-bid contracts to para-military groups who think holding a coffee filter bare handed in a stream is with $103 Billion a year.

Anyone here my age or older will remember both the Oil Embargo (when people waited on line 16 hours to get 3 gallons of gas pumped), and the comming of the next Ice Age.

Scientists swore up and down that the next Ice Age was here and that we were all doomed (note the Fear and Consumption again...) based on tons of proven research. They had diagrams on the news every night of the projected path of the northern glaciers as they scraped across America on their way to the equator.

Now, 30 years later, they are once again swearing that they are right...but this time we are all going to dehydrate and then drown in sea water.

*sigh*

And for the record...I love the Goering quote simply for 2 reasons:

#1) It is the EXACT description of what our current administration has been doing for years (i.e. If you don't support murdering brown people then you don't support the troops and therefore you are unamerican and must be a communist!). Singlemindedness is the province of the small minded :smile_ok:

#2) Showing an exact corelation between the philosophy of our government, and the philosophy of the Nazi regime is too juicy to pass up!

CHEERS!

Soushia

07-23-2008, 10:08 PM

That youtube vid of yours got me PUMPED soush. I ran outside naked and lit myself on fire and started running around screaming "kickstart my heart" until the parameds came to save me. :smile_ok:

LOL...I'll let my boy Ted-E know you liked the vid. You should see the show live one night. Seriously, the guy is an animal.

Cheers!

Diraker

07-24-2008, 10:14 AM

There's always kooks but there is a lot of legitimate science going on regarding global climate change. It's not really my issue so I don't follow what goes on and who says what (as say compared to how I follow church state separation) but the science is out there, it's real, it's happening, and the activities of the creatures that live in this planet (including humans) effect the climate. To me, people who deny that global warming is happening or reject the notion that humans (and other creatures) can alter the climate in which they live are on the same level as intelligent design proponants.

Now even though environmentalism is not my area of interest I am fairly knowledgable of the science that surrounds it. If anyone wants to get into the science of it all I'll gladly get into it but if the conversation is going to revolve around what Joe Politiciana says, or Joe hack job says, well that's not nearly as interesting to me. (including Al Gore).

eta: Just felt like I should add...I value skepticism and open mindedness. That people are skeptical of claims is IMO awesome! I love skepticism. But skepticism means that you are merely skeptical and given ample evidence you're open enough to have your mind changed. Even Michael Shermer (probably the biggest and most famous "professional" skeptic (www.skeptic.com) has gone from being skeptical of GW to accepting that it's is happening and the activities of humans are at least part of the reason.

And for the record...since Ky missed a lot, I will no longer push for democrats or attempt to defend liberals. Obama and his fanboi's has made me realize that democrats are just as susceptible to words and flare over substance as conservatives. I only speak for myself. There plenty of loonie leftists and they bother me almost as much as radicals rightists. "Almost" because as far as I can tell there are many more radical rightists than loony leftists and the radical right has been in power ( or at least have major influence to those in power) for the larger part of the past 30 years. I'm also not voting this time around. Ewww to Obama. Triple ewww to McCain. My vote is to be earned, not merely given away just because someone has a "D" or "R" next to their name. That's not to say that I don't think the election is important, I'm just cynical in regards to the political scene over the past couple of years. Electioneering 4tl!

/rant off

Kydorias

07-24-2008, 03:57 PM

but the science is out there, it's real, it's happening, and the activities of the creatures that live in this planet (including humans) effect the climate.Of course biologic organisms that inhabit this planet affect the climate. No one can logically deny that. All those dinosaurs running around farting affected the climate. Trees affect the climate. Humans affect the climate. In fact, it is widely believed that extremely primitive plants affected the climate to such an extent that the surface became habitable enough for life to take hold and flourish.
To me, people who deny that global warming is happening or reject the notion that humans (and other creatures) can alter the climate in which they live are on the same level as intelligent design proponants. Its not so much that people deny global warming is happening. Its the extent to which the GW fanatics claim humans are a huge factor and that we can make significant changes to our climate by simply adjusting our lifestyle. Notice I said "significant". I can sit in my armchair for the rest of my life and therefore reduce my carbon output but my contribution to preventing global warming would be completely negligible.

What I don't like about GW fanatacism are the strident calls to expend vast amounts of resources (or more importantly, prevent spending resources that would improve the overall global economy) on things that might have no noticeable impact on the climate.

Reread what Soushia posted. In the late 70's the alarm from established science and coat-tailing media concerning the "impending ice age" was just as strident, if not more so, than the current GW paranoia. Look what happened to that idea. Oh how history repeats itself. Will we never learn?

Diraker

07-24-2008, 05:01 PM

In fact, it is widely believed that extremely primitive plants affected the climate to such an extent that the surface became habitable enough for life to take hold and flourish.

Absolutely and just too add that the oxygen created by these simple plants is what allowed for the manufactering of collagen. This is an oxygen heavy protein that sort of acts as material to build larger organisms out of. Something like 25% of your mass is collagen.

In the late 70's the alarm from established science and coat-tailing media concerning the "impending ice age" was just as strident, if not more so, than the current GW paranoia.

The difference in 1970 and today is that in 1970 it was the media that drove the issue. The media's frenzy was based on very few and very (and admittably so by the authors of the papers) speculative ideas about the climate of the future. The 70's also happened to be relatively cold. There had been a cooling trend since the 40's. So the idea of an impending ice age just sort of stuck in the media. There was no scientific consesus about an impending ice-age. There were a scant few papers and a sensationalistic media.

The get right to it, the idea that there was some scientific alarm is false. The coat tailing media description is innacurate too. It's a sensationalistic media taking a few things and revving them up to feed the public. Fear and consumption, I think.

Also there was some concern with the idea of aerosols (airborn particles) blocking out solar radiation because of pollution. Scientists didn't know what sort of impact it would have on what they were really seeing...which was global warming. Most scientists were of the opinion that the earth was heating up so that the 70's and recent years were colder begged for explanations...which is where these speculative papers about a cooling earth came from.

This time around the difference is that the science is overwhelming.

With that said I also think there are people from the left who take GW concerns too far and use types of arguments that are simply bogus. I compare these type of people to the 9/11 truthers. I'd be interested in some example of GW fanatics. I'd like to poke holes in their claims too.

Mutt

07-24-2008, 05:44 PM

Al Sharpton to Environmental science. This thread hath been skewed!

Soushia

07-24-2008, 08:02 PM

FYI Diraker:

The reason for the site and the debate is that there is a difference between "Man Made Global Warming" and "Natural Cycle of Global Climate Change".

Considering the world is BILLIONS of years old and we only have 100 years of viable science and research...don't you find it foolish that scientists and the government are 100% SURE that all of the environmental changes are caused by polution?

Keep in mind that these are the same people who called for an Ice Age, consider microwave ovens and cell phones safe, and can't find a cure for the common cold!

Just wait till they roll out the carbon credit system and companies like Exxon / Mobil get $900million per year from the federal government (via YOUR TAX DOLLARS) while Al Gore flys around in a private jet telling individual people that they have to reduce their energy usage.

The ignorance and hypocrisy is staggering!

Diraker

07-24-2008, 11:05 PM

IMO your site obfucates legitimate concerns and legitiamte criticisms about GW with just plain silliness. I find your site soft on science but very big on political spin. And I'm not here to defend Al Gore or what some government hack job is saying. I'm here to discuss science.

Soush, gimme what you consider the best sciencey article on your website. I'll check it out. If it's real science and I find it convincing maybe I'd be more skeptical of the claims of anthropogenic GW. I'm pratically immune to emotional appeals and political spin jobbery...that type of stuff won't work on me. Also, I'd be interested in seeing what you consider the most egregious example of bad established (to borrow a word) science in regards to GW.

Lozzt One

07-24-2008, 11:14 PM

But Diraker, even specialized scientist (climatologist and the such) have even stated that it would take 100s of years of studies to prove mans scathing indictment of speeding up GW. I find the whole argument to be moot considering that with in our lifespan there will be no conclusive study that will prove one or the other.

Diraker

07-24-2008, 11:31 PM

Soulein

07-25-2008, 12:37 AM

Gnioss

07-25-2008, 12:48 AM

Oh Oh!! Don't forget overpopulation!!
I don't get it. Are you saying the earth is not overpopulated?

Soushia

07-25-2008, 04:21 AM

But science isn't about proofs so I don't know what you mean. If there are scientists out there publishing stuff that suggest they proved something or that they are 100% certain of something then I want to see it for myself. If climatology has turned into a big woo woo fest then I want to know about it! Any examples of this? I am genuinely curious as to what part of the science people are taking issues with.

Again...it isn't about who is "right" or "wrong". It is about everyone being a complete nimrod thinking their view is the only view and being sure that THEY are right.

But for shits and giggles:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Now...people can go back and forth in a science war but that should tell you right there that there is something rotten in Denmark. If one person has incontrovertable proof that the earth is doomed and another has incontrovertable proof that the earth is fine then the logical conclusion is that no one knows what the hell they are talking about!

Carl Sagan, one of the most well respected and brilliant scientists in the history of the planet stated that we were headed for another Ice Age back in the late 70's. His postulation was that rapid deforestation would cause the planetary temperature to fall and the albedo to rise. He even suggested that the only way to stop the cooling would be to release massive quantities of greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere!

"The only true wisdom comes from knowing that you know nothing"

Kydorias

07-25-2008, 05:09 AM

The difference in 1970 and today is that in 1970 it was the media that drove the issue. The media's frenzy was based on very few and very (and admittably so by the authors of the papers) speculative ideas about the climate of the future.Lol, and that is different from the current GW media frenzy now? Lots of scientific "fact" has been presented by the GW fanatics. And recently scientific data by skeptics has been presented that refute some of the postulations that the GW zealots have put forth. And of course the mainstream media has decried the doubters as "stupid, ill-informed and illogical". Tell me that the media is not oversensationalizing something that established scientific sources are in disagreement about. Soushia is right. Contradictory scientific data means that we really have no solid conclusions about who is right or wrong. Much more study needs to be conducted, historical records reviewed, coree samples taken, etc... before we can really arrive at a solid scientific consensus. Obviously we aren't at such a state currently. Therefore it is illogical to conclude that we as earth's population need to take drastic measures to combat something that might or might not be the result of human affect on the climate.

The 70's also happened to be relatively cold. There had been a cooling trend since the 40's. So the idea of an impending ice age just sort of stuck in the media. There was no scientific consesus about an impending ice-age. There were a scant few papers and a sensationalistic media.WRONG! Plenty of "scientific" studies and data-gathering activities supported the idea that we were about to enter into an irreversible ice age. The media, always interested in sensationalism and fear tactics in order to improve ratings, jumped all over the "scientific" facts. No different from the current hype concerning GW. It always amazes me how people accept current dogma without regard to historical precedent.

This time around the difference is that the science is overwhelming.Only if you buy into the Al Gore led kool-aid that GW is INDUBITABLE and the skeptics are ignorant and foolish. I swear, if we as a human species continued to buy into such dogma we would still believe that the earth is flat and that the universe revolved around our planet Earth. Remember that people like Galileo were ostracized and reviled simply because they doubted the indubitable. Now look where we are. Fact and scientific study trumps dogma. And the fact is that there are current studies which refute/support both sides of the argument. Which means we don't know crap yet. So why take drastic measures to combat something which we might not have the ability to affect?

Shokar

07-25-2008, 08:44 AM

Keep in mind that these are the same people who called for an Ice Age, consider microwave ovens and cell phones safe, and can't find a cure for the common cold!

Damn, microwaves aren't safe? How am I gonna make Hot Pockets now?

Mourne

07-25-2008, 09:29 AM

Damn, microwaves aren't safe? How am I gonna make Hot Pockets now?

WTF HOT POCKETS AREN'T SAFE??

I'm a dead man.

Soulein

07-25-2008, 11:34 AM

WTF HOT POCKETS AREN'T SAFE??

I'm a dead man.

Lol, hot pockets...

Diraker

07-25-2008, 12:46 PM

Wow so much to potentially comment on. But I'll be brief.

Soush, who is Bob Carter? What papers has he published on this topic? Also is there anything in his past which might suggest his opinions might be biased (not that biased opinions = being wrong)? Is he affiliated with any ... let's call them "conservative think tanks"? So who is Bob Carter and why should I take what he says as "fact"?

Also please point me to where Carl Sagan sounds alarm bells. The only thing I can find is a few sentences from Cosmos about how humans can impact their environment. The very next segment talks about global warming and uses Venus as an example of greenhouse effect gone out of control. This was also in 1980...so again how is he part of this 1970's notion of alarmist scientists and coat tailing media? And on that notion people have actually looked into the claim that in the 1970's the scientific consensus was that of global cooling. But if you count up the articles published in scientific journals you find that articles about global warming outnumber articles about global cooling 9:1. Even such left wing GW warming fanatical publications like USA Today have debunked this.

Anyway RL calls and I have to play taxi for a while. Maybe I'll comment on some other points later but not until after I have fun with my kids, yay.

Soushia

07-25-2008, 03:14 PM

Diraker...while I love an occasional joust with you...I don't really want to be the universal fact checker for the uninformed and constantly questioning.

#1) Bob Carter is a pullitzer winning writer AND professor (PHD) of Environmental Science in Australia (and UK). The quote in the story he wrote that I linked goes back to the standards set by NASA regarding global temperature...as stated by Michael Griffin (head of NASA)

#2) Cosmic Connection - (1973) Read it!

#3) Fourtune Magazine - (1974) AIP Award

#4)http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp - This is a good link to just how many Global Cooling/ Warming scares there have been dating back to the 1800's by "notable scientists" who "have proof".

#5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&eurl=http://archive.redstate.com/blogs/10ksnooker/2008/apr/09/ice_age_is_coming_the_re_run -I just love this video

Again mate...you tend to miss the obvious becuse you are always charging head-long with tunnel vision.

NO ONE KNOWS!

NO ONE IS RIGHT!

THEY ARE ALL BLOWHARDS!

Nes pa?

Diraker

07-25-2008, 04:05 PM

Bob Carter is a geologist who's specialty is marine geology and stratigraphy...yeah looking for oil. He's used to be the director of some australian government oil deptartment and he is one a member of one of those conservative think tanks. But like I said I can call him biased but that says nothing of his claims so I'll address the two you quote.

When Bob Carter talks about 1998 he is cherry picking a spike in the data. This spike relates to a very strong El Nino that year. Prior to the spike the trend was warming and after the spike the trend is still warming. He is being dishonest. Notice he in his next "fact" he mentions "correcting for El Nino" but just before he fails to. He is being deliberately misleading.

Regarding his second "fact" about satellite data he is going all the way back to 1979 when satellite weren't as good as they are today and when they weren't measuring as accurately as they could have then taking that data to sort of hedge against the more recent data of a warming trend. More dishonesty on the part of Bob Carter.

And are you sure he's a pullizter prize winner or did you just pull a Bill O'Reilly? It says nothing of it on his home page. But I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.

Thanks for the Carl Sagan info I actually have not heard of that book and I'd be very interested in reading it. I did though look at the index on amazon and I see that he talks about quite a few things...if you want to see for yourself (since I doubt it will link) look in the index under Earth. There's "albedo of" "greenhouse effect" "ice ages on" "mountain formation on" "over crowding" "photograph of" "pollution of" and "temperature of, during geological time". Maybe I'll be wrong but for now I'm going with the assumption that you haven't read Carl Sagan's book either and that any sort of mention of a potential ice age is being cherry picked and taken out of context.

I guess that's enough for now. Anyway I'm finding it all the adjectives coming from you two interesting.

Soushia

07-25-2008, 04:36 PM

I am actually a fan of Sagan...more as an author than a scientist. He is like so many other "great minds" of the 50's thru 70's who thought eating lots of acid would help him find and talk to little green men in space. But he was a great author.

No..I didn't "pull an O'riley" (classic!). He was one of 4 men who won a pullizer for co-authoring "Morality of Climate Change" which was a running published series across the pond.

If you want some more Bob Carter stuff you can check this out:

http://adognamedkyoto.blogspot.com/2008/04/professor-bob-carter-from-james-cook.html

Essentially he is no different...no better or no worse than any of the other chuckleheads who think a PhD gives them the right to always be right!

Even as you stated...data from the 70's and 80's is flawed due to the limited technology (even though it was good enough to launch humans into space and walk on the moon). So who is to say that these same chuckleheads who are so sure we are all doomed wont be back around in another 30 years saying that NOW they are sure because the science is better?

The science will always improve from year to year. So any person or scientist or group who says they know for sure right now what is going on is full of crap and their hypothesis is severly limited by both the technology behind their science...as well as their massive ego.

Hence my website. It is all about everyones science being lame, alarmists wanting to fund their paranoia with MY tax dollars, and people being sheep when a bloated politician grows a beard, buys a jet, and gets a video camera.

Shokar

07-25-2008, 04:57 PM

Hence my website. It is all about everyones science being lame, alarmists wanting to fund their paranoia with MY tax dollars, and people being sheep when a bloated politician grows a beard, buys a jet, and gets a video camera.

Please tell me that whole microwave/hot pocket thing was just someone being an alarmist!

Diraker

07-25-2008, 05:04 PM

Well I think you misrepresent science when you offer Bob Carter up as an example. And IMO to suggest that since Bob Carter and soandso are nutjobs than anyone associated with the science are also not jobs. It's just doesn't follow.

Most of the people on TV are professional spokes people and pundits. People all groomed and well spoken to offer up a few sound bytes. They do not represent the science that is going on. Anyone who is only seeing the media spectacle will come away with very little of "established science".

Anyway for me it's all about the science. The political aspect and cultural phenomenon (in regards to GW) isn't my thing. To me, it all detracts from the interesting science aspects.

We are the same age so maybe you remember Sagan from when you were a kid. He was definitely an inspiration to me. His IMO basic message is wonder + skepticism. Btw if you like Sagan you might like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He's been on The Daily Show and Colbert like 10 times.

Soushia

07-25-2008, 05:23 PM

Well I offerd up that ONE example off my site out of the dozens and dozens of scientific sources. Again...everyone thinks their science is correct so at some point we have to reach a threshold where everyone can't possible be 100% right. That is just logic.

For every chcuklehead who thinks we are doomed and has "science" to back him up, there is another chcucklehead who thinks we are just fine and dandy who is also backed by "science".

NONE OF THEM ARE CREDIBLE!!! They are all looking for 15 seconds of fame to get funding for their next hair-brained hypothesis and the best way to do that is to have some form of recognition (i.e. there is no BAD press).

I just started mailing out press releases today...so in the next few weeks we will be booking media dates...i'll keep you in the loop so you can hear me assault nimrods live on the airwaves.

CONTROVERSY CREATES CASH!!!

WOOHOO!!!!

Soulein

07-25-2008, 07:20 PM

Science H. Logic!

Mourne

07-25-2008, 10:23 PM

Why is only the northern ice cap melting? I gUeSs iT'S cAuSe alL tEH heAt RISez.

Bur srsly, I was hearing something about a recent discovery that there may be volcanic activity underneath the northern ice cap and that could be what's melting some of that sheet (GET IT??). I don't know more cause it was on the radio when I was driving and I wasn't too engrossed in the program at the time.

I'm with Soush in that everyone thinks their science is correct and really no one knows anything for certain. If it wasn't so, there would be no debate because one side would be the correct and proven side. The likening of this whole GW thing to religious stuff is right on.

That said, I do think that GW is happening, that much isn't really disputed. The dispute is whether or not the human beings on this planet are what are causing it or can do anything to stop it. I don't believe so. This planet has been around for a long ass time and I don't really think there's a damn thing we can do (imo of course) that is of any real consequence to it. I believe the planet has hot and cold cycles that it goes through and we may be going through a hot one. Also, I feel that if things are heating up, the Sun probably deserves the credit, not little old us. I remember hearing somewhere again (but again I don't have an official source) that things are heating up in our entire solar system, not just here on earth. Unless there are some space cows emitting methane and driving SUV's on the rest of the planets that we just don't know about, who is to blame there?

Another thing I think is funny is how the GW "alarmists" or whatever they're called, seem to by-and-large be wanting to save the planet etc. Let's face it, this planet isn't going anywhere because of anything we do. We will. They should stop trying to act all noble talking about "save the planet" and just straight up say "let's try to save ourselves before we get killed by gigantic calamities we feel we're creating".

Mutt

07-26-2008, 12:38 AM

one main difference between north and south ice caps is that the south ice cap is not floating so much as it is resting on ground above sea level.

the northern ice cap is floating much more freely.

Diraker

07-26-2008, 02:46 AM

I'm with Soush in that everyone thinks their science is correct and really no one knows anything for certain. If it wasn't so, there would be no debate because one side would be the correct and proven side. The likening of this whole GW thing to religious stuff is right on.

Three sentences that IMO call out for comments. Now, I chose these because, again, it's the science I am interested in.

1) Science is a method; the method by which we separate good ideas from bad ideas. Science is not the accumulated pool of knowledge we think we have.

2) Just because there are political debates doesn't mean there are the same debates among scientists.

3) You're right but it's the exact opposite of what you think. The same arguments people use to argue in favor of things like intelligent design are the same arguments put forth by anthropogenic global warming deniers (I dunno what other descriptive word to use). That science isn't 100% certain. That nobody really knows. That since people used to believe x and x is now wrong therefore modern mainstream science will also be wrong. That there's some sort of conspiracy or collution among mainstream or "big science". That there's some scientists willing to take the anti-mainstream science stance but that "big science" rejects and mocks this poor misunderstood minority. That mainstream science is naively arrogant. That mainstream science is dogmatic (perhaps zealous) and like a religion itself. It's all the same spiel.

Mourne

07-26-2008, 01:50 PM

Science is really open to interpretation. It's one person (or a collection of people, as it were) saying A is science, B is not. Take something like parapsychology for instance. Psychic phenomena and things entering the realm of metaphysics. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you disbelieve in those things (even existing?) being sciences? There are people who would disagree with you, even scientists. I'm certain there are many scientists who are pushing for these esoteric areas of study to be examined and accepted by the scientific community. Then, it becomes a debate on what science should be, what it should be limited to, what the goal of the practice really is. Scientific theories are in a constant state of dynamism and things that are once "known" are eventually proven to be false or have to be readjusted to account for new things that become "known". Science is far from infallible, which seems to me to be what you're hinting towards (I could be taking it wrong, of course).

I'm going to have to disagree and say that, yes, science is a pool of knowledge that we think we have. It's also a method as you described, but it's also just a pool of knowledge we think we have. Theories change, sometimes become obsolete etc. It's not a question of simply assuming that because people believed x and x is now wrong it is = to modern science being now wrong. It's thinking logically and knowing that it is a conceivable possibility, far from being uncommon. Because it has happened frequently in the past, it would be illogical from my perspective to somehow attribute science with any degree of infallibility or an attitude of science being a be-all-end-all Truth (capital T) until proven otherwise. Things that were once truths become half truths or simply untrue the more we learn about our place in the universe.

Going back to my first paragraph, it seems like this could just wind up in a discussion of what science really is. If we simply take the dictionary definition (I'll spare you a cut/paste) then it seems like it would support the fact that science does not include many purviews of study that I feel it should, and that I feel it is beginning to, albeit slowly. Everything changes, and that to me includes what science "is".

Diraker

07-26-2008, 03:26 PM

Science is a work in progress. This is one of the strengths of science. Much of what you attribute to me in your post is exactly how I do not think but it is also exactly how IDers and the like paint science minded folk (again what descriptives to use?). This false notion that science makes claims of absolute truth or claim to be infallible or capital T truth and thusly they are (in my words from my previous post) "naively arrogant".

I'll also note that IDers also try to redefine science such that the new definition would encompasses their ideas. They tried to do it in Kansas so they could teach ID as science in science class.

Roxie

07-26-2008, 09:44 PM

Science is a conspiracy, imo!

Mourne

07-27-2008, 01:09 AM

Well, it looks like we agree more than I first assumed. :smile_ok: I also feel that that is one of the many strengths of science.

Yoma

07-27-2008, 11:09 AM

Science is a process. Data is open to interpretation.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

You don't see where he's cherry picking here? Seriously?

But what's really un-fucking-believably-asinine is this:

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

WTF? So he just writes off a bunch of heat and says that temperature hasn't changed that much? Yeah, that's great scientific work right there.

Gnioss

07-27-2008, 11:59 AM

microwave ovens and cell phones
Safe.
Go back to your hot pockets shokar.

Diraker

07-27-2008, 12:12 PM

I'll be away for a few days in Atlantic City. Cyas.

Kydorias

07-27-2008, 09:06 PM

WTF? So he just writes off a bunch of heat and says that temperature hasn't changed that much? Yeah, that's great scientific work right there.Huh? The quotes involved study on the overall global temperature and how biologically generated greenhouse gases might or might not affect it. Of course in such a study, you need to discount non-biologically related data such as vulcanism.

Soushia

07-27-2008, 09:18 PM

Anyone catch "Penn & Teller : Bullshit" on Showtime this week? It was about the whole Global Warming Alarmisim movement...and how GREEN guilt is even stronger then regualr white guilt.

Go watch it.

Priceless.

Yoma

07-28-2008, 12:20 AM

Huh? The quotes involved study on the overall global temperature and how biologically generated greenhouse gases might or might not affect it. Of course in such a study, you need to discount non-biologically related data such as vulcanism.

He's talking about the global temperature.

El Nino is part of the global temperature.

Where exactly do you think this heat came from, and where do you think it went?

You can't just say that "Without all this heat here it's not so hot".

Kydorias

07-28-2008, 03:18 PM

El Nino is part of the global temperature.

You can't just say that "Without all this heat here it's not so hot".Yeah I wouldn't have included El Nino as "unrelated" to greenhouse effects. It may or may not affect global warming, or it may or may not be affected by greenhouse. I don't think enough scientific evidence warrants it not being related in some manner to global warming.

Vulcanism however should be discounted when studying the effects of global temperature change as caused by biologic organisms. And really that's what all the current debate is about.

Kydorias

07-28-2008, 03:28 PM

You're right but it's the exact opposite of what you think. The same arguments people use to argue in favor of things like intelligent design are the same arguments put forth by anthropogenic global warming deniers (I dunno what other descriptive word to use). That science isn't 100% certain. That nobody really knows. That since people used to believe x and x is now wrong therefore modern mainstream science will also be wrong. That there's some sort of conspiracy or collution among mainstream or "big science". That there's some scientists willing to take the anti-mainstream science stance but that "big science" rejects and mocks this poor misunderstood minority. That mainstream science is naively arrogant. That mainstream science is dogmatic (perhaps zealous) and like a religion itself. It's all the same spiel.Wow you've really twisted this one around. Its the GW skeptics that are keeping an open mind, not the other way around. The GW fanatics are the ones assulting any dissenting viewpoint. The GW skeptics are basically saying "Hold on here folks. Lets take a step back and look at this more objectively and get a grasp on what attempting to affect our global climate really means. Will the vast economic expense required to supposedly affect global climate really pay off in any substantial way?"

If the answer is Yes, then I'd be for it. But at this point in time, there is too much conflicting scientific opinion for me to believe that handcuffing ourselves economically will result in any substantial improvement to our climate. And in actuality, current Green policy has caused deleterious worldwide repercussions such as the current shortage and resulting increase in costs of food supplies.

Food shortage aside, people just don't realize the negative global economic repercussions that will occurr if many of the "good ideas" put forth by Al Gore and his kool-aid drinkers are put into effect.

Soushia

07-28-2008, 06:04 PM

I found it truly lame and feeble when I found out that the original "carbon credit" company was started by Gore TWO YEARS BEFORE HE RELEASED HIS MOVIE!!

Gore is now taking in over $100 million per year in green guilt, and the only people who will come out on top when carbon credits become part of the new legislation are the oil companies and large manufacturers.

Bottom line is that the overall temperature of the planet since the 1930's has risen a whopping .8 degrees cel.

Honestly...is the sky really falling?

Shokar

07-28-2008, 07:56 PM

Safe.
Go back to your hot pockets shokar.

Thanks, Gnioss! You're my new hero! :smile_ok:

Yoma

07-29-2008, 03:59 AM

:banghead:

Ok, so when the Kyoto protocols started all the industrialized nations whined and moaned that it's so unfair that they have to do all the work and spend all the money to help advert climate change because due to humanitarian reasons less was asked of the developing world.

So the the government and industries of the developed world asked for a carbon credit trading system, where if they go above and beyond what was required of them they could monetize the overage by selling their excess to nations that didn't meet their Kyoto quota.

Oh, and they weren't going to sign up without it.

So Al Gore goes and invests in the trading system to try and make that happen and that makes him the villain?

Bottom line is that the overall temperature of the planet since the 1930's has risen a whopping .8 degrees cel.

Do you realize how much extra energy coming into the planet that represents? .8 degrees cel. across the entire atmosphere?

Yes, it is bad.

Soushia

07-29-2008, 01:16 PM

:banghead:

So Al Gore goes and invests in the trading system to try and make that happen and that makes him the villain?

Al Gore is taking in over $100mil per year and I am paying $50 to fill the tank on my Ford Escort.

Al Gore uses over 100,000kwhrs each month in his 80 room house...I can't afford to run my A/C below 75 degrees.

...Gore didn't "invest" in the trading system. He created it and then used fear to market it. You want to applaud him for winning a Nobel Prize...I want to hang him.

Miach

07-29-2008, 02:03 PM

Al Gore is taking in over $100mil per year and I am paying $50 to fill the tank on my Ford Escort.

Al Gore uses over 100,000kwhrs each month in his 80 room house...I can't afford to run my A/C below 75 degrees.

...Gore didn't "invest" in the trading system. He created it and then used fear to market it. You want to applaud him for winning a Nobel Prize...I want to hang him.

Where do you get these figures?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm

Soushia

07-29-2008, 02:36 PM

Where do you get these figures?

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/government/a/al_gore_energy.htm

Wow...thanks Miach! Your source has the numbers even higher (i did typo "year" as "month")!

• Al Gore's average monthly electric bill in 2006: $1,200 (source: AP)

• Al Gore's total electric consumption in 2006: 191,000 kilowatt hours (source: AP).

• Average annual electric consumption per U.S. household (in 2001): 10,656 kilowatt hours (source: EIA).

Based on the above, Al Gore consumed roughly 18 times the national household average in kWh of electricity last year.

Gnioss

07-29-2008, 02:41 PM

A POLITICIAN IS HIJACKING A POPULAR MESSAGE TO MAKE HIMSELF RELEVANT?!?!?!?

I FOR ONE AM SHOCKED AND OUTRAGED.

Aradorn

07-29-2008, 04:31 PM

i still say wtf has anyone in this country done to really reduce the carbon footprint? 400 million trees and counting for our family...

Soushia

07-29-2008, 06:45 PM

i still say wtf has anyone in this country done to really reduce the carbon footprint? 400 million trees and counting for our family...

They buy carbon credits.

Green guilt > White guilt

Miach

07-29-2008, 08:38 PM

Wow...thanks Miach! Your source has the numbers even higher (i did typo "year" as "month")!

• Al Gore's average monthly electric bill in 2006: $1,200 (source: AP)

• Al Gore's total electric consumption in 2006: 191,000 kilowatt hours (source: AP).

• Average annual electric consumption per U.S. household (in 2001): 10,656 kilowatt hours (source: EIA).

Based on the above, Al Gore consumed roughly 18 times the national household average in kWh of electricity last year.

Not higher than what was in your post :)

And that article also stated if you read it closer that the average per year in his geographical area is 15,000ish. Yes he is still high but not 20 times normal high. He isn't perfect but he isn't doing any hypocritical because he is doing exactly what he called on other people to do. Both sides in this pathetic partisan country spin the crap out of figures.

Soushia

07-29-2008, 09:15 PM

Not higher than what was in your post :)

And that article also stated if you read it closer that the average per month in his geographical area is 15,000ish. Yes he is still high but not 20 times normal high. He isn't perfect but he isn't doing any hypocritical because he is doing exactly what he called on other people to do. Both sides in this pathetic partisan country spin the crap out of figures.

I certainly can't be critisized for stating numbers released by the associated press...that you brought into the fray.

The point is that it IS HYPOCRITICAL to fly around the world in a big assed, gas guzzling jet, use 18,000% more energy than the average american in your home, and make $100 million per year when your SCHTICK is telling people they should use less energy.

Honestly man...that is like a 500lb fat guy sitting at the end of the buffet telling people that all the food they are taking back to their table isn't healthy for them.

Miach

07-29-2008, 10:35 PM

I certainly can't be critisized for stating numbers released by the associated press...that you brought into the fray.

The point is that it IS HYPOCRITICAL to fly around the world in a big assed, gas guzzling jet, use 18,000% more energy than the average american in your home, and make $100 million per year when your SCHTICK is telling people they should use less energy.

Honestly man...that is like a 500lb fat guy sitting at the end of the buffet telling people that all the food they are taking back to their table isn't healthy for them.

The associated press released numbers that Al Gore makes 100 million PER YEAR, lives in an 80 room house and consumes 100000kwh of electricity per month? Got a link?

Soushia

07-30-2008, 12:37 AM

Really?

Ok...I will now log out of warhammer so I can cut and paste here...only to watch defelction pop up as the next tactic.

Data incomming...

Miach

07-30-2008, 12:51 AM

Really?

Ok...I will now log out of warhammer so I can cut and paste here...only to watch defelction pop up as the next tactic.

Data incomming...

If I am wrong I am wrong Soushia. No idea why you think I am calling you out, I am just curious to see the sources as I have not seen anywhere near those numbers in my searches.

To be more precise, I have seen that he has made 100 million from various sources but he does not make 100 million per year. I have seen his electricity use at 18 - 20 times the average US consumer (avg is kinda weak though since that includes areas of the US that use very low amounts due to not needing to heat etc..more fair to compare to his geographical area). And as far as I know his house as 20 rooms from what I have seen.

All of those numbers are a far cry from 100 million per year, 80 rooms and 180 times normal usage.

Soushia

07-30-2008, 01:24 AM

LONDON (Thomson Financial) - Generation Investment Management, the private equity fund chaired by former U.S. vice president Al Gore, has acquired a 9.5 percent stake in Camco International Ltd, a carbon asset developer.

Generation, set up in 2004 by Gore and David Blood, former chief of Goldman Sachs's asset management arm, now holds 16 million Camco shares, Camco said in a statement.

Camco, which has one of the world's largest carbon credit portfolios, works with companies to identify and develop projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and then arranges the sale and delivery of carbon credits.

monicca.egoy@thomsonreuters.com mbe/cmr

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch ("Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It," by Deborah Corey Barnes), with help from friends at Goldman Sachs, including Hank Paulson, the investment bank’s former CEO who is now the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,369084,00.html

Putting aside the questionable legality of Gore’s promotion of his investments — conduct that could very well be contrary to federal and state securities laws that forbid an unlicensed individual from promoting unregistered securities to the public — it seems that it’s important to change the laws so that Gore can expand the $100 million-plus fortune he’s already accumulated since leaving public service in 2001.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,391221,00.html

But if he doesn't believe in it, that makes him even worse. Because then he's profiting, by one account — I don't know. I can't possibly know this. He's made $100 million himself by the books and the movies and the lectures and all of these things of global warming. Now, if you're telling me that you believe that he doesn't even — you know, he's hyping it and is not as emotionally engaged as he appears to be, that would be even worse, would it not?

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/ellen-mcgirt/innovation-wednesday/al-gores-100-million-makeover

Al Gore's $100 Million Makeover - When you pick up the next issue of Fast Company magazine, Al Gore will be serenely looking back at you. As all the cash register sound-effects clearly indicate, Mr. Gore has generated a significant amount of personal wealth since he left office

http://www.rediff.com/money/2007/jul/04bspec.htm

After years of public service -- and four kids needing high-priced educations -- Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806240005

On the pinhead front: Hello, Al Gore. The Tennessee Center for Policy Research says the former vice president is still using a massive amount of energy at his Tennessee mansion -- more than 20 times the national average.

The research group also says Mr. Gore has made about $100 million on his global warming projects. So it looks

http://www.citizensugar.com/1720328

His house currently uses enough energy in a year to power 232 regular houses for a month. And this is after he spent $16,533 on eco-upgrades including solar panels, a geothermal system, new light bulbs, and better windows. Oh, and earning about $100 million dollars, a Nobel Prize, an Oscar, and a Grammy for his global warming agenda. Is this latest report a bout of bad luck or a big green monster?

OK...so now I will nip this in the bud and make sure everything is propper, cross-referenced, and witnessed by two people and a notary.

OFFICIAL STATEMENT:

"Al Gore is lying, hypocritical, sham! He has profited off fear-mongering and mistruths to the tune of over $100 million since starting his Incovenient Escapade. For $175,000 he will fly in an enormous jet, rent a stadium, and show you a slide show while telling you that you use too much energy and you should spend more money to use less in the future.

He will then take the money your guilt generates in the form of carbon credits which you can purchase online...at a website that one of his many companies owns.

He is the essence of everything that is wrong with this country...and the world today."

Is that acceptable...or do I need to fact check further?

Yoma

07-30-2008, 01:24 AM

So basically Al Gore's crime is he's better off than you?

Soushia

07-30-2008, 01:30 AM

So basically Al Gore's crime is he's better off than you?

Not at all.

And I am now enjoying profiting from his embarassing hypocrisy.

I have no problem with people having more of anything than I do. And I could care less if they inherited it, earned it, or stole it...JUST DON'T BE A HYPOCRITE!!!!

If you are going to be a crook then stand up and be a proud crook instead of blowing smoke up our collective arses!

I freely admit that I have a lark website propped up with opinion, conjecture, and hyperbole. I make money every time someone clicks a page. I use it to link other sites I have that generate even more cash. But I'm straight up about it.

It's not like I have a website dedicated to the eradication of all websites!

Miach

07-30-2008, 01:32 AM

Is that acceptable...or do I need to fact check further?

All I said was the figures in your previous posts didn't look right and asked for sources. You found sources and posted corrected info. Thanks!
:smile_ok:

Drekor

07-30-2008, 01:58 AM

Reducing ones carbon footprint really isn't going to make a difference because of a growing population it would constantly have to come down and down which isn't really possible economically for 99% of people.

The solution is to research clean energy and that's really not being done to the extent it should be. People are more interested in turning off someone else lights then or making the light not cause pollution. I don't really think reverting back to the middle ages technology wise to reduce our carbon footprint is a good idea. We could adapt our buildings to deal with a lack of UV protection from the atmosphere as well as relocate people in flooded areas if it came down to it. Moving forward is important, not backwards.

Gnioss

07-30-2008, 08:14 AM

http://www.morethings.com/fan/south_park/photo_gallery/al-gore-superhero.jpg

Everyone knows Al Gore is full of shit. Some people think carbon credits are full of shit. These are not things that disprove or prove any kind of climate change theory. This is what we call in the world of making sense a "red herring". Please proceed.

Soushia

07-30-2008, 11:27 AM

First radio appearance today (7/30).

2:30pm eastern
KTAR - Phoenix
Darryl Ankarlo Show

www.ktar.com

"Listen here" button in the top right corner if you aren't in a market where it is syndicated.

FYI - This show is the lead in for Glen Beck!

Diraker

07-30-2008, 03:36 PM

Back but busy. GL with the radio stuff. Does it feel icky being near Glen Beck?

Elad

07-30-2008, 03:57 PM

Sigh..guess I'm too late, tried at 2:56 , aren't there archives

Soushia

07-30-2008, 05:23 PM

#1) Yes, Glen Beck makes my skin crawl...but I would love a piece of his 2 million listeners. If things go right (or wrong depending on your viewpoint) I'll be on Bubba the Love Sponge in 2 weeks getting shot with frozen paintballs for on-air plugs! Considering the Sirius/ XM merger is official, that gives them 14 million paying subscribers. So if even 10% listen to that show I should be golden.

#2) I believe the will have the archive up via podcast tomorow. I'll link it once I have it.

#3) Damn I love the power of radio...hitslink has up 18,000% from this time last week.

WHEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Timestretch

07-30-2008, 06:07 PM

Good luck with that. Bubba the love sponge is a maniac. By the end of the show he'll have you covered in paint ball bruises and sand-papering your ball sack for plugs.

Soushia

07-30-2008, 06:29 PM

Good luck with that. Bubba the love sponge is a maniac. By the end of the show he'll have you covered in paint ball bruises and sand-papering your ball sack for plugs.

Here is the blurb from today:

http://ktar.net/blogs/dankarlo/category/on-air-log/

I'll have the podcast tomorow.

And yes Timey...I know what I am getting into with that 400lb raging maniac. As long as I don't end up on the torture rack or playing "when shit hits the fan" I'll be ok.

Timestretch

07-30-2008, 06:54 PM

Who's Michael Hunter?

Soushia

07-30-2008, 07:06 PM

Who's Michael Hunter?

Originally my boss...now my business partner.

He does all the conservative talk radio...I do all the wingnut radio.

Mourne

07-30-2008, 08:51 PM

Dammit, I missed your radio thing. Do you have it recorded?

Elad

07-30-2008, 09:08 PM

Ok, I'm confused. You're in Tampa, but being aired in AZ? Who is Ankarlo? confused to the maxxxx

Soushia

07-30-2008, 09:49 PM

Ok, I'm confused. You're in Tampa, but being aired in AZ? Who is Ankarlo? confused to the maxxxx

Yes I am in Tampa.

The radio station was in Phoenix.

Darryll Ankarlo is a "conservative talk radio" host with a local show (Phoenix)that is syndicated w/ Glen Beck across the country.

That help Elad? If not I'll just explain it again next week in Vegas over our 20th cold beer.

It should be absolutely crystal clear then :smile_ok:

And Mourne...I'll link the recorded podcast tomorow.

Elad

07-30-2008, 10:53 PM

Why don't you have a site like Darryll :(

Guess I just didnt know why you were doing this, or if you always had..I thought you did real estate stuff, lol. But then again the last time I remember hearing about your job you were selling a bunch of things so I'm not sure where life took you after

Diraker

08-01-2008, 01:21 PM

But at this point in time, there is too much conflicting scientific opinion

But there isn't. And that's really the only point I'd argue. As Gnioss said, Al Gore, carbon footprints, what joe bloe politican says, etc are red herrings. And regarding my points about ID, again the ID folk make the same arguments how "the science isn't out yet" or "there's too many respected scientists that say so therefore there must be something to their claims". You point to Bob Carter (perhaps) and the ID folk to Michael Behe. The IDers have a list of scientists who support ID just like the (and again lack of better term) GW deniers have their list of scientists. We talked about ID here on these forums ande I know that you, Kydorias, were of the opinion that ID isn't science that the folk who claim ID is science are wrong and that the arguments put forth by ID proponets don't hold water. Take that same thinking and apply it to the (again terms) GW-denier crowd. Their arguments are equally as bad as the IDers.

Soushia

08-01-2008, 02:16 PM

But there isn't. And that's really the only point I'd argue. As Gnioss said, Al Gore, carbon footprints, what joe bloe politican says, etc are red herrings. And regarding my points about ID, again the ID folk make the same arguments how "the science isn't out yet" or "there's too many respected scientists that say so therefore there must be something to their claims". You point to Bob Carter (perhaps) and the ID folk to Michael Behe. The IDers have a list of scientists who support ID just like the (and again lack of better term) GW deniers have their list of scientists. We talked about ID here on these forums ande I know that you, Kydorias, were of the opinion that ID isn't science that the folk who claim ID is science are wrong and that the arguments put forth by ID proponets don't hold water. Take that same thinking and apply it to the (again terms) GW-denier crowd. Their arguments are equally as bad as the IDers.

LOL

#1) There is TONS of conflicting science. To think there isn't is somewhere between blatant ignorance and extreme idiocy.

#2) While you would love to think so...every last topic in the world today is not tied to your quest to pull down organized religion. Sometimes I think if I posted about a national twizler scare...you would turn it around on the church.

Diraker

08-01-2008, 03:55 PM

1) Sorry but you are simply wrong. It's you who are going against the scientific consensus. Most GW deniers acknowledge this...hence why they call themselves GW skeptics...what's to be skeptical of if you are in agreement with the scientific community? So show me this ton of evidence. Heck show me one piece.

2) the GW deniers use the same techniques as the ID crowd because the general understanding of science in this country is poor. Basically the propagandists play on people's scientific ignorance. Ya know, repeat a lie often enough and it becomes true...the lie that there's a scientific debate about [insert woo-woo here]. And I'll call a spade a spade, whether it be about ID, GW, ghosts, homeopathy, the health effects of cigerettes, general woo-woo. I bring up ID here because Kydorias (and this I think is before you were here) was involved in past debates about ID. He wasn't falling for the fallacious arguments regarding ID that he's IMO falling for now regarding GW.

Anyway I think what is happening here is that you are skeptical of folk like Al Gore and so called Green folk. I am skeptical of them too. I think we agree that there are people who'd take us too far down a certain path. I think though, that you might be holding this skepticisms for some of the wrong reasons. Like, the science behind it all. The science behind it all says that humans impact the climate. To deny this is just plain ridiculous. One doesn't need to reject science and start entering woo-woo land to be skeptical of green folk. And IMO when you start going off about how the science is bad, or that there is no consensus, etc it (again IMO) detracts from the real argument about WHAT TO DO.

sorry RL calls no time to edit

Kydorias

08-01-2008, 05:04 PM

I bring up ID here because Kydorias (and this I think is before you were here) was involved in past debates about ID. He wasn't falling for the fallacious arguments regarding ID that he's IMO falling for now regarding GW. You're right, I've never been much of a fan regarding ID beliefs. In my opinion, the scientific evidence surrounding evolution is pretty iron-clad. Now if people want to believe that some supreme creator "guided" nature's hand in evolution, then ok. I don't buy it but at least they're acknowledging evolution.

But as far as GW, reread what I said in one of my earlier posts. I don't necessarily disbelieve that the global temperature is affected somehow by biologic organisms. What I do disagree with is taking drastic economic measures to try and affect something that:

1) Might actually not have anything to do with human activity on earth

2) We might not be able to do anything about anyway

Global economic growth should not be "handcuffed" unnecessarily by adopting extreme economic policies which might have no significant result. Show me that adopting the Kyoto accords or similar "Green" policies will help the planet and I'll jump on the GW bandwagon. But right now there is too much conflicting scientific opinion for me to buy into it.

Soushia

08-01-2008, 05:19 PM

As we have been going back and forth on this now for a while...I still have not changed my opinion/ stance that the science is arbitrary based on millions of random factors. There are too many variables to see any IRONCLAD evidence.

But if you want to look at facts...

FACT: The earths climate is constantly changing/ adjusting and has been for millions of years.

FACT: There was an Ice Age before man poluted the environment.

FACT: Entire civilizations and animal species have been eradicated by radical climate change over the last 6,000 years.

Do we influence the natural cycle of global climate change? Of course

Do we need to find an alternative to Oil/ fuel? Of course...it is a finite resource.

Do we need to have a knee-jerk reaction to our current climate issues? NO

Instead of spending billions of dollars to launch mirrors into space or dust into the atmosphere...perhaps we should spend it on NON PARTISAN research.

I know...I'm crazy!

Diraker

08-01-2008, 05:47 PM

1) Might actually not have anything to do with human activity on earth

Do we influence the natural cycle of global climate change? Of course

Well you guys can debate it. Scientific consensus says that humans do play a role. Anything more has nothing to do with me. Koyoto, Al Gore, policy making, etc is not what I am discussing.

So where is the science breaking down? What scientific papers are hooey? Show me some examples of bad science. Where is all this conflicting research? Or is science just broken to begin with? All this shifting of the goal post makes it hard for me to follow.

Mourne

08-01-2008, 05:55 PM

I feel that, of course, human activity plays a role. It's how big of a role that's up for debate to me. I feel it's an insignificant amount compared to mother nature's natural cycles. Unless our technology advances to the scale of unlimited free energy status, I don't think we can have a positive impact enough to reverse GW.

Soushia

08-01-2008, 06:43 PM

Well you guys can debate it. Scientific consensus says that humans do play a role. Anything more has nothing to do with me. Koyoto, Al Gore, policy making, etc is not what I am discussing.

So where is the science breaking down? What scientific papers are hooey? Show me some examples of bad science. Where is all this conflicting research? Or is science just broken to begin with? All this shifting of the goal post makes it hard for me to follow.

Great...once again I have to put up links so Diraker can spend 2 hours searching them on google to find reasons why specific peoples research is biased and thus...not valid (goes both ways slick):

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/climate-skeptics-guest-post-why-david.html

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Facts&ContentRecord_id=1E639422-7094-4972-83AF-EE40EE302D41

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

http://www.aninconvenientguilttrip.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

I have about 135 more of these...want me to link them all?

Diraker

08-01-2008, 07:23 PM

Pure hand waving Soush. None of that addresses anything I said. You fail to see the difference between scientific research and political spinning. The spin meisters got you hook line and sinker.

Soushia

08-01-2008, 07:50 PM

You know how I know you are a NY'er...because everything you say is in a negative connotation.

For example...while most people would order a sandwich with mayo, mustard and lettuce...I'm willing to wager you tell them what you DON'T want instead. It is a very NY thing (i.e. i want a sandwich with no pickles or peppers).

So how about we play the perspective game.

You list all of your CONCRETE SCIENTIFIC references...and I get to blow holes in them or give a pithy opinion masquerading as fact under the veil of distain for the system.

After a few hundred...you might get to see what trying to discuss things with you is like from the other side of the fence.

You are a malcontent my friend.

Please I am waiting for your evidence with my editing pen in hand.

Diraker

08-01-2008, 08:36 PM

Firstly your guess as to my nature is just wrong. I'll just consider it stabbing in the dark and missing wildly. Now I'll stab. You are a typical American, ignorant of science, the scientific method, and the history of science. However being the typical American, even in your ignorance you still hold strong opinions. Being the typical American, the strength of your convictions do not match the strength of the evidence. Is my stab close?

Secondly since it is you who are making the claim about how the scientific consensus is wrong I'll leave it up to you to provide me with evidence of such. This reminds me of the saying, "that which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence". That you think I need to go over what the scientific consensus is IMO speaks for itself.

Anyway I still don't know where you have a problem with the science or if you have a problem with science in general. Don't make me sift through 135 articles of 95% political spin jobs, blogs, and op-eds to find kernals of truth. (and broken clocks are still right twice a day). Point to a scientific claim, then tell me why it's wrong or why I should be more skeptical of that claim.

Soushia

08-01-2008, 08:46 PM

Thankfully...I do not merely exist to post things just so you can say "AH HA IT IS A LIE!" while offering no counter truth. In fact...other than linking generic wikipedia pages...I don't think you have ever offered ANYTHING to any discussion other than why other people or opinions are wrong. YOU NEVER POINT OUT WHY SOMETHING OR SOMEONE IS RIGHT!

Don't believe me? Look at your post history.

You have yet to provide even one sliver of evidence to anything. What can I say...it is the province of the small minded to tear things down. It takes true foresight to build something.

You have now devolved a good discussion into a steaming pile of schlock.

If I ever get invited to a cojecturethon...I'm callin you to be my wingman.

As usual...I know another post is comming. Don't worry, I wont hold my breath waiting for you to provide anything in the affirmative of your position...just more of the negative to everyone else's opinions.

Diraker

08-01-2008, 09:02 PM

So you can't win the science argument so you resort to personal attacks? Why am I not surprised?

Anyway I do post "agreement" posts with people very frequently. Your selective memory and absolutist rhetoric (ALWAYS NEVER) is indicatative of the typical American style I was talking about before.

Honestly Soush, your science is bad and it IMO detracts from your legitimate skeptisim of policy decisions. Since the public doesn't understand the science either, it just might work for you. But IMO the GW dissenting thing is so 3 years ago. Most people are already on board while you missed the boat. Good luck though.

Elad

08-01-2008, 09:42 PM

Soushia I love Al Gore and green things, please don't discuss this drunk in Vegas or I'll toss you under a taxi cab <3 Still waiting on your podcast.

Sincerely,
Elad

PS: Everytime I go to Burger King the item I order I am always sure to say no mayo. I do that because I'm a fatty (love mayo!) , not because I'm negative.
I don't like saying ''ok, ketchup, onion, lettuce", much easier to say -1 thing imo!

Soushia

08-01-2008, 10:02 PM

I never discuss this crap Elad...it is merely work for me. And I don't talk work once I am on my own time (still at work atm). Besides...how am I going to find you a classy hooker while discussing thermodynamics holding a shot glass!

Diraker...I can keep saying the same things you do and just turn them around. My hope is that those things would seem as asenine to you when someone says them to you as they are to me when you say them.

For example...

You state you agree with people but post no evidence to back up your claim. (that statement sound familiar?)

-You say that a "typical american" doesn't understand science yet offer no paramaters beyond your vague negative, deragatory statement to show what level of scientific knowledge would be acceptable to you before considering someone beyond that of a "typical american".

-You say MY science is bad but offer no good science as an example of what good science might be.

-You say that global warming dissenting was something that was only acceptable three years ago yet offer no proof of what science has been released in the interim to disuade people from that stance.

Do you see how easy it is to play the roll of "dissenting opinion"? It requires no effort. I have an 8 year old cousin who can do this using nothing more than a Mad Libs book (Mad Libs 4tw!).

And if you want to discuss science in an actual scientific context, I would be more than happy to indulge you. I think my 2 years as a Particle Physics major qualifies me to at least give a cursory breakdown of most science journals and articles. I might not know the precise science...but I understand the basic scientific method and can grasp the basic theory of most hypotheticals...especially when presented with actual data as opposed to just dissenting opinions without a shread of anything even remotely resembling facts.

Diraker

08-01-2008, 11:10 PM

-You state you agree with people but post no evidence to back up your claim. (that statement sound familiar?)

-You say that a "typical american" doesn't understand science yet offer no paramaters beyond your vague negative, deragatory statement to show what level of scientific knowledge would be acceptable to you before considering someone beyond that of a "typical american".

-You say MY science is bad but offer no good science as an example of what good science might be.

-You say that global warming dissenting was something that was only acceptable three years ago yet offer no proof of what science has been released in the interim to disuade people from that stance.

1- So I need evidence that my stance in concordence with the scientific consensus?

2- I've pointed to polls here many times regarding the dismal state of scientific literacy in the US. Check them out, but you must do your own research, not that this will be difficult.

3- Again, since my stance in concordence with the scientific consensus I don't see why I should be showing you anything. Open up some science books instead of the op-ed pages where bullshit reigns supreme (bs from the GW deniers and the greenies).

4- Al Gore's movie opened a lot of people's eyes, although in part for bad reasons.

And again if you have a problem with an aspect of climate science put it here. Since my degree (yes useless paper) is a B.S. in Natural Science I feel as though I can discuss it adequately enough (was going for my MBA in Public Management but shit man, too much academia was stifling me). I don't see (because you haven't told me) where the science for you breaks down.

Until I can get an understanding of where you are coming from...I mean aside from Al Gore, the UN, and Kyoto IMO we are mostly just spinning wheels and getting nowhere. I'm afraid though that if you keep offerring up things like Bob Carter as scientific evidence that goes against the scientific consensus I won't be able to offer much more than simple debunkings of false and/or misleading claims.

Diraker

08-01-2008, 11:58 PM

You're right, I've never been much of a fan regarding ID beliefs. In my opinion, the scientific evidence surrounding evolution is pretty iron-clad. Now if people want to believe that some supreme creator "guided" nature's hand in evolution, then ok. I don't buy it but at least they're acknowledging evolution.

But as far as GW, reread what I said in one of my earlier posts. I don't necessarily disbelieve that the global temperature is affected somehow by biologic organisms. What I do disagree with is taking drastic economic measures to try and affect something that:

1) Might actually not have anything to do with human activity on earth

2) We might not be able to do anything about anyway

Global economic growth should not be "handcuffed" unnecessarily by adopting extreme economic policies which might have no significant result. Show me that adopting the Kyoto accords or similar "Green" policies will help the planet and I'll jump on the GW bandwagon. But right now there is too much conflicting scientific opinion for me to buy into it.

I don't follow the politics about GW and policy changes regarding GW. That it's an issue at all is, for me, a welcomed change. Anyway I don't really have objections to anything you say here other than this idea of "conflicting scientific opinion". Of course in any science there are going to be conflicting opinions and sometimes even conflicting data. But IMO when you sort of take political spins and equate them to scientific concensus it's just sort of using a bad reason when good reasons already exist.

And just to harp a bit, since I think it might resonate a bit with Kydorias....Regarding ID. Did you notice that when the scientific community rejected ID as science the ID folk went to the public. They went to seek public support. As if what the public thinks on matters of science really matters. The same thing is going on with GW. The skeptics are trying to sway public opinion more than they are trying convince scientists. That you, Soush, or I have an opinion about what the scientists are doing really doesn't say much about the truth value. And just as a reminder Kydorias IIRC brought up how GW fanaticism is like a religion. I'm just saying, "on the contrary..."

Soushia

08-04-2008, 11:28 AM

I think the entire breakdown here is based on persprecive and viewpoint.

You seem to think that the vast majority of scientists, that in your opinion, have done valid research which states that Global Warming is a man-made phenomena outside the realm of the planetary warming/ cooling cycle.

Yet this is where you provide nothing to back up that claim.

I can say that the vast majority of scientists believe that anything is the norm or a proven fact. Just because I say it...that doesn't make it tru.e More importanly...that does not make it scientific fact.

Scientists change their opinion like I change my socks. Remember when Ecstacy (MDA / MDMA)was perscribed by psychiatrists to battle depression since science said it was a good thing? Then in the early 70's political and social pressure just made that science collapse and it was pulled?

Remember when Carl Sagan and the boys at NASA stated beyond a certainty that the polar Ice Caps were going to come rumbling down through Canada and wipe us all out just beofre we entered another Ice Age?

Remember when everyone became germ-a-phobic and the scientific community worked with chemical companies to create an anti-bacterial gel that was proven to reduce all foreign bacteria by 99.9%? Remember when 2 years later newer research pointed to it being almost useless?

At the end of the day...NEITHER of us can come up with a giant, slam dunk, smoking gun based on scientific research that both of us would agree is valid. Mostly because THERE IS NONE!

Ya know why? Because the multitudes of studies are small and cover only a small secion of time, or geography, or atmosphere. Those studies are then linked to other studies where scientific theorists then extrapolate.

Both sides have a number of studies which back their position...but to date...no one on either side of the asile has been able to nailt it down in its totality.

This has to do with the fact that there are billions of factors, limited technology, limited long-term research, and too many dissenting opinions.

So the question remains...why spend BILLIONS of OUR TAX DOLLARS to fight something that is not proven beyond a scientific certainty?

I know we are America and our government loves to declare war on things to increase government spending which is in turn given to companies that support those candidates via no-bid contracts...but just because some hooplehead in washington decries war...it doesn't make it fact.

By the way...how are we doing with the war on drugs? the war on illiteracy? the war on terror?

Gnioss

08-04-2008, 11:35 AM

By the way...how are we doing with the war on drugs? the war on illiteracy? the war on terror?
Soushia, why do you hate america?

Soushia

08-04-2008, 12:30 PM

Soushia, why do you hate america?

I love America. Mostly, because it is founded on the BELIEF that we are all equal, that we all have a voice, and we all have a right to be heard.

What I HATE / LOATHE / DESPISE is hypocrisy.

When our government says drugs are bad and they spend hundreds of billions of dollars and put millions of people in jail just so they can make a quick buck on the privitization to benefit their contributors...I get miffed. Especially considering that the government imported a huge ammount of opium from asia and cocaine from central america over the last 30 years...I find that disturbing. When they grant companies the right to distribute drugs with limited oversight and testing just because they kick back to the government...I want to kick someones teeth in.

Sorry...I don't get how things like drugs, alchahol, and gambling are all CRIMINAL and depending on how I use/ enjoy them I can have my rights taken away for doing so. That is, unless, I use the alchahol, drugs, and gambling that the government oversees to benefit only their friends.

Hypocrisy is horrible...and it is just the type of elitist attitude with no fear of retribution among the powers-that-be which lead to violent social upheaval and rebellion.

It is ok for us to drop nuclear bombs and kill millions of people...but not anyone else.

It is ok for us to pollute with coal for hundreds of years...but not anyone else.

It is ok for us to limit the civil rights of our own people...but we demonize other countries who do the same thing to their own people.

This is now the american way.

Compromise, Conformity, Assimilation, Submission, Ignorance, Hypocrisy, Brutality, The elite...all of which are American dreams. (ZDL)

Roxie

08-04-2008, 02:09 PM

Soushia, why do you hate america?

lol

Elad

08-04-2008, 02:47 PM

lol
lol

Kydorias

08-04-2008, 04:23 PM

IOf course in any science there are going to be conflicting opinions and sometimes even conflicting data. But IMO when you sort of take political spins and equate them to scientific concensus it's just sort of using a bad reason when good reasons already exist.I'm not taking a side on this issue because of politics. I'm taking a side because of economics. I'm not convinced that human activity has a whole lot to do with global climate change. In my opinion, the scientific data has yet to prove this. Thus, I'm not convinced that we can really make any significant impact on the global climate. And so I believe that sweeping "Green" policies will have a detrimental effect on programs that spur worldwide economic development, the eradication of poverty, the spread of education, and the general increase of wealth leading to a more comfortable lifestyle.

The skeptics are trying to sway public opinion more than they are trying convince scientists. That you, Soush, or I have an opinion about what the scientists are doing really doesn't say much about the truth value. And just as a reminder Kydorias IIRC brought up how GW fanaticism is like a religion. I'm just saying, "on the contrary..."Look, we all know that both sides have their political spinmeisters. But we also know that solid scientific studies have produced data which supports/refutes both sides of the argument. Therefore, if facts are available which support both sides of an argument, who is to say which is right? The GW supporters religiously cling to thier set of data while maintaining the other side is "igorant and ill-informed". That viewpoint DOES NOT lead to open debate and argument.

Again, it is the GW skeptics who are daring to doubt the indubitable and therefore follow the scientific model of hypothesis & testing closer. Its the GW fanatics who just can't stomach the dissent and would much rather everyone march lock step in alignment so they can push thier sanctimonious, hypocritical, and economically damaging policies all in the name of made-up morality.

Roxie

08-04-2008, 04:25 PM

lol

lol

Diraker

08-04-2008, 05:24 PM

New Scientist is IMO a science popularizer not a scientific source but they put together a fairly decent GW myths and misconceptions page.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

I didn't want to merely do simple debunkings but...

Soushia

08-04-2008, 06:14 PM

but...

:smile_ok:

Diraker

08-16-2008, 03:41 PM

This may seem unrelated but lefty blogs and folk like that are trumping up this article about big business.

http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN1249465620080812

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. and foreign corporations doing business in the United States avoid paying any federal income taxes, despite trillions of dollars worth of sales, a government study released on Tuesday said.

The Government Accountability Office said 72 percent of all foreign corporations and about 57 percent of U.S. companies doing business in the United States paid no federal income taxes for at least one year between 1998 and 2005.

More than half of foreign companies and about 42 percent of U.S. companies paid no U.S. income taxes for two or more years in that period, the report said.

During that time corporate sales in the United States totaled $2.5 trillion, according to Democratic Sens. Carl Levin of Michigan and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who requested the GAO study.

...

I wonder if you guys can tell me what you think of the statistical analysis done by this reporter. How about the headline? What do you think about how the reporter throws in some authoritative sounding agency? What's with the term swapping ; corporation/companies? It should reek of bullshit. Anyway my point is that this example of statistical bullshit that the left uses to disparage US corporations is the same statsitical bullshit the right uses to undercut science.

Just sayin'