BIGUN 1,490 #1 December 10, 2008 Interesting. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
virgin-burner 1 #2 December 10, 2008 Quote Interesting. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 yea, you're right, and world is actually really flat! want prove of that!? ever seen a picture of the "globes" poles from outer space! “Some may never live, but the crazy never die.” -Hunter S. Thompson "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #3 December 10, 2008 Yes, very interesting. Nice to see real scientists are doing science, and not "concensus building".We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 December 10, 2008 Thanks for the tip-off, bro - I'll be interested to see what the report says.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,490 #5 December 10, 2008 Quoteyea, you're right, and world is actually really flat! want prove of that!? What's interesting are those scientists that were on the payroll to find the results that the world is actually flat - found those results... then once off the payroll, dissented that the world was indeed; not flat.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #6 December 10, 2008 Thank God, I was begining to think I was alone on this issue.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #7 December 10, 2008 Cool. The 1999 OISM petition against global warming netted 31,000 "scientists" who disagreed that man's emissions of greenhouse gases were affecting the climate. Looks like 30,350 changed their minds. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #8 December 10, 2008 QuoteCool. The 1999 OISM petition against global warming netted 31,000 "scientists" who disagreed that man's emissions of greenhouse gases were affecting the climate. Looks like 30,350 changed their minds. In another post you said the OISM petion was a fraud. NOW it is worth something? flip floping again?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #9 December 10, 2008 >NOW it is worth something? It is a petition, and as such useful for getting people to express their opinion on a topic. From the original petition, for example, we can learn that the Spice Girls and the cast of M*A*S*H support the OISM position. Which is interesting, but doesn't change my view of the topic much. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #10 December 10, 2008 Quotewe can learn that the Spice Girls and the cast of M*A*S*H support the OISM position. I wonder if Mark could call the state capitol of AK and see where Bible Spice is currently on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 December 11, 2008 Quote>NOW it is worth something? It is a petition, and as such useful for getting people to express their opinion on a topic. From the original petition, for example, we can learn that the Spice Girls and the cast of M*A*S*H support the OISM position. Which is interesting, but doesn't change my view of the topic much. Now you have really got me confused! It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? You really need to get your stories squared around so we know what you really believe,."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,121 #12 December 11, 2008 >It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #13 December 11, 2008 Quote>It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Oh well. I guess you will use something if it supports your postion and then turn around and call it bogus in the same thread. I think I understand"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #14 December 11, 2008 QuoteQuote>It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Oh well. I guess you will use something if it supports your postion and then turn around and call it bogus in the same thread. I think I understand He made his point very clearly and succinctly. If you choose to misunderstand it, not his fault.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #15 December 11, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote>It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Oh well. I guess you will use something if it supports your postion and then turn around and call it bogus in the same thread. I think I understand He made his point very clearly and succinctly. If you choose to misunderstand it, not his fault. Whoosh......."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,154 #16 December 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote >It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Oh well. I guess you will use something if it supports your postion and then turn around and call it bogus in the same thread. I think I understand He made his point very clearly and succinctly. If you choose to misunderstand it, not his fault. Whoosh....... You'd be the expert on that.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,490 #17 December 11, 2008 QuoteThe 1999 OISM petition against global warming netted 31,000 "scientists" who disagreed that man's emissions of greenhouse gases were affecting the climate. Looks like 30,350 changed their minds. I'm confused.... that petition signed by 31,000 American scientists was an effort to convince Congress to reject the United Nations backed Kyoto Treaty intended to achieve the stabilization of greenhouse gases. That would mean there are now 31,650 scientists who disagree with the Kyoto Treaty - some of whom have come forward as those who were paid/funded to find the results required for the Kyoto Treaty to exist. QuoteThe petition stated, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. Frederick Seitz goes on to say, "This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. Source: http://www.oism.org/pproject/ And, I believe their issue was primarily the lack of peer review of the "evidence." An interesting presentation... The Global Warming Myth - Dr Noah Robinson - Telecosm 2007 http://www.discovery.org/v/30Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #18 December 11, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote >It is worth quoting for the numbers or not? Is it worth quoting to see how many people you can get to sign a petition? Sure. Can you change the science behind a phenomenon if enough people sign a petition? No. Take a similar case. Let's say you show a video of a skydiver deploying a parachute to 10,000 people. You ask each person to then sign a petition saying "we object to the 'consensus' opinion that skydivers always descend, because we can clearly see that some skydivers go up when they open their parachutes." If you get 1000 people to sign a petition, does that mean that 1000 people think skydivers go up? Yes. Does that mean that skydivers really go up when they open their parachutes? No. Oh well. I guess you will use something if it supports your postion and then turn around and call it bogus in the same thread. I think I understand He made his point very clearly and succinctly. If you choose to misunderstand it, not his fault. Whoosh....... You'd be the expert on that. whooosh........ care to go for three?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #19 December 11, 2008 A couple of things upon reading the release. 1) It is filled with the same sort of puffery I find disheartening. Descriptions of the eminence of scientists, etc to give more weight to their claims. It's the same bandwagon approach that I find upsetting. 2) The headlines are somewhat misleading. The general theme, as I read it, is that they are establishing some degree of anthropogenic responsibility but that the extent of the causation is not to the extent of natural changes. Thus, take away the spin, and there is some real suggestion of man-made changes - but not the extent claimed by the mainstream. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #20 December 11, 2008 >> Bible Spice I'm by now means anti-Palin, but that there is fucking funny. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #21 December 11, 2008 Quote Thus, take away the spin, and there is some real suggestion of man-made changes - but not the extent claimed by the mainstream. +1 This whole political "green thing" is simply going to turn into another tax on all of us. And, the politicians have no plan for using that money, to my knowledge. It's pathetic.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,490 #22 December 11, 2008 Quote]take away the spin, and there is some real suggestion of man-made changes - but not the extent claimed by the mainstream Which is why I'll wait for the report and, 2) the video stream regarding the natural progression of change... Now, having said that, Bill was instrumental for last winter's educational foray into the subject and he gave me some guidance and my conclusion was; that Global Warming as a result of man-made carbons is a truth. However, just because I'm playing one side of the net and have the sun in my face does not mean I won't jump to the other side of the net with the sun at my back to gain new perspective. One discipline that will sway an open mind the most is the study, papers and discussions among Agronomists. Until Agronomists claim that plants everywhere are experiencing a positive effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and this could mean restoration of rain forests due to the increased growth rates of trees, higher grain yields meaning more food for more people.... which they do not... I would (as a non-scientist) rather err to the side that the Bill's of the world are right than the other side. KeithNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnDeere 0 #23 December 11, 2008 From the article Quote“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” I have heard that of serveral scientist that say the same thing! I have never beleived this BS! It is just a way for blood sucking leaches to make money. Global warming is a hoax!Nothing opens like a Deere! You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #24 December 11, 2008 Quote>> Bible Spice I'm by now means anti-Palin, but that there is fucking funny. Its not original but gawd I do like it.it cracked me up when I heard it....so I have been using it for a while now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vortexring 0 #25 December 11, 2008 I wonder what a person from the past would think of the recent global warming debates. (Or somebody who hasn't really bothered his ass to pay any attention to the matter whatsoever.) Is it correct to believe Greenland and the Artic is melting away during Summer months to a far greater extent than normal? That this particular area is experiencing indisputable climate change? Are these simple facts? If so, can anyone explain scientists who then say: “For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden. “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA. Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist. “I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. Isn't global warming a fact if we only consider the Artic? Or are the numerous documentaries and news reports from the area nothing but lies? Seems pretty weird. I can understand the contention over whether the phenomana is natural or man-made, but whether it's actually happening? Seems a bit mental; I thought the unprecedented melting of the Artic ice cap (again, as a solitary example) had demonstrated global warming to be a fact. Anyone care to explain what the situation is to the man from the past/man who until recently hadn't bothered his ass to pay any attention? Surely it doesn't all come about from this area of contention: “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan. 'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
