# Yellow Science - Global Warming Biggest Scam In History



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

The Wall Street Journal gets it!

"In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *

*Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings.* No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
*The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere.* 

Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, *an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure.*" Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

More in the Wall Street Journal:

Yellow Science - WSJ.com


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> The Wall Street Journal gets it!


I'm sure you do realize, in your rigourous journalistic investigation of sources, and careful researching, that the opinion piece you linked to was not Wall Street Journal content. It's a blog post by some non-scientist small business owner in North Dakota that someone at the WSJ linked to their online opinion section.

But I noticed that the fact that the WSJ linked it meant that this guy's unsubstantiated opinions spread like wildfire through the network of global warming denial web sites because a bit of their crackpot theorizing got linked to a mainstream news site.

In other news — some whack job with a blog announces that the world is flat! :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sauce, I have no doubt that SINC understood this. The WSJ linked to it because they believe the opinion has merit. I will say that the more I've studied the issue of man-made global warming, the less convincing I've found the science. I was initially intrigued and am now completely disgusted with the pseudo-science behind these theories.* Growing religious zealotry combined with rabid Gaia worship will be the perfect storm to lead us back into the Dark Ages.

*Full disclosure: once burned some wood to make a campfire. Please don't tell.


----------



## gwillikers (Jun 19, 2003)

So, should I cash my $100.00 cheque from the BC Libs, or not?

If I do cash it, I can assure you... I'm spending all of it on biodegradable dog poop bags.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

....bottom of the barrel scratching indeed  ...simply pathetic. "Course there are the flat earthers to keep you company.

at least THEY are funny....

Strange both first names are Don......any relation???










......................... *Sinc "Say it ain't so" Quixote...* .................

Knight Errant indeed.

••

Dont let a little reality get in the way of a good "tilt"....



> *New on the Endangered Species List: Perennial Arctic Ice*
> 26 Jun 08
> 
> The bad news dropped very hard on us today at Desmog: The North Pole could be free of sea ice for the first time in recorded history this summer, according to National Geographic News.
> ...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - CNN.com

The North Pole free of ice? Global warming at its "finest hour".


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Of course what all of these folks fail to do is prove that Arctic Sea Ice would have behaved any differently otherwise--note that the Arctic Sea (not the North Pole) _might_ be ice free this summer. Or it might not.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Serreze said those who suggest the Arctic meltdown is just part of a historic cycle are wrong.

"It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well," he said. "We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming.

"It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so," he said.

Serreze said the Arctic sea ice will not be the same for decades."

Macfury, I think that this is the critical part of the article. Global warming is the crucial variable that is causing this melting ice phenomenon at a rate far greater than if by chance or normal patters of climate change.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Volcanoes exploding under water at North Pole



> "Explosive volatile discharge has clearly been a widespread, and ongoing, process," according to an international team that sent unmanned probes to the strange fiery world beneath the Arctic ice.
> They returned with images and data showing that red-hot magma has been rising from deep inside the earth and blown the tops off dozens of submarine volcanoes, four kilometres below the ice. "Jets or fountains of material were probably blasted one, maybe even two, kilometres up into the water," says geophysicist Robert Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, who led the expedition."


What happens when a volcano erupts under ice and snow? Do you think maybe the ice will melt?

Does burning fossil fuel cause volcanoes?

Maybe there is global warming, but it's coming from under us rather than from the atmosphere.

Margaret


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> The North Pole free of ice? Global warming at its "finest hour".


I am sure you are aware that there is at least one research paper (featured some time ago on Quirks & Quarks) from your own university that suggests that arctic ice melting will cause cooling of the Gulf Stream and Europe to the degree of causing an ice age to start, and that it takes a remarkably short time frame. The studies involved ocean floor geography.

Looking back, in the '70s global cooling was all the rage amongst the "sky is falling" crowd.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

*lunar flatulence*



winwintoo said:


> Maybe there is global warming, but it's coming from under us rather than from the atmosphere.


It is also coming from above: as closest source of a decent gravitational field, the earth is the recipient of detritus from a lunar phenomenon affectionately known in the trade as "moon farts". The crap thrown off by the moon is thought to be CO2, methane and dust - these materials are amongst the "usual suspects" involved in global warming.....


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Amazing how the alarmists go crazy when someone dares to dispute their "Chicken Little" theories.

They immediately resort to name calling, or is that "croaking?"


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> Amazing how the alarmists go crazy when someone dares to dispute their "Chicken Little" theories.
> 
> They immediately resort to name calling, or is that "croaking?"


Ahh so true. Takes all the fun out of baiting people doesn't it?:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

However there is also a huge possibility that this is a prelude to the next ice age so enjoy it while its here.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Amazing too, that the rhetoric is made to suit the temper of the times. Also amazing is that the public refuses to see this sort of folly à deux. 

Particulate matter, aka "dust" in the atmosphere has been made to serve both the warming and cooling camps. Dust in the air, ie, deisel, volcanic eruption, nuclear bomb teating, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., was supposed to bring on the 'dreaded' _nuclear winter_ according to the '70s crowd.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray, yes, and this is happening now. The number of icebergs that are calving and drifting on past St.John's these past few years have given us the two coldest months of June in recorded history. The colder waters have changed our weather, making Spring a distant memory. I have been here 31 years, and can't remember snow lasting as long into May/June as it has since 2000, or coming down in record amounts since 2000 (15 to 21 feet in these 8 winters), or the record number of huge icebergs floating on past here in June.

This is now not just scientific theory, but a reality, and a reality we ignore at our own peril.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

rgray: while researching another project I came across some articles from the early 1950s that suggested that unusually warm or dry weather during that period was caused by "atomic testing" or some sort of wether control device perfected by those pesky Russkies. In 1969, some hotshots were complaining that travel to the moon had upset the delicate balance of weather patterns. 

The patter becomes more sophisticated, but the emtional underpinnings are the same.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> This is now not just scientific theory, but a reality, and a reality we ignore at our own peril.


It's a reality that you are experiencing more icebergs, but there is no scientifically demonstrable antidote to that problem, except for towing the bergs farther away.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> rgray, yes, and this is happening now. The number of icebergs that are calving and drifting on past St.John's these past few years have given us the two coldest months of June in recorded history. The colder waters have changed our weather, making Spring a distant memory. I have been here 31 years, and can't remember snow lasting as long into May/June as it has since 2000, or coming down in record amounts since 2000 (15 to 21 feet in these 8 winters), or the record number of huge icebergs floating on past here in June.
> 
> This is now not just scientific theory, but a reality, and a reality we ignore at our own peril.


Good info. When I commuted to NB at the begining of May for my annual teaching gig at UNB the last 2 years there has been snow in the bush on the height of land between the St Lawrence and NB in south-eastern Quebec and New Brunswick itself. Never saw that before over the last 10 years. I could count on shorts and a good tan while I was there (May, June). This year there were only a couple of really good days, the rest were cold and wet.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
Nuclear winter was not thought to be caused by testing bombs - it was thought to occur after a full nuclear exchange. Dust in the atmosphere has caused the weather to change at times - major valcano explosions have been followed by "years without a summer", like 1816-18 after the Tambora volcano, 1883-86 after Krakatau, and more recently in 1991-93 with Pinatubo. All of these events lead to decreases in global temperature, including a lengthy mid-June snowstorm in Quebec after the Tambora event, and major killing frosts as far south as Connecticut.

The release of so much materials can also lead to a greenhouse effect, which after the initial phase of unusually cold weather, the increased loading of greenhouse gases leads to a swing to unusually warm weather: as evidenced by the warmer than usual 1820's and 1890's that were recorded, and the record low ozone levels of the mid 90's.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It's a reality that you are experiencing more icebergs, but there is no scientifically demonstrable antidote to that problem, except for towing the bergs farther away." There is enough research coming out of Memorial's Ocean Science Centre and C-CORE, which also deals with cold ocean research and the oil industry, to lead me to the understanding of how climate change/global warming has influenced the north.

As for towing icebergs, keep in mind that some of these icebergs are as big as the Parliament Building in Ottawa.


Ocean Sciences Centre | Ocean Sciences Centre


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rgray, we have had 3 great days in June, with 20C+ temps and lots of sunshine. Today, and into early July, there is more rain, drizzle and fog (RDF as we call it here). The temp is stuck at 11C and we will range from 6C-12C until at least July 4th. I recall having to keep all of our windows open in late May/early June at night to make sure the house was cool during the daytime. Now, I keep the windows closed most of the month of June.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

(sigh) Here we go with the crazy conspiracy theories again.

SINC accuses those who don't buy them of "going crazy" when we respond to these myths, but every time one of your "researchers" (no doubt on leave from the latest Bigfoot hunt or UFO study) belches out another half-baked "study" it results in a new "Global Warming is a Hoax/Scam" thread. The real alarmists here are you conspiracy theorists who are inventing worldwide plots concocted by scientists on the take because they are threatening to make you pay for your pollution.

So against these organizations ...

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
US National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
American Institute of Physics
US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)

... all of whom recognize that human-caused climate change is a fact that needs to be dealt with ... against all of these and thousands of other respected scientists around the globe we get things like a blog opinion by some machine tool company owner in North Dakota that happens to catch the ear of a webmaster at the Wall Street Journal. Yep, slam-dunk, climate change is a hoax. :lmao: 

Or against this group we get the considered musings of an anonymous guy on ehMac called Macfury who says he's "disgusted by the pseudo-science" or some other layperson going on about volcanoes. Yes it must be all a plot - the National Enquirer told me so. 

Excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

The only green they are worried about in the "green movement" is this:

TorontoSun.com - Canada- Canada missing green

It's all about the Benjamin's.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, that's exactly what all the Chicken Littles want, to tax us to death by imposing a carbon tax on an invisible, non consumer measurable commodity, they want turned into one on the daily stock markets so they can reap the cash benefits for themselves.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Yep, that's exactly what all the Chicken Littles want, to tax us to death by imposing a carbon tax on an invisible, non consumer measurable commodity, they want turned into one on the daily stock markets so they can reap the cash benefits for themselves.


*Yikes, it's all a plot!!!* 

Scientists and science organizations are on the take! Hippie environmentalists were playing possum all those years with their patched jeans and Birkenstocks, so they could finally rope in all the world's governments in a coordinated world-wide scam to tax innocent citizens to death to pay for their lavish green lifestyles. Our trustworthy oil companies liked Exxon tried to warn us, but we didn't listen. Now they even have American Republicans mouthing their climate change lies.

Don't listen to them with all their mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science funded by big government and liberal universities, we got guys in North Dakota who have yer real science on their Google blogs!

I think I heard somewhere that extra-terrestrials were behind all this green stuff .... :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Make fun of it all you want, but the fact remains that a carbon tax will destroy the economy and do nothing but make polluters pass along the taxes to the backs of consumers and hurt, nay destroy the poorest of the poor.

No sane government wants that on their conscious, except for Liberals of course, now readying NEP II.

Watch average Canadians hand them a ticket to oblivion if they force an election on the issue.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Two things, Sinc:

1. NEP II? Fear-mongering on your part. Raising old hackles in an attempt to capitalize on a new situation.

2. "Average Canadians..." I can only assume that this is again code for those citizens whom you expect, rightly or wrongly, would naturally agree with you. It's a pretty specious reference in any case, and certainly nothing you could measure. It's therefore a lazy hunch. As Seinfeld would say, "not that there's anything wrong with that..."

You want to fight yellow science? Fine - please abandon the use of yellow logic. It ought to be beneath you, sir.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> Make fun of it all you want, but the fact remains that a carbon tax will destroy the economy and do nothing but make polluters pass along the taxes to the backs of consumers and hurt, nay destroy the poorest of the poor.
> 
> No sane government wants that on their conscious, except for Liberals of course, now readying NEP II.
> 
> Watch average Canadians hand them a ticket to oblivion if they force an election on the issue.


Changing the subject, aren't you SINC? 

But your chicken-little fear-mongering is still based on your prediction of destroying the economy. The only economy that will be destroyed if we put a price on carbon is the economies of those who are determined to remain wasteful. When we one day manage to get beyond oil, which I think is only a matter of time, then Alberta's economy might have to rely on something more sustainable than windfall oil profits. Those refusing to change with the times will just have to deal with that.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

No one can put a price on an invisible non commodity that they want to create.

The whole thing is a scam from start to finish. I mean what's next, tax the portion of the air that's not carbon?

And why should we believe any so called expert as to how much is carbon and how much is not?

It's a cruel joke on consumers and the poor and those on fixed incomes in particular.

Bad science followed by bad taxes followed by corporate greed and windfall profiteering on fictitious gases.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

the carbon tax is poorly thought out and targets consumers instead of industry which really does render it useless.

But on the other hand i can't see how people can not atleast give credit to the theory of global climate change.

I mean even if you don't think it will radically change the world, how can you not think cleaning up the poison in our air, water and food is a good idea?


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> When we one day manage to get beyond oil, which I think is only a matter of time,


Just out of curiosity, what will replace oil?

Full disclosure - I haven't made up my mind and most of the discussions on this subject just sound like those arguments about politics and religion that Mom told me to avoid at social gatherings.

Please enlighten me.

Margaret


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

winwintoo said:


> Just out of curiosity, what will replace oil?


It all has to do with energy density, especially when it comes to powering vehicles. 

Gasoline - 46.9 MJ/kg
Ethanol - 30 MJ/kg

So, obviously, ethanol is NOT the answer. What packs a bigger punch than gasoline, and is environmentally friendly?

Hydrogen - 130 MJ/kg

Hydrogen is great when it comes to comparing _mass_, but it takes more volume.

Compressed Natural Gas - 53.6 MJ/kg

Same problem as hydrogen. Great energy to mass ratio, terrible energy to volume ratio. Natural gas vehicles often us the entire trunk just for fuel storage.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

I throw my hat in with SINC here as well, and most rational scientific thought. Why is the phrase "the debate is over" thrown in the face of scientists who question this theory. If I know anything about science, it is that nothing is ever absolute. Debates must be waged on merits and facts not fallacy and fear mongering. You enter the realm of tyranny when shutting down debate and promoting only one notion. What is the green industry afraid of?

Further more, the "green Messiah", Algore's "Generation Investment Management LLP" investment fund which he is founding partner and chairman, he now buys "carbon credits" from his own damn company. Carbon credits do nothing to fight pollution, but are just a massive redistribution of wealth. Algore is slated to make millions on the greatest scam ever to pulled in history. He and his substantial carbon footprint. 

There is a great difference in these flat earth theories when it comes to the warming change skeptics. In the Dark Ages the earth being flat was a theory that was NOT to be questioned. No debate was allowed. The debate was over. Fall in line or suffer the consequences. Now which side of the climate change issue does that sound like?

Certainly not in the camp of "deny-ers" like me. ( Notice how the Greenies have also misused vocabulary in their spiel. What does one think of when you hear deny-er? The holocaust.) So these loons, in their confused way, are saying that people who do not subscribe to their ideology are no different then people who deny the holocaust. I think that very fact is disgusting in and of itself.

I don't care if it's followers of Reverend Moon, David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, or Algore, they still drink from the same cup of kool-aid. No thanks Jim Jones, I'm not that thirsty.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> No one can put a price on an invisible non commodity that they want to create.
> 
> The whole thing is a scam from start to finish. I mean what's next, tax the portion of the air that's not carbon?
> 
> ...


Scam, scam, scam, bad science, fictitious gas? Although your authoritative pronouncements and fear-inducing punditry and that of your blogging denier friends is compelling you'll pardon me if I still stick with the real scientists.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> Just out of curiosity, what will replace oil?
> 
> Full disclosure - I haven't made up my mind and most of the discussions on this subject just sound like those arguments about politics and religion that Mom told me to avoid at social gatherings.
> 
> ...


At present we can't replace oil much, but it's true that the amount we waste with inefficient transportation choices and a myriad of wasteful habits is vast. We can do a lot right away to use less oil. Going forward it has to be electricity, produced sustainably. Technological advancements will have to be made in many areas.

We have little choice, in that oil demand will eventually outstrip available supply. If you think it's expensive now, wait a few years. And then there is the little matter of climate change that comes in part from the burning of fossil fuels which I know that some conspiracy theorists think is only a scam to pry us all out of our automobiles.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> At present we can't replace oil much, but it's true that the amount we waste with inefficient transportation choices and a myriad of wasteful habits is vast. We can do a lot right away to use less oil. Going forward it has to be electricity, produced sustainably. Technological advancements will have to be made in many areas.


Where does electricity come from? Again, I'm just curious.

Margaret


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rambo4 said:


> I throw my hat in with SINC here as well, and most rational scientific thought. Why is the phrase "the debate is over" thrown in the face of scientists who question this theory. If I know anything about science, it is that nothing is ever absolute. Debates must be waged on merits and facts not fallacy and fear mongering. You enter the realm of tyranny when shutting down debate and promoting only one notion. What is the green industry afraid of?
> 
> Further more, the "green Messiah", Algore's "Generation Investment Management LLP" investment fund which he is founding partner and chairman, he now buys "carbon credits" from his own damn company. Carbon credits do nothing to fight pollution, but are just a massive redistribution of wealth. Algore is slated to make millions on the greatest scam ever to pulled in history. He and his substantial carbon footprint.
> 
> ...


Well stated rambo4.

But notice they stay away from you? They love to try and humiliate me because I stick to my principles and continue to expose them for what they are - deny-ers that science can be wrong. It has been wrong many, many times before as witnessed in the 70s and 80s.

Don't challenge them again though, or they will pounce on you and label you an unbeliever in their elitist brand of we're right, you're wrong wizardry.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well done, Sinc - agreeing with those who agree with you! Real progress there - and zero percent elitism, too!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Takes about the same amount of energy you use to agree with GA and the boys Max. 

What's good for the goose comes to mind.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Max said:


> Well done, Sinc - agreeing with those who agree with you! Real progress there - and zero percent elitism, too!


... and the cycle continues. Although all cycles have their deniers.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

All this reminds me of science's pronouncements that coffee, (insert latest cause du jour here) causes cancer, and then recant that it actually helps guard against.

Scientists are wrong more times than right and this is no different.

Just a much more passionate debate, since it involves creating a market for an invisible item to make corporations tons of money. Carbon credits will be the footnote in history marked with an asterisk as the most absurd thing ever devised by man to assist self destruction of his global economy.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yup!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> All this reminds me of science's pronouncements that coffee, (insert latest cause du jour here) causes cancer, and then recant that it actually helps guard against.
> 
> Scientists are wrong more times than right and this is no different.


I think you're confusing science with pop sound bites that make their way through the media buzz. But that's more or less the same thing with the whole climate change denial issue here as well.

It's been explained more than once in Everything Else by a real scientist that there's a huge difference between the climate science that a broad range of scientists and prominent science organizations generally agree on and the uninformed opinions, cherry-picked to fit particular arguments that float around the internet world of the climate change denier networks.

But whatever, I'm sure we'll carry this on next time SINC gets another web alert from one of his sites.

What will the title be? Global Warming is a Hoax ... nah did that. Global Warming a Fraud? ... nah did that. Global Warming a Scam ... nah did that. Al Gore hates puppies! Yes, I think we have a winner. :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> Where does electricity come from? Again, I'm just curious.
> 
> Margaret


Well, Margaret ... (sigh) ... when the mommy electron and the daddy electron love each other, VERY, VERY much they get close to each other and ...  

But seriously, do you have a point you're trying to make?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> Scientists are wrong more times than right and this is no different.


Another scientific argument wins the day, folks!


----------



## james_squared (May 3, 2002)

*Cnn*



Dr.G. said:


> North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - CNN.com
> 
> The North Pole free of ice? Global warming at its "finest hour".


I happened to switch to CNN for a moment and they had this story on and they talked to the meteorologist who stated that she had been in Churchill, Manitoba (as have I), but the caption that appeared at the bottom of her pictures stated "Church Hill, Alaska". I thought that was pretty funny.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Max said:


> SINC said:
> 
> 
> > Scientists are wrong more times than right and this is no different.
> ...


HUZZAH!! :clap: :clap:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> All this reminds me of science's pronouncements that coffee, (insert latest cause du jour here) causes cancer, and then recant that it actually helps guard against.
> 
> Scientists are wrong more times than right and this is no different.


If you think that is bad, you should see how media fares.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

SINC said:


> The Wall Street Journal gets it!


The incredibly deceptive (again) nature of your post suggests you are either:

1. Actively involved in fraud and willful deception or
2. The biggest and most naive sucker on this entire forum, and that's saying something.

Please note this is not a comment on the veracity of current scientific consensus on global warming/global cooling/climate change. It's a comment on you KNOWINGLY claiming that this a report by the WSJ when you knew darn well it wasn't.*

*I again am probably making the mistake of assuming you actually read beyond the headline of the article before making your claim. Ever the optimist, me.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Another Thoreau Lesson
> His Notes From 1850s Help
> Study of Climate Change*
> June 13, 2008; Page A10
> ...


http://online.*wsj.com*/article/SB121329837789768809.html

hmmm *Nature*, *Scientific American*, NASA, NOAA...all the Academies of Science around the world...but Sinc clings to a blogger and attributes it to WSJ??

I guess WSJ does "get it" 

and of course these leading Canadian climate scientists are all smoking too much pot apparently....



> * Canada: Scientists urge PM to speed up global warming efforts*
> 
> Source: Copyright 2008, Canwest News Service
> Date: June 24, 2008
> ...


It' clear where the BS and yellow journalism lies......a steaming pile in Sinc's corner.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I bet all you believers bought into the scientific mistakes of the 70s and 80s too, did you?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> I mean even if you don't think it will radically change the world, how can you not think cleaning up the poison in our air, water and food is a good idea?


Because carbon is not a poison, yet we’re ignoring real poisons.



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> *Yikes, it's all a plot!!!*
> 
> Scientists and science organizations are on the take! Hippie environmentalists were playing possum all those years with their patched jeans and Birkenstocks, so they could finally rope in all the world's governments in a coordinated world-wide scam to tax innocent citizens to death to pay for their lavish green lifestyles. Our trustworthy oil companies liked Exxon tried to warn us, but we didn't listen. Now they even have American Republicans mouthing their climate change lies.


The environmental movement really is the home of the disaffected left and many scientists and science organizatins ARE on the take. Some of them merely have a social axe to grind. And if you’re counting McCain’s ramblings as support, you have a very low standard for bedfellows. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> We have little choice, in that oil demand will eventually outstrip available supply. If you think it's expensive now, wait a few years.


It won’t outstrip supply at all for at least another 100 years—by which time we’ll be onto somethign else. Green fear-mongering is doing wonders to drive up the price currently, however.



Max said:


> Well done, Sinc - agreeing with those who agree with you! Real progress there - and zero percent elitism, too!


Brought to you by ehMac’s greatest “free thinker,” wrapped inside a warm, cozy populist blanket.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I bet all you believers bought into the scientific mistakes of the 70s and 80s too, did you?


SINC you'll have to excuse the likes of chas_m and MacDoc. For some reason their egos are all tied up inside this greenwash. I will say though, that MacDoc is really outdoing himself, strutting around displaying the size of his posts to the general public.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

I am really getting a great laugh here. Given our northern climate, the bottom line is this, only religious zealotry could make anyone from Canada fear global warming. Period.

If your hypothesis is right and the climate is warming, I say bring it on! Inching up a degree in the next hundred years.. say it ain't so!

To all these people who gnash their teeth at the very thought of our society evolving, the ones whose real agenda here, to be quite frank, is not so much helping the planet, but a hatred of the West, and a very real attempt to tear down our society through their contempt of capitalism and free markets.

The green movement is a very Stalinist enterprise. It is, like I have said before, a massive redistribution of wealth vis a vis carbon credits. It exists on the very tenet that socialist enterprises survive on. Spread lies and propaganda of an enemy. Creation of an enemy is necessary to motivate their troops and fortify their base amongst a public that has no real moral bearing. In this PC culture, there are many ripe for the picking.

Whether it is mercury laced light-bulbs, sky rocketing gas prices, food prices going through the roof because so much fertile land is being taken over for corn ethanol, the environmental Marxists are out to destroy our way of life; a theory completely based on a science that hasn't even made it to the debating table yet! Is this a country we want to leave to our children? Every generation since this country was founded has had a better way of life than the previous, but now we are in danger of sacrificing all of our success on the altar of the environment. I say hell no!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I am really getting a great laugh here. Given our northern climate, the bottom line is this, only religious zealotry could make anyone from Canada fear global warming. Period.

If your hypothesis is right and the climate is warming, I say bring it on! Inching up a degree in the next hundred years.. say it ain't so!" 

Rambo4, you obviously do not like Halifax much, or the mild climates you get during the winter. Spring is becoming non-existent here due to the flow of ice bergs moving past St. John's. By the time they start drifting past Halifax harbor, it will be too late, for by then, the ocean current patterns of the Gulf Stream and Labrador Current will have changed greatly ........... and that will, in turn, change our current climate (not just the daily weather) in our part of North America.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Well, Margaret ... (sigh) ... when the mommy electron and the daddy electron love each other, VERY, VERY much they get close to each other and ...
> 
> But seriously, do you have a point you're trying to make?


Well if electricity was made by little mommy and daddy electrons, I wouldn't see a problem. Unfortunately the mommy and daddy electrons make quite a mess while they're loving each other.

And, aren't we being "encouraged" to use those dim bulbs to save energy? What will happen when we all start plugging in our cars?

A few years ago, we were all "encouraged" to use wood stoves to heat our homes - it would save something. What "they" forgot to say was that it takes 40 or 50 years to grow a good tree and while wood is a "renewable" resource, it isn't instant. 

Plus all those yuppies quickly found that it wasn't easy to locate a supplier, haul the logs, split them and keep the stove burning. I can remember as a child waking up to frost around my nose when Daddy didn't get up in the night to add more wood to the fire that heated our house in the 1950s.

The city thought it was good policy to "encourage" people to use less water and legislated when you could water your lawn and so on. The next year they were moaning about loss of water revenue. What did they think would happen?

My point is that we are like sheep. We climb on some bandwagon and then we're surprised when the wheels fall off.

Moving from oil to some other energy source is not that simple and won't solve many problems. Coal to produce electricity isn't renewable either and extracting coal leaves more of a mess than oil does.

Where do you think natural gas comes from? 

How do you get hydrogen in sufficient quantities? Sure hydrogen is in the air. It's also in water. Can we afford to disrupt the balance of either air or water to fuel our cars and trucks?

If global warming is a fact, maybe it's all part of the grand plan. I get a kick out of "friends of the planet" who insist that they know better and try to interfere with nature.

If I had a nickel for every time I've read a headline and said "what the heck did they think was going to happen?" I'd be rich.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

winwintoo said:


> If I had a nickel for every time I've read a headline and said "what the heck did they think was going to happen?" I'd be rich.
> 
> Take care, Margaret


Exactly.

SINC, and MacFury and MacDoc and Chas_m and probably all of us should read:

The Logic of Failure: Recognizing ... - Google Book Search

I'm not claiming that either side has all (or even ANY) of the answers on this one, but this book goes a long way to explain the psychological tools that human beings use to dig the holes we tend to fall into.

I wish the mother-ship would hurry up and come back for me...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman: I agree with the opinion expressed in the book.

My point is that there simply isn't enough information on which to base drastic government intervention in people's lives. Great claims require great proofs--not the skimpy scraps being presented currently with great pomposity.

I don't ask that people do nothing to allay their personal demons and bogeymen--I just ask that they don't involve me in it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I do my share as well to conserve energy and reduce carbon, but I'm buggered if I will be forced into the belief that we are doomed if we don't tax carbon.

Fact of the matter is we'll be doomed much quicker if we do, and that's what the "Chicken Little" bunch just don't get, yet are oh so smug and self righteous about it all.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> eggman: I agree with the opinion expressed in the book.
> 
> My point is that there simply isn't enough information on which to base drastic government intervention in people's lives. Great claims require great proofs--not the skimpy scraps being presented currently with great pomposity.
> 
> I don't ask that people do nothing to allay their personal demons and bogeymen--I just ask that they don't involve me in it.


An interesting sentiment - and one that would be inarguably correct if we were not already surrounded by the products of group efforts (both good and bad).

"Many hands make light work"

We didn't get into this situation alone, and it is not likely that we'll get out of it alone.

I realize you'd like to argue the very existence of a "situation" - but that is not my point. You can substitute "civilization" or "life style" for "situation" in the paragraphs above.

We don't get to argue "alone" vs. "together" any more, the world's grown too small. It is appropriate that you've chosen an avatar from The Prisoner as that series dealt quite often with questions of the individual and the group and their responsibilities to each other. Number 6 was not above paying VAT and gasoline taxes so that he could drive KAR120C along the highways of his nation, though he was most definitely an individual. By the time any bureaucracy stirs itself to actual action the emotional descriptor "drastic" is likely to be replaced by equally emotional descriptor "pathetic". I don't think you have anything to worry about there.

In any case - you do get to chose what is best for you - but sometimes you have to do that by changing jobs, or political parties or nations, or continents.

I would suggest that by reading you're already more involved than most, and actually posting compounds the error you made by reading if you wish to attempt true individualistic disconnection. The descriptors "skimpy scraps" and "great pomposity" which you use have an emotional content that would indicate your implied even handed scientific approach is likely a facade. I've seen plenty of material that should bear the above descriptors from *both* sides of the argument - the ones who are advocating some kind of intervention, and the ones who are advocating no action. In my experience it is usually easier to "follow the money" in the case of those advocating no action - still, I must admit that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence regarding that possibility on the other side of the argument.

Keep in mind that no action, or no intervention in the lives of individual citizens is still a choice which will have consequences. Don't forget that in the systems presented in Dorner's book "no action" was just as fatal within the experiments as the subjects who tinkered at every turn. The best results fell somewhere in the middle. It was the approach of the experimental subjects which made the difference and provided the positive results in the experimental systems - and neither you nor I are manifesting that particular mindset's approach here.

True disconnection may require the exercise of the individual freedom of relocation though, as well as achieving escape velocity... 

Good luck!


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

eggman said:


> I wish the mother-ship would hurry up and come back for me...


HA, eggman, you've missed the last ship. Marshall has taken his flock with him, running shoes and all.

I am sure Algore is making his Ark as we speak. You may get a ticket if you pay off your carbon sins.

Anyhow I am off to idle my SUV in a drive thru to accelerate global warming. Maybe I'l chop open a few fridges and aerosol cans to expand the hole in the ozone. Set fire to some styrofoam containers and tires to cause a little acid rain, and just for good measure burn a witch so the crops will grow. 

Take care.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Anyhow I am off to idle my SUV in a drive thru to accelerate global warming. Maybe I'l chop open a few fridges and aerosol cans to expand the hole in the ozone. Set fire to some styrofoam containers and tires to cause a little acid rain, and just for good measure burn a witch so the crops will grow."

Amen. That's the spirit, rambo4. You tell 'em. Yell out that you are mad as hell and you are not going to take that pseudo-scientific environmental mumbo jumbo anymore. That will show them that you don't give a damn about life on earth. Give 'em hell. "The buck stops here" as Harry Truman would say. Hopefully for you, the ocean tide will also stop just short of the Citadel in Halifax.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr. G: It might reach the Citadel in a couple thousand years:

Scoop: NZers misled by unfounded sea level claims


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The environmental movement really is the home of the disaffected left and many scientists and science organizatins ARE on the take. Some of them merely have a social axe to grind.


Shocking allegations MF. I suppose you have some documented evidence of this worldwide conspiracy theory of yours. Scientists on the take - roping almost every government in the world into their crackpot theory and profiting like pirates! Hey, you might win a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.



Macfury said:


> And if you’re counting McCain’s ramblings as support, you have a very low standard for bedfellows.


I wasn't thinking of McCain nor his confused rambling. I was referring to the fact that even the backwards US Republicans are starting to slowly realize that they have to at least pay lip service to recognizing anthropogenic climate change because to do otherwise will make them look like silly conspiracy theorists given the preponderance of scientific evidence. Not that they plan on actually doing anything other than pay lip service, just like Harper and Baird here in our home and native land. But Stevie had to give up with his "socialist plot" musings.



Macfury said:


> It won’t outstrip supply at all for at least another 100 years—by which time we’ll be onto somethign else. Green fear-mongering is doing wonders to drive up the price currently, however.


More shocking allegations. You of course know that the most optimistic estimate of when oil will peak worldwide was made by the US Geological Survey and their date is 2035-2040. Of course their estimate is an outlier from other geological organizations predictions which tend to pick dates closer to the present time like 2020, 2015 or even 2010. But maybe those organizations are "on the take" also.

The time for planning to get onto something else would be sooner rather than later.



Macfury said:


> Brought to you by ehMac’s greatest “free thinker,” wrapped inside a warm, cozy populist blanket.


Brought to you by ehMac's greatest conspiracy theorist, wrapped up and ranting inside a tinfoil hat.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> Well if electricity was made by little mommy and daddy electrons, I wouldn't see a problem. Unfortunately the mommy and daddy electrons make quite a mess while they're loving each other.
> 
> And, aren't we being "encouraged" to use those dim bulbs to save energy? What will happen when we all start plugging in our cars?
> 
> ...


So I guess your argument comes down to: "Since there will be unintended consequences to everything we intend to do, we should therefore do nothing." Correct me if I've got that wrong. 

In the meantime our industrial society is doing the opposite of nothing on a grand scale. We are using more resources and more energy than we ever have in history while our population skyrockets. The amounts of energy and resources that the world would require if everyone in the world lived at the level of use that we take for granted would require more than one planet's worth. If we just carry on as we always have, something will have to give. 

I guess one solution would to make sure that the rest of the world never rises to the levels of consumption of the first world. China, India and South America might have a few ideas about that.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> I do my share as well to conserve energy and reduce carbon, but I'm buggered if I will be forced into the belief that we are doomed if we don't tax carbon.
> 
> Fact of the matter is we'll be doomed much quicker if we do, and that's what the "Chicken Little" bunch just don't get, yet are oh so smug and self righteous about it all.


Hey SINC, I think we have a case of the poultry calling the Chicken, little. Doomed if we do, doomed if we don't.  But I understand that your posts all lack the stain of self-righteousness and are presented with grace and humility.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

rambo4 said:


> I am really getting a great laugh here. Given our northern climate, the bottom line is this, only religious zealotry could make anyone from Canada fear global warming. Period.
> 
> If your hypothesis is right and the climate is warming, I say bring it on! Inching up a degree in the next hundred years.. say it ain't so!
> 
> ...


I'm really getting a laugh also out of your hyperbole and fear-mongering about Marxists and Stalinists. Welcome to ehMac!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Hey SINC, I think we have a case of the poultry calling the Chicken, little. Doomed if we do, doomed if we don't.  But I understand that your posts all lack the stain of self-righteousness and are presented with grace and humility.


Nothing self righteous about calling the whole thing a contrived hoax and I will believe that until my last breath.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Shocking allegations MF. I suppose you have some documented evidence of this worldwide conspiracy theory of yours. Scientists on the take - roping almost every government in the world into their crackpot theory and profiting like pirates! Hey, you might win a Pulitzer Prize for investigative journalism.


Why are you talking about conspiracy theories? That would be like saying the Reverend Jim Jones was running a conspiracy instead of merely compelling people to follow him. 



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I wasn't thinking of McCain nor his confused rambling. I was referring to the fact that even the backwards US Republicans are starting to slowly realize that they have to at least pay lip service to recognizing anthropogenic climate change because to do otherwise will make them look like silly conspiracy theorists given the preponderance of scientific evidence.


Lip service from some, but the idea of growing fat off green taxes is the real appeal. The International Monetary Fund is huge with profit already with the massive commission it takes from trading carbon credits. These cats want a chance at the cream.




GratuitousApplesauce said:


> More shocking allegations. You of course know that the most optimistic estimate of when oil will peak worldwide was made by the US Geological Survey and their date is 2035-2040. Of course their estimate is an outlier from other geological organizations predictions which tend to pick dates closer to the present time like 2020, 2015 or even 2010. But maybe those organizations are "on the take" also.


These projections take into account self-imposed limitations on drilling. Once the greenies make things really bad for the world, the backlash will make your head spin...and the drills that will be piercing that virgin Alaskan soil.
[/QUOTE]


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

GratuitousApplesauce: 

I would call Marxism a movement wishing to impose its beliefs on the public at large, stealing individual freedom and liberty every step of the way. Creating false prophets and creating boogiemen out of successful companies. Complete government control over an individuals energy use is your wish. I would call that indeed a Stalinist ideology. The facts speak for themselves.

I am advocating independence. The natural law of freedom instilled into everyone of us. I will not have any government dictate how I heat my home, how often I shower, or how far I drive. If you believe it, go for it. It's a free country, just do not put your jackboot down on my freedoms. If you feel better about paying a carbon tax, then do it! Don't legislate the stealing of money from your neighbors' wallets to satiate a self imposed liberal guilt.

Why do greenies so hate success? What drives this envy? They have every opportunity in this country to be whatever you want to be, do not deny that opportunity to anyone else who actually did something with their life. You have choices whether to strive to be a corporate CEO someday and have a good life, or you can do as they do in Berkley, and live in trees, throwing excrement at people bitching about how you are so hard done by.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Brought to you by ehMac's greatest conspiracy theorist, wrapped up and ranting inside a tinfoil hat.


MF has moved well beyond the tinfoil hat, and is now kitted out in a getup that can best be described as a cross between an early Cyberman outfit and a giant baked potato.


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So I guess your argument comes down to: "Since there will be unintended consequences to everything we intend to do, we should therefore do nothing." Correct me if I've got that wrong.


I think the universe is unfolding as it should. 

Fresh water has been conserved and stored for us in the form of ice caps and glaciers. We need fresh water and now there are volcanoes erupting under the Arctic ice cap and probably also under Antarctica to melt the ice causing calving - thus the huge icebergs that Dr. G sees. 

I don't think there is global warming so much as there is a shift in where the warmth is. There is evidence that a similar shift occurred in the past - no I'm not going to cite a source - you would only find fault with it's veracity. Maybe the time has come for another shift.

What if all this ballyhoo is simply those who like their weather fearing that they might not like it once the change occurs.

If someone has a viable replacement for oil as fuel, I'm all for it. Electricity - no matter how you produce it is not the answer.

Margaret


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> So I guess your argument comes down to: "Since there will be unintended consequences to everything we intend to do, we should therefore do nothing." Correct me if I've got that wrong.


I'd say do what YOU want, but absolve me of your nuttiness. Don't make everyone play Ring Around The Rosie just because you want to frighten off your personal demons.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Because carbon is not a poison, yet we’re ignoring real poisons.


ummm...actually carbon monoxide is VERY much a poison. you can die from a few minutes exposure in a closed area.

and just to clear things up, it's not really referred to by scientists as global WARMING, but global CLIMATE CHANGE. so sure, perhaps we'll benefit in some parts of canada, or perhaps the seasons will continue to get more extreme (hotter in summer and colder in winter). I don't pretend to know, and scientists aren't omnipotent so they can only theorize. 

I think this youtube vid really does capture the sanest way to treat global climate change :

YouTube - How It All Ends


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Fresh water has been conserved and stored for us in the form of ice caps and glaciers. We need fresh water and now there are volcanoes erupting under the Arctic ice cap and probably also under Antarctica to melt the ice causing calving - thus the huge icebergs that Dr. G sees." Very true, Margaret. It is not just the size of the ice bergs this year, but also the vast number.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

winwintoo said:


> I don't think there is global warming so much as there is a shift in where the warmth is. There is evidence that a similar shift occurred in the past - no I'm not going to cite a source - you would only find fault with it's veracity. Maybe the time has come for another shift.
> 
> What if all this ballyhoo is simply those who like their weather fearing that they might not like it once the change occurs.
> 
> ...


Believe in whatever myths you like, but we will, sooner or later, have to find a way of replacing oil, because the supplies won't last forever.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Why are you talking about conspiracy theories? That would be like saying the Reverend Jim Jones was running a conspiracy instead of merely compelling people to follow him.


The Jim Jones scenario only applies to the deluded fringe, your conspiracy theory is that a worldwide cabal of scientists is misleading the world's governments because they are on the take - as you put it. We are awaiting your evidence of this conspiracy.



Macfury said:


> These projections take into account self-imposed limitations on drilling. Once the greenies make things really bad for the world, the backlash will make your head spin...and the drills that will be piercing that virgin Alaskan soil.


Those estimates are based on studies of how much oil is available in total, including the estimate of potential of future discoveries. Drilling in virgin Alaska would satisfy the world's demand for an extra couple of months. The rate of discovery of new fields has fallen off sharply since all the large super-fields, now peaking out, were discovered in the '60s. While demand for oil continues to rise, new supply is becoming increasingly scarce. This is why the last ditch supplies such as the Alberta tar sands are now being lusted after. 

Tar sands oil is the equivalent of a tobacco addict sifting through ashtrays for butts with which to cobble together another smoke of two. While there may be billions of barrels of potential oil mixed up in that sand, it takes almost as many billions of barrels of equivalent energy to extract. Therefore the net amount of all that oil is not nearly as much as advertised.



Macfury said:


> I'd say do what YOU want, but absolve me of your nuttiness. Don't make everyone play Ring Around The Rosie just because you want to frighten off your personal demons.


It's not up to me to absolve you MF. But even your precious Conservatives appear to have some Ring Around The Rosie plans for you, ineffectual as they are.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

rambo4 said:


> GratuitousApplesauce:
> 
> I would call Marxism a movement wishing to impose its beliefs on the public at large, stealing individual freedom and liberty every step of the way. Creating false prophets and creating boogiemen out of successful companies. Complete government control over an individuals energy use is your wish. I would call that indeed a Stalinist ideology. The facts speak for themselves.


That's a highly selective definition of Marxism, nor does it apply to the situation of climate change. In a democracy we have majority rule. If the government, elected by the majority, does something you don't like you're free to vote for someone else. With a large diverse society there will always be someone who feels like they are being imposed upon.



rambo4 said:


> I am advocating independence. The natural law of freedom instilled into everyone of us. I will not have any government dictate how I heat my home, how often I shower, or how far I drive. If you believe it, go for it. It's a free country, just do not put your jackboot down on my freedoms. If you feel better about paying a carbon tax, then do it! Don't legislate the stealing of money from your neighbors' wallets to satiate a self imposed liberal guilt.


Breath-taking rant! Bravo! Just one little thing about your freedom though ... does that extend to your freedom to pollute whatever you want in your pursuit of happiness? Do you have no responsibility for the fact that the exercising of your cherished freedom could affect your neighbours or the things that belong to the citizens in common, such as clean water and clean air? For instance, if your interpretation of free expression included you playing heavy-metal music every night at 3 am, would I be putting my Stalinist Jackboot down on it if I hinted at calling the police if you didn't tone it down?



rambo4 said:


> Why do greenies so hate success? What drives this envy? They have every opportunity in this country to be whatever you want to be, do not deny that opportunity to anyone else who actually did something with their life. You have choices whether to strive to be a corporate CEO someday and have a good life, or you can do as they do in Berkley, and live in trees, throwing excrement at people bitching about how you are so hard done by.


More prime top-notch ranting, Mr. Rambo. Now look up "straw man argument" in Google.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Brought to you by ehMac’s greatest “free thinker,” wrapped inside a warm, cozy populist blanket.


Brought to you by Ehmac's greatest fussbudget corrections officer, wrapped inside a clutch of thorns.

Hey, sorry about the tardiness, MF - had stuff to do yesterday. Better late than never, I always say. But hey - if the blanket's too cool by now, you can always jump in some boiling oil... I'll supply the cauldron, bro!

Sinc: I am not so much against your skepticism over global warming as I am appalled at your proclivities for folksy hunches and little more. At least the MacFuritizah has a penchant for properly picayune pugilism. Please, if you're going to rail at bad science, use good arguments! Thank you; over to you.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc: I am not so much against your skepticism over global warming as I am appalled at your proclivities for folksy hunches and little more. At least the MacFuritizah has a penchant for properly picayune pugilism. Please, if you're going to rail at bad science, use good arguments! Thank you; over to you.


Certainly my good man:

“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.”

Newsweek’s 1975 Article About Coming Ice Age | Sweetness & Light

“A new ice age is due now, but you wont hear it from the green groups, who like to play on Western guilt about consumerism to make us believe in global warming.
THE Earth's climate is changing in a dramatic way, with immense danger for mankind and the natural systems that sustain it. This was the frightening message broadcast to us by environmentalists in the recent past. Here are some of their prophecies.
The facts have emerged, in recent years and months, from research into past ice ages. They imply that the threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind. (Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, in International Wildlife, July 1975)
The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)
As recently as January 1994, the supreme authority on matters environmental, Time magazine, wrote:
The ice age cometh? Last week's big chill was a reminder that the Earth's climate can change at any time ... The last (ice age) ended 10,000 years ago; the next one— for there will be a next on—could start tens of thousands of years from now. Or tens of years. Or it may have already started.
The scare about global cooling was always the same: unprecedented low temperatures; the coldest weather recorded; unusual floods and storms; a rapid shift in the world's climate towards an icy apocalypse.
But now, the scare is about global warming. To convert from the first scare to the second, all you have to do is substitute "the coldest weather recorded" with "the warmest weather recorded". Replace the icicles hanging from oranges in California with melting glaciers on Mt Everest, and the shivering armadillos with sweltering polar bears. We were going to freeze but now we are going to fry.”

The Ice Age Cometh

“As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round.”

Another Ice Age? - TIME

“Issue: While Big Al Gore flies around the globe leaving a carbon footprint larger than himself, preaching the dangers of man-made global warming at $100,000 per appearance, real scientists are predicting an imminent ice age.*
*
*“By the mid-21st century the planet will face another little ice age similar to the Maunder Minimum [the previous little ice age], “Khabibullo Abduusamatov, head of the Russian space research laboratory told RIA Novosti in an interview January 22.* He said this will occur, “…because the amount of solar radiation hitting the earth has been constantly decreasing since the 1990s and will reach its minimum approximately in 2041.”
** * * * * *
Other scientists in the U.S. and other countries have made similar observations, Some predict a full blown ice age rather than the "little" variety is coming soon though most are not as specific about the date.* These scientists have speculated that the next ice age may have already begun but we won’t be able to verify that until some years down the road.* They note that before the era of recurring ice ages, the earth had 13 times as much atmospheric carbon dioxide as it has today and the climate was much warmer and more stable.
*
Comment 1:* Instead of demanding arbitrary draconian cuts in energy availability, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would better serve humanity if it applied its efforts to determining how much additional carbon dioxide we need to add to the atmosphere to modify or eliminate the coming ice age, according to physicist Gerald Marsh.”

Real scientists' real fear: the coming ice age

Need any more proof of scientists who know crap from putty?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sinc, that's better. Something to chew on there. More substance, less rabble-rousing! 

(Waiting for the Great COTU Persnicketizer - a rare bird indeed - to come out of its pungent lair and commence hunting...)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> Sinc, that's better. Something to chew on there. More substance, less rabble-rousing!
> 
> (Waiting for the Great COTU Persnicketizer - a rare bird indeed - to come out of its pungent lair and commence hunting...)


Welcome. I just figure that if you don't have the courage to do a little research on the history of climate fanatics, ya don't deserve to have me shove 'em in your face.

I just flat out post that science has been and is likely wrong again.

There are thousands of examples, but the elitist greenies will never admit that particular bit of history exists.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, I imagine the hard core among them wouldn't... flies against doctrine. Still, only a fool would think we humans have zero effect on the earth's climate. We seem to differ on orders of magnitude, however.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I don't think much different than you Max, really.

But those guys who try to shove this ****e down my throat PMO.

They somehow think they are better than we who know that there are holes in all of their theories and history backs our opinions up with mistake after misdiagnosis after errors in trying to predict climate change.

It's time they simply admit they are supporting little more than theory and shaky ones at that.

Time will prove them wrong.

Again.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The Jim Jones scenario only applies to the deluded fringe, your conspiracy theory is that a worldwide cabal of scientists is misleading the world's governments because they are on the take - as you put it. We are awaiting your evidence of this conspiracy.


You lefty types are so focused on conspiracy. Why attribute to conspiracy that which can merely be attributed to self-interest? If I see a bunch of seagulls all diving for the same crust of mouldy bread, I don't imagine that a conspiracy has drawn them together.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Still, only a fool would think we humans have zero effect on the earth's climate.


No major activity has zero effect on anything. We know that cities retain heat in asphalt and concrete. These things are measurable and predictable. When I am expected to takes computer scenaria that ignore real-world data on faith, I draw the line.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Time will prove them wrong." God help us all if the scientists are proven correct.

YouTube - The Day After Tomorrow - Part 4


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> ...
> 
> Real scientists' real fear: the coming ice age
> 
> Need any more proof of scientists who know crap from putty?


You might want to edit your post SINC and remove the admitted spin-specialists you cited above.

The rest might have more credibility without them - if you actually want to maintain the discussion on any kind of scientific level.


> About Us
> 
> Winningreen is a campaign communications company founded on the principle that conservative positions can win, even on issues thought to be the property of the other side. We do this by selling voters on your positions so elected officials can be confident they have the backing of their constituents.


Are you talking "campaigning" or "science" ? - you wouldn't want to inadvertently lower yourself to the level you've accused the other side of. 

Good luck!


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Max said:


> Still, only a fool would think we humans have zero effect on the earth's climate.


Well then I guess I'm not a fool. I know that we humans have had major effect on the earth's climate. I also believe that our being here was part of the grand plan of the universe and it's all working as it's supposed to. Any word on the return of the mother ship?

Taxing us won't turn back the clock and there seems to be a focus on oil as the culprit. So we should all move to electric cars.

Hmmm. What do you think will happen. In our current situation, every time there is a high traffic event coming up - Easter, Canada Day, May Long - the price of gasoline goes up. Not because there is a shortage of gasoline at those times but because they can charge more and we let them. 

Does anybody remember when the grid went dark on half of North America. Does anybody remember the rolling brown-outs in California and elsewhere. 

I'm just saying.

And sure we can make electricity using alternate methods. We don't need to burn coal; we can put up wind farms - have you ever seen one of those? and then the bird lovers would be on us. We could make ethanol and burn that, but then we'd be polluting three times - once to plant and harvest the grain (or is that two already) and then again when we make the ethanol - it doesn't grow like that even in Saskatchewan, it has to be made in a still and then the third (or fourth) time is when we burn the ethanol to power the generators.

Also with the increased demand for ethanol, the price would go up and more farmers would sell to the still and there'd be less food (and the price would go up)

I guess we could build huge solar panels, but then never caught on even for houses that were trying to save energy back in the day - and where would we put them.

Nuclear energy is another hot topic with it's own set of problems.

So what do we do? As those of us who've lived through many of these doom and gloom cycles, we should just live our lives and be as kind to the planet as we can.

Take care, Margaret


----------



## iJohnHenry (Mar 29, 2008)

Some argue for it's own sake.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> You might want to edit your post SINC and remove the admitted spin-specialists you cited above.
> 
> The rest might have more credibility without them - if you actually want to maintain the discussion on any kind of scientific level.


And why would I want to do that?

I wanted to show the elite crowd that there are scientists and then there are "scientists".

Credibility is in short shrift on both sides. Trouble is the greenies would never admit it.

Better to let it all hang out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Your problem MF is that the *data* is showing warming increasing faster than the models.

THIS Is the science....

about as thorough an examination on a global scale as one could imagine. :clap: 




> *Warming Climate Is Changing Life On Global Scale, Says New Study*
> 
> ScienceDaily (May 15, 2008) — A vast array of physical and biological systems across the earth are being affected by warming temperatures caused by humans, says a new analysis of information not previously assembled all in one spot. The effects on living things include earlier leafing of trees and plants over many regions; movements of species to higher latitudes and altitudes in the northern hemisphere; changes in bird migrations in Europe, North America and Australia; and shifting of the oceans' plankton and fish from cold- to warm-adapted communities.
> 
> ...





> Journal reference:
> 
> 1. Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change. *Nature*. May 15, 2008.


THAT

*Rosenzweig and researchers from 10 other institutions across the world analyzed data from published papers on 829 physical systems and some 28,800 plant and animal systems, stretching back to 1970. Their analysis of revealed a picture of changes on continental scales;*

would be DATA....measured changes.....

Reality tends to put a size large dent in denier nonsense.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

> 95% of observed changes are consistent with warming trends.


They don't even have the guts to stake a real claim. Their views are 95% consistent with fence-sitting.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Your problem MF is that the *data* is showing warming increasing faster than the models.
> 
> THIS Is the science....
> 
> about as thorough an examination on a global scale as one could imagine. :clap:


Since science has been proven wrong hundreds of time over the few centuries it has existed, I'm gonna stick with Ma Nature and her cycles.

Good luck with your obsessions.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And look where the public's heading:
globeandmail.com: Energy crisis supplants environment as top concern


> *Energy crisis supplants environment as top concern*
> Anger at soaring gas prices has supplanted fear about global warming as the No. 1 issue Canadians say is facing their country.
> 
> As the cost of filling the tank hits uncharted heights - and is predicted to go even higher - a wide-ranging survey conducted by the Strategic Counsel for The Globe and Mail and CTV suggests energy prices are on par with the sagging economy when it comes to Canadians' worries.
> ...


Voters really, really don't like gas tax, poll tells stubborn Campbell


> *Voters really, really don't like gas tax, poll tells stubborn Campbell*
> The B.C. Liberals got something new to worry about Tuesday with the release of an opinion survey showing the public turning against their pending carbon tax. Some 59 per cent of those responding to the Ipsos Reid survey said they were opposed to the tax, many of them strongly so.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Warming weather affects the Earth, you don't say. Um where exactly does this study prove man is causing this? Right it doesn't.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> No major activity has zero effect on anything. We know that cities retain heat in asphalt and concrete. These things are measurable and predictable. When I am expected to takes computer scenaria that ignore real-world data on faith, I draw the line.


Sounds good... sounds firm - admirable, even. Unfortunately, the line you draw tends to be crooked and arbitrary - one day it's apparently as straight as an arrow, the next day some lovely French curve - lazy and graceful, but arcing off over some uncertain horizon, fading off into the shimmering, crepuscular light.

But "scenaria?" Great word. Kunga points for that one. I would launch a celebratory clapbot, but you know I have my principles.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> arcing off over some uncertain horizon, fading off into the shimmering, crepuscular light.


Ya may wanna 'splain that one to anyone who lives west of, oh, say the Soo Max.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Trust me, it ain't an Ontario thing. It's probably a Max thing. But if you tried hard enough, I think you could get it, my friend. I am quite certain MacFury does.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> And why would I want to do that?
> 
> I wanted to show the elite crowd that there are scientists and then there are "scientists".
> 
> ...


This is what would put the "CON" in *con*servative: when caught without credibility (or to use parliamentary language - "being mistaken", or to use common terms - "lying") simply step back and call it a "test".

Very high standards you've set for yourself, and no, claiming the other side is no better does nothing as a defense. Nor should it - after all, *we* wouldn't accept that as a defense from *them* would we??

Where I come from "letting it all hang out" would mean being honest from the beginning and to heck with the consequences, not knowingly presenting something less than truthful to see if you'd get caught and to heck with the impact on your own credibility

I think you've slipped SINC,


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Max said:


> ... crepuscular...


Thanks Max.  

a few subtle nuanced syllables tossed, zen-like into the raging torrent of dialogue... I'm going to take a deep breath and have another cup of coffee.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

eggman,

We are merely foolish sheep to the non believers. We don't learn from history and we place far too much faith in the triviality of science. 

What we need to do is embrace our cynical selves and take a wait and see approach, even when the walls are collapsing around us. If we end up being wrong, we will reframe the argument to suit ourselves (if in fact it even matters at that point). And don't you dare ask for a penny of my hard earned money! It's for ME ME ME!

Take comfort in the fact that they are in the minority. Most people can accept responsibility and will try to do something.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Trust me, it ain't an Ontario thing. It's probably a Max thing. But if you tried hard enough, I think you could get it, my friend. I am quite certain MacFury does.


Max has gotten his Piero Umiliani fix and has played his 45 RPM of _Crepusculo Sul Mare_ until the grooves wore out. Or watched the remake of _Ocean's 11_ too many times.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> We are merely foolish sheep to the non believers.


I'm a little surprised that you also are placing this in a religious framework. Very telling though.



mrjimmy said:


> What we need to do is embrace our cynical selves and take a wait and see approach, even when the walls are collapsing around us


1) You can't even prove the walls are collapsing around you.
2) Even if you could prove it, you wouldn't know what to do about it. You ask me to accept your solutions on fear and faith in equal measure.




mrjimmy said:


> Take comfort in the fact that they are in the minority. Most people can accept responsibility and will try to do something.


globeandmail.com: Energy crisis supplants environment as top concern



> Anger at soaring gas prices has supplanted fear about global warming as the No. 1 issue Canadians say is facing their country...The environment, last year's top issue, has been pushed to No. 3, with just 16 per cent of Canadians surveyed saying they now consider it their primary concern.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

To drive home this green apocalyptic hysteria even further, one of the greenies fellow travellers, Barry Walters, an associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and contributer to the Medical Journal of Australia, has proposed a "carbon tax" on procreation. So all you potential parents out there, look at where our future is going. 

Prof. Walters postulates that any couple wishing to have more than their "allotted" number of children should be subject to a carbon tax, to offset the damage to the environment one more child would cause. You know through breathing and crazy stuff like that.

Every fascist has their "brown shirts" to go to bat for them, so I am certain someone will defend this eco-despotism, but I think to the average Joe from Canada, taxing one's children for their mere existence is the ultimate abhorrence and attack on the very foundation of our country . But this is exactly where these defenders of "Gaia" or "Earth mother" will lead us.

That, my friends, is potentially Mr. Green Dion's, "Green Shift" realized at it's full potential. It's our gas today, and our children and our way of life tomorrow.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I'm a little surprised that you also are placing this in a religious framework. Very telling though.


Surprised? Why because you know me? Telling? _Really...._



> 1) You can't even prove the walls are collapsing around you.
> 2) Even if you could prove it, you wouldn't know what to do about it. You ask me to accept your solutions on fear and faith in equal measure.


I ask nothing of you. You have every right to bury your head as deep in the sand as you like.

globeandmail.com: Energy crisis supplants environment as top concern

And this proves what exactly? That people no longer care about the environment? A victory for the deniers? _Really..._

As the effects of climate change worsen, do you honestly believe people will start thinking more like you?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Back a believer into a corner and their defense is to respond with questions.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Back a believer into a corner and their defense is to respond with questions.


Try answering that last question of mine.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> Back a believer into a corner and their defense is to respond with questions.


or, to put it in a "parliamentarily" polite fashion - "errors".

(for clarity I would specify that would refer to the particular believer known here as "SINC")


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> I ask nothing of you.


Money, taxes, heating choices, choice of fuel, acceptance of enviro-nonsense as truth. A mere trice.



mrjimmy said:


> And this proves what exactly? That people no longer care about the environment? A victory for the deniers? _Really..._


"Deniers" again? Why not call them "heretics" and get it over with? But it is proof that you can only frighten the public with enviro-nonsense for so long. Australia was scared into a carbon tax because of a cyclical drought. We don't have any such prods to frighten anyone locally--just loud gobbling.



mrjimmy said:


> As the effects of climate change worsen, do you honestly believe people will start thinking more like you?


Having seen "global warming" cease about a decade ago and watching the world actually cool recently... a resounding YES. They won't see a blessed thing they have never seen before.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> or, to put it in a "parliamentarily" polite fashion - "errors".
> 
> (for clarity I would specify that would refer to the particular believer known here as "SINC")


You got that a$$ backwards. I'm the NON believer as far as scientists and their global warming theories go.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Money, taxes, heating choices, choice of fuel, acceptance of enviro-nonsense as truth. A mere trice.


If you find paying for things you don't believe in objectionable why don't you just 'opt out' and quit yer bellyachin'?

Or do you just want the all benefits without paying your fair share.




> "Deniers" again? Why not call them "heretics" and get it over with? But it is proof that you can only frighten the public with enviro-nonsense for so long. Australia was scared into a carbon tax because of a cyclical drought. We don't have any such prods to frighten anyone locally--just loud gobbling.


The only real thing that will frighten will be the tangible effects of climate change. 

The label 'denier' is simply used to get the back up of those in disagreement. The best thing is that it works!



> Having seen "global warming" cease about a decade ago and watching the world actually cool recently... a resounding YES. They won't see a blessed thing they have never seen before.


Oh don't you worry, the media will take care of that. It's only going to get worse.

You'll be screaming 'You're all being duped!' while the crash of negative news reports will whisk you out to sea.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

mrjimmy said:


> If you find paying for things you don't believe in why don't you just 'opt out' and quit yer bellyachin'?


You're starting to sound like a union thug.



mrjimmy said:


> The label 'denier' is simply used to get the back up of those in disagreement. The best thing is that it works!


Sure..it works to discredit the person who uses the term.



mrjimmy said:


> It's only going to get worse. You'll be screaming 'You're all being duped!' while the crash of negative news reports will whisk you out to sea.


Looking forward to it. We could use a little excitement here. But let's hear that tired old chorus...."Woe is me!!! By the time of the great cataclysm it will be too late to reverse the effects of global warming!" Yep, King Canute forgot to flick the switch that sends the waves back into the ocean.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> You got that a$$ backwards. I'm the NON believer as far as scientists and their global warming theories go.


That's not what I thought you believed in SINC, I got it the right way around.

"a$$ frontwards", as it were - or at least front and centre.  

The sites you cite make it pretty clear what you believe in.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> The sites you cite make it pretty clear what you believe in.


And it sure as hell ain't global warming.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> And it sure as hell ain't global warming.


So you'll argue this "by any means necessary" then?

Which sent me to Wikipedia...



> I was not the one to invent lies: they were created in a society divided by class and each of us inherited lies when we were born. *It is not by refusing to lie that we will abolish lies*: it is by eradicating class by any means necessary.	”
> 
> — Jean Paul Sartre, Dirty Hands: act 5, scene 3. 1963[


and



> We declare our right on this earth to be a man, to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary.	”
> 
> — Malcolm X, 1965


Thanks for again spurring me to research SINC - I had no idea the Sartre quote existed! (lack of a classical education here you see)

I find the first fittingly ironic, and the second amusing. I can see your behaviour justified in the first, but I don't share the philosophy.

I guess we just have different standards SINC.

Good luck,


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm afraid the eggman has gone into orbit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Eggman: you are quite welcome. I do try to bring a little lateral clarity to the discussion every now and zen.

MacFury: I haven't seen any of the _Oceans_ series - neither the contemporary stuff nor the original. What do you think - are they any good? Nor do I get the musical/crepiscular reference. But I somehow knew you would be up on your crepuscularistics, so I am comforted to see this hunch has borne fruit.

Winwintoo: your lengthy response to me deserves a little more time than I currently have available to me; I'll think on it and get back to you, perhaps a little later this very soggy day.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: The original _Oceans_ is cool, not good. The later ones are neither. I like the _SCTV_ spoof the best.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I'm afraid the eggman has gone into orbit.


Indeed MF - and the view from up here is clear, as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> Indeed MF - and the view from up here is clear, as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer...



Nicely put!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> I guess we just have different standards SINC.


It has nothing to do with "standards" at all.

You either believe the current scientific spin or you don't. 

You do. I don't. And I, like you, won't be changing my mind any time soon. End of story.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> It has nothing to do with "standards" at all.
> 
> You either believe the current scientific spin or you don't.
> 
> You do. I don't. And I, like you, won't be changing my mind any time soon. End of story.


Not at all what I meant by "standards" SINC.

Re-read the earlier part of the thread:

You've shown yourself perfectly willing to knowingly present falsehoods or misleading data (or "spin" if you'd prefer to call it that) and when called on it simply argue that the other side does it too. 

That is what I meant by "standards".

That is also what I meant by "clarity" and by "by any means necessary".

It would be the standards of civil discourse to which I refer - though if you like I give you the opening to opine that this isn't a civil discourse. (a freebie on me!  ) For my part I have tried to keep it civil and polite.

It was just one of those bizarre coincidences of the 'net that dropped the Sartre quote into the mix. I actually laughed out loud.  

Your behaviour in the thread, and your repeated use of "science" as the "them" to your "us" makes me question your understanding of "science". But I suppose that is not a surprise as the media have repeatedly proven that very few people do understand it these days, probably myself included when the math gets too deep...  

That said - I will agree that the single most important piece of data that arrives with *any* scientific study is this: who paid for it.

Then I would suggest looking for the parties with the deepest pockets.

I think it is possible to de-spin most of what is out there in the way of "science" or science or even Science! (where's a Magnus Pike tag when you need it ), but it does require making an effort and not simply googling for the sites that shriek "ditto" but rather actively seeking the "anti-ditto" whether you like it or not.

I can only conclude that you don't want to.

That's OK, many people are uncomfortable with change.

Good scientists aren't though - remember when the world was flat and stationary as the sun went around it?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Like I said, I do not believe the science. You mean you can't get your head around that simple fact?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> Then I would suggest looking for the parties with the deepest pockets.


The governments and NGOs who are pushing the agenda have the deepest pockets here. The oil companies are coming around as well, provided they can make more money with a green plan.



eggman said:


> (where's a Magnus Pike tag when you need it


Would a Dr. Miriam Stoppard do?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> Like I said, I do not believe the science. You mean you can't get your head around that simple fact?


I got my head around that simple fact a dozen threads ago.

That wasn't what this was about.

Can you get your head around that? 

Re-read my previous post, it sums it up.

But I'll try again here:

It isn't *what* you *believe*, but *what you are willing to do* to inspire or direct the beliefs of others that I was discussing. 

I have no issue with your beliefs, as such. I also have no expectation of changing them. I was merely pointing out your technique. A technique which you justified with the weak "they do it!" argument (to paraphrase).

Sorry if it embarrassed you. 

I suppose it would, given the title you chose to build this thread on.

I thought I was clear - my apologies if it wasn't.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> The governments and NGOs who are pushing the agenda have the deepest pockets here. The oil companies are coming around as well, provided they can make more money with a green plan.


You may be right MF, but "big oil" is already completely wired into the system and I'm sure you'd agree that their pockets are bottomless - to the extend that they can probably dictate the direction of any discussion.
Just read Robert Baer's books "See No Evil", and "Sleeping with the Devil". He didn't care about big oil went he went into the CIA, and that isn't what the books are about - but he's probably onto something when he figures it out. (He actually seemed to be a bit of an idealist when he joined the CIA... not in the way they'd like... at least that's his story.)



Macfury said:


> Would a Dr. Miriam Stoppard do?


Don't Ask Me!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> I got my head around that simple fact a dozen threads ago.


If you read all the threads you would know that on numerous occasions I have stated that I believe reducing one's carbon footprint is a good thing for all to do.

I've re-insulated my house and attic, put in high efficiency windows, changed all my bulbs to fluorescent, installed an upgraded high efficiency furnace, got rid of our old washer and dryer for a more efficient model, ditto for fridge and freezer.

I began working out of my home and reduced my driving from 20 k to 3.5 k per year.

I could go on but my point is that I do my part.

I don't even dispute the studies science has made showing the earth has warmed a tiny bit in the last 100 years.

But I do not buy the "Chicken Little" BS that they forecast. They were wrong about an ice age. They were wrong last year about an increase in hurricane activity and I believe they are wrong about global warming by trying to make carbon a commodity and screwing the economy in the process.

So you see, you don't know what I am about and your statement, "Your behaviour in the thread, and your repeated use of "science" as the "them" to your "us" makes me question your understanding of "science" is wrong as well.

One does not "behave" in a thread. One posts opinions. Nothing to do with behaviour in any way, shape or form.

And I do understand enough about science to know they are not always right.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

The thing that people want regarding throughout this argument is to be left alone, free to pursue happiness, and defend their way of life. No one against the global warming (when it's hot) or climate change (when its cold) theories are trying to stifle your right to believe what you want or to live in a way that is more akin to your belief in environmentalism.

If you feel its an important issue, live that way. What gets under the skin of most libertarian minded individuals is the knee jerk reactions in support of laws utilizing the full power of the government to control our private life. If you can find a cheaper source of energy than fossil fuels, go for it! I'll be the first one to buy it, it is the wonder of our Western civilization. Free markets, and the freedom to choose.

No one has the right to tell anyone else how to live within the confines of our constitution. The government is there to provide law and order in society and have a standing army to protect us from harm. That is where the governments involvement ends. To have this soft tyranny where the government is controlling your lifestyle is where you cross the line from a free country to a banana republic.

All these lobbyists and their foundations (Sierra Club *cough cough*) are trying to force their narrow view of the world on all of us. If these laws are in place eventually, I can easily see believers reporting on their neighbors for being environmentally insensitive. That isn't Canada! That is 1950's Soviets or 1930's Germany. 

The only common thread that remains between the conservative mindset and the collectivist mindset, is that human nature is imperfect. 

Conservatives and libertarians acceptance of this imperfection have had us realize that when people are left alone to pursue their own happiness and realize their full potential, your country is much better off, warts and all. No society will be perfect. It is only the belief in humanity's potential for greatness with free will that our societies have evolved as they are.

The progressive or collectivist accepts human imperfection, but looks to the heavy hand of government to right all wrongs and achieve perfection. Which is an impossible task from the outset. Their academic mind and pride will make them believe it wasn't the philosophy that was the problem but the people in charge of the implementation. What, in their vanity, they fail to realize is that this is a terribly flawed philosophy that can never work. It always ends up the same as you can never control all the people. Some will always buck the trend. It is a natural God given right to be free, and most will never kowtow to the government. So you either are a happy serf in the rice fields, or sent to a "re-education" center, or a gulag, if you will. In order for the collectivist government to maintain control, they must continually keep the people in line through use of fear and propaganda. Always for some benevolent ideal, the children, the environment, you've heard the spin.

That is the root of the differences in ideology. Why on earth would anyone get behind such a horrific ideology when history shows that you are in for nothing but nightmares and misery. As it pertains to global warming, it is the same thought process, eloquently passed as the survival of our species.

It is the same red menace, only this time it dons a green face.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Macfury said:


> You're starting to sound like a union thug.


A 1940's union thug at that. Fedora on head and baseball bat in hand.



> Sure..it works to discredit the person who uses the term.


Perhaps, although I personally don't believe the word 'denier' to be associated with anything other than denial... _Of anything..._ Frame it as you see fit. 



> Looking forward to it. We could use a little excitement here.


As am I.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> If you read all the threads you would know that on numerous occasions I have stated that I believe reducing one's carbon footprint is a good thing for all to do.
> 
> I've re-insulated my house and attic, put in high efficiency windows, changed all my bulbs to fluorescent, installed an upgraded high efficiency furnace, got rid of our old washer and dryer for a more efficient model, ditto for fridge and freezer.
> 
> ...


Admirable, and I sincerely applaud the efforts. My commentary was, as I think you realize now (based on this sudden change of subject and deluge of information) - not about carbon footprints, nor about any kind of carbon tax - but then neither was your thread SINC - "Yellow Science - Global Warming Biggest scam in History" being an all encompassing subject on its own.  



SINC said:


> So you see, you don't know what I am about


I would dispute this SINC - I've been here a few years now, and read many many threads. There are days when ehMac is nothing if not a "crash course" in SINC!  



SINC said:


> and your statement, "Your behaviour in the thread, and your repeated use of "science" as the "them" to your "us" makes me question your understanding of "science" is wrong as well.
> 
> One does not "behave" in a thread. One posts opinions. Nothing to do with behaviour in any way, shape or form.
> 
> And I do understand enough about science to know they are not always right.


One does "behave" in a thread SINC, same way one behaves in an argument, by how you present a position. When part of that position is found to be in error, or a falsehood, the appropriate behaviour in civil discourse is to either apologize and retract it, apologize and rephrase it, or cite a better source, not:



SINC said:


> And why would I want to do that?
> 
> I wanted to show the elite crowd that there are scientists and then there are "scientists".
> 
> ...


You stated that "the greenies would never admit it" and yet, if I had not called you on it, would you ever have admitted it yourself?

Sad, this particular double standard. It does no good for your arguments in the long run and it is exactly what I mean by behaviour in a thread.

I agree with you about science SINC, they aren't always right. But eventually they get to right - because they're dealing with data, information and experiment - not opinions and beliefs.

You would present your case better if your methods were purer, no matter what you consider the other side's methods to be.

Good luck, and be careful letting it all hang out!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"It is the same red menace, only this time it dons a green face." You have hit the proverbial nail on the head, rambo4. "It is a natural God given right to be free, and most will never kowtow to the government." Right on, brother ........... so long as you believe in God and do what the government the government tells you to do (e.g., pay taxes, obey the laws of the land). Who needs this sort of government anyway, so long as Social Darwinism reigns supreme amongst "our sort of people". 

"Better dead than red" was a common saying during the time of the "red menace". Now, all we need something that rhymes with green, since "Better mean than green" does not have the same cache. Excelsior, comrade ............... no ........ wait .......... paix, mon ami. That's better. 


YouTube - He May Be a Communist
YouTube - Sen. Joseph McCarthy - Talks about the Jackal Pack
YouTube - Better Dead than Red


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Well then I guess I'm not a fool. I know that we humans have had major effect on the earth's climate. I also believe that our being here was part of the grand plan of the universe and it's all working as it's supposed to. Any word on the return of the mother ship?_

I'm afraid I'm not privy to discuss those details as yet. I'll have to see your credentials, Margaret - I'm not certain you're cleared for that information.

_Taxing us won't turn back the clock and there seems to be a focus on oil as the culprit. So we should all move to electric cars._

Indeed. I should think that anyone advocating turning back the clock is just a tad naive. However, changing certain habits might go a long way towards preserving what we _do_ have - or what remains of it. Am I right in assuming that you feel any sort of environmental-related taxation is a bad thing?

_Hmmm. What do you think will happen. In our current situation, every time there is a high traffic event coming up - Easter, Canada Day, May Long - the price of gasoline goes up. Not because there is a shortage of gasoline at those times but because they can charge more and we let them._

Well, I can't speak to that. What do you suggest we do otherwise - string up them rotten gas dealers? No, you probably don't advocate that. My answer to high prices is to soberly rethink how much driving I need to do in order to live reasonably well, keep my job, etc. Whether or not the fix is in during holidays is something I'll leave to others to debate.

_Does anybody remember when the grid went dark on half of North America. Does anybody remember the rolling brown-outs in California and elsewhere._

Yes, I do remember. Perhaps we'll see more of those in the future. Or perhaps not. I'm wondering what your point is in bringing this up? Do you feel that there is too much hysteria over energy concerns? Too much gloom and doom, not enough rational thinking? You are most likely right on the money there. We need to act intelligently, not bolt like rabbits down some hole.

_And sure we can make electricity using alternate methods. We don't need to burn coal; we can put up wind farms - have you ever seen one of those? and then the bird lovers would be on us. We could make ethanol and burn that, but then we'd be polluting three times - once to plant and harvest the grain (or is that two already) and then again when we make the ethanol - it doesn't grow like that even in Saskatchewan, it has to be made in a still and then the third (or fourth) time is when we burn the ethanol to power the generators._

NIMBYism is a natural byproduct of human nature. I don't expect that kind of reaction to go away anytime soon. Neither, evidently, do you. What to do about it? Take it a step at a time, I suppose. Harder to deal with these measures when they are proposed in your own backyard, but that's the whole point, I guess - putting one's money where one's mouth is. By the way, I have seen wind farms. They look pretty cool to me, but they kick up a lot of noise, don't they? And I wonder about their impact on our avian friends - but no, I am not opposed to wind farms. I'd like to see more of them. But I don't live near any and I'm not so certain I would wish to embrace one if one were to be placed in my back 40. I'm sure you can readily detect my ambivalence on that front.

_Also with the increased demand for ethanol, the price would go up and more farmers would sell to the still and there'd be less food (and the price would go up)_

Already happening. Big time. There's going to be some nasty adjustments all around, I expect.

_I guess we could build huge solar panels, but then never caught on even for houses that were trying to save energy back in the day - and where would we put them._

On our roofs.... residential, commercial, even office towers. This reminds me... the other day I was assisting a photographer friend who was shooting some financial mucky-mucks downtown. We were up on the 28th floor of this one tower and we had an excellent view of the new tower going up at Bay and Adelaide, as well as an assortment of other lower buildings. I was struck by how barren most of their rooftops were - devoid of any green whatsoever, or any kind of solar panelling. Yes, certain buildings appeared to be sporting a fairly extensive array of foliage, but I could see no rooftop solar arrays, and we were in a corner board room, affording us a huge chunk of sky to view through. I found myself wondering what that same view would reveal in five or ten years' time. I hope it's a lot more power generating and city cooling options. Time will tell. On the residential front, I suppose we didn't go for solar stuff the first time around because it was still in its infancy and was hideously expensive. We are now moving toward an interesting tipping point where it will be hideously expensive if we _don't_ implement such measures.

_Nuclear energy is another hot topic with it's own set of problems._

Oh, yeah - you bet your sweet bippy. MacDoc and I have tussled over this many a time. It sounds like the majority of Canadians consider more nuclear plants inevitable. I could be way out of step with everyone else. Certainly it seems that nothing else we have available to us can ramp up as quickly. I am also expecting that the advent of electric cars up the wazoo will also drive more demand for juice.

_So what do we do? As those of us who've lived through many of these doom and gloom cycles, we should just live our lives and be as kind to the planet as we can._

On that we are in full agreement, Margaret.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Max: The original _Oceans_ is cool, not good. The later ones are neither. I like the _SCTV_ spoof the best.


I missed the SCTV spoof. But I hear what you're saying. Reminds me... I remembers seeing _In like Flint_ as a kid. I thought it was way cool. I liked James Coburn - those chiseled looks and his great clipped speaking tones. Made me want to be a spy too, and have my pick of bikini-sporting gals.

I didn't realize at the time how derivative it was.Then I saw it as an adult; still kind of cool, albeit dipped in stinky cheese. But a good movie? Ix-nay.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

Great vids Dr.G, I see nothing wrong with defending ones country and way of life against those that wish to destroy it. 



> so long as you believe in God and do what the government the government tells you to do (e.g., pay taxes, obey the laws of the land). Who needs this sort of government anyway, so long as Social Darwinism reigns supreme amongst "our sort of people".


I don't believe in moral relativism, where different systems of government have the same respect and moral status as ours. There are bad and there are good (that would be us). Contrary to popular academic opinion, there are fundamental differences in beliefs. If you can't defend our history and Western civilization and all it has offered to the world compared to the tyrannies around the globe, with all due respect, there is something sorely lacking in your judgement.

We are the greatest force for good the world has ever seen. We are the shining city on the hill. Along with our neighbors to the south, we are the place where more people want to immigrate to than any other. Our foundation is what has allowed the greatest wealth attributed to a citizenry in the history of the world. I will not stand idly by and watch as our freedom and future be crushed by the Kruschevs of world beating their shoe urging our destruction.

Nothing more can be said better than Ronald Reagan said it 44 years ago. 

YouTube - Ronald Reagan Speech - 1964 Republican National Convention


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

Max, you aren't going to believe this, but I composed the most eloquent response to your post, but just as I hit submit, my internet connection dropped, so you'll never know what I think - and neither will I   - I have a really good memory but it's short LOL

I wanted to make a connection between price gouging by gasoline vendors and the rolling brown-outs - if the majority of people switch to electric vehicles, won't it be tempting for electric utilities to price gouge as well and create false shortages like they did in California with the rolling brown-outs? Maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

I talked to my petroleum engineer brother this morning and asked his opinion on all this global climate change etc. He thinks it is a fact, but that it's natural and has been going on for eons - they taught us in science class that most of North America was once covered by glaciers. We weren't around emitting carbons at the time, so the warming that caused the retreat of the glaciers must have occurred naturally. He also suggested that within the next century, it will be possible to navigate the Northwest Passage without ice breakers. Will that be good or bad? Think of the cost savings if we can move goods through that passage instead of around Cape Horn.

I'm not saying my brother is smarter or that he thought up these things on his own, but the company he works for pays him a lot of money to do their thinking for them so I'm confident he's done the research.

He also tells me that oil companies are investing gazillions of dollars in exploration rights in our north. If the ice cap melts, we'd better have put more effort into securing our dominion over the north and our resources there.

This has been an interesting discussion. Maybe if we all put our thinking hats on, we can come up with some answers.

Take care, Margaret
PS, brother is putting solar panels on his new house in Colorado.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Great vids Dr.G, I see nothing wrong with defending ones country and way of life against those that wish to destroy it." My sentiments exactly, which is why I am so concerned that we are playing "he said, she said" with the global warming issue on the governmental levels. We ALL need to do our part to reduce our personal carbon footprints, including governments and business, and not just people like you and me.

FYI, when Joe McCarthy stood up and declared that he had a list of 121 names of known communists in the State Department, he was holding up a blank sheet of paper. He and his "red scare/red menace" agenda did more harm to what America truly represented as the "beacon of democracy" than any communist agents ever did. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I hate when that happens - take the time to come up with a good beefy response, only to lose it all by accident. Grrrrr. Anyway, good points all, Margaret. Of course, there are upsides to global warming... much depends on where you are and how well positioned you are to take advantage of new conditions.

Rambo4: as something of a balance to your effusive dislike of "moral relativism," I'd like to submit my own profound distaste for "immoral absolutism," an infernal series of conditions which have brought about its own evils and excesses throughout the history of humankind. But more on that later... going to check out of here and continue my quest to catch up on movies I've missed over the last several months.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I don't believe in moral relativism, where different systems of government have the same respect and moral status as ours. There are bad and there are good (that would be us). Contrary to popular academic opinion, there are fundamental differences in beliefs. If you can't defend our history and Western civilization and all it has offered to the world compared to the tyrannies around the globe, with all due respect, there is something sorely lacking in your judgement." Again, you have made my point. You have to understand that to believe "we are good", which I agree with to a point, also means that either a) we can do no wrong, or b) we have the responsibility to correct our mistakes. The "red menace" brought about the notion of "America, love it or leave it" and "my country, right or wrong". However, those who truly believed in the ideals of American democracy believed in "My country, when it is right, work to keep it right, and when it is wrong, work to make it right". 

"I will not stand idly by and watch as our freedom and future be crushed by the Kruschevs of world beating their shoe urging our destruction." Agreed, especially since I am old enough to have seen this on the nightly news the day it happened. However, to crush freedom and civil liberties in the name of saving the same freedoms and civil liberties makes no sense to me. That path leads directly to where those who seek to tear down the US Constitution and the Bill or Rights would like us to travel. I prefer the route of "rights and responsibilities", which was a question in my Canadian citizenship test back in 1997.

We all have certain rights, but with these rights comes the responsibilities to protect these rights from being taken away from some/all of us here in Canada. Freedom is not really free, in that we have to work hard to protect it, sometimes fight to protect it, but always be vigilent of those who would take it away from some of us. Liberty and Freedom are concepts that should not be mere abstractions, but rather, be beliefs and committments that we hold up each day and take pride in having such rights. 

Thus, "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall fight unto the death for your right to say it." Paix, mon ami.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

Dr.G, I will give you this, apart from a lot of the debate on some issues you and I have had, I don't think we are that far apart in what we want for our country in the end.

I do not agree with certain issues, but I respect your position since it appears to be a thoughtful, principled one. 

Good debate.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

rambo4, I agree. This proves that people with different viewpoints and perspectives and beliefs can at least have a civil disagreement without namecalling (or worse). Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Here's a bit of gasoline to throw on the fire.

Climate Security Act | Salon News


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

And here we are arguing over a "silly little thing" like global warming.

"MEYRIN, Switzerland (AP) -- The most powerful atom-smasher ever built could make some bizarre discoveries, such as invisible matter or extra dimensions in space, after it is switched on in August.

This collider, called the largest scientific experiment in history, is expected to begin test runs in August. But some critics fear the Large Hadron Collider could exceed physicists' wildest conjectures: Will it spawn a black hole that could swallow Earth?"

Some fear debut of powerful atom-smasher - CNN.com


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

People are always freaked out by anything new. Years ago, people were pretty sure that cameras sucked the soul out of the body. Naysayers also thought that the detonation of the Trinity bomb would suck all of the air out of New Mexico.

The LHC is far too low powered to spawn a Black Hole, considering that it takes the implosion of a star that is like 50 times more massive than our sun to create one, and that is only if the conditions are right.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

Dr.G. said:


> And here we are arguing over a "silly little thing" like global warming.
> 
> "MEYRIN, Switzerland (AP) -- The most powerful atom-smasher ever built could make some bizarre discoveries, such as invisible matter or extra dimensions in space, after it is switched on in August.
> 
> ...


Wow, Atom Smasher... sometimes because you can do something doesn't mean you should... 

Black Hole... Well, at least we get to see where all our taxes have gone for the last 40 years...


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

EvanPitts said:


> People are always freaked out by anything new. Years ago, people were pretty sure that cameras sucked the soul out of the body.



Although, cameras sucking the soul out of one's body would certainly go a long way to explain the Hollywood elite.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

From the University of Minnesota:

Is man-made global warming a scientific fact?

No. Most scientists agree that the Earth’s atmosphere warmed by about 1°F (0.6°C) between 1850 and 1940, then cooled enough to make many scientists worry about another ice age, and finally warmed slightly since 1980 in Siberia and a few other high latitude areas. However, the Earth was much warmer 1000 years ago, during the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, when Leif Ericson colonized Greenland in 980 AD, it really was green. But by 1300, the world had entered what historian James Burke calls the “frozen centuries,” which lasted until the middle of the 19th century. In other words, catastrophic man-made global warming is only a theory. It is not supported by evidence, and is backed up only by a few computer models and vast amounts of heated rhetoric.

But what about recent scientific reports?

There’s a big difference between what the full reports say, and what the summaries, press releases and news stories say. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (National Research Council) used the words “uncertain” and “uncertainty” 43 times in a 28-page April 2001 report; its basic conclusion was that “a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established.” 

“But wouldn’t these sacrifices prevent catastrophic global warming? Actually, according to the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, even “full and perfect compliance” with the Kyoto Protocol would mean the average global temperature in 2050 would be only 0.06° C (0.2° F) lower than it would be in the absence of a climate treaty. *In other words, Kyoto means the world would pay a horrific price for virtually no benefits.* We should continue to study our global climate – but must proceed very cautiously on the Kyoto Protocol or any other proposal to slash fossil fuel use and economic growth, based on an unproven theory that people are causing dangerous global warming.”

http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=6&Itemid=61

CFACT - Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow - Home


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> http://www.cfactcampus.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=6&Itemid=61
> 
> CFACT - Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow - Home


Mornin' SINC,

Since you've posted things which turned out to be falsehoods in threads like this (this very thread actually) before, and then unapologetically "justified" them by saying "the other side does it too." Could suggest a few reasons we should trust any information you're presenting?

NOTE: You may think you know me SINC, because from your point of view, I appear to be arguing with you, or asking you to think. But you don't know me, I guarantee it - look at our postings ratios. You've read far less of me than I have of you. I don't have an entrenched position on either side of this debate, believe it or not. 

I ask everyone to think SINC, even me. It just ticks me off when information I get given is garbage - it is OK to make a mistake SINC, but how one behaves in a discussion when a mistake is made sets the tone for any discussion to continue.

As some of the web 2.0 people are fond of saying - "its all about the conversation" 

I'm just looking for quality conversation with trusted partners SINC.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

rambo4 said:


> Although, cameras sucking the soul out of one's body would certainly go a long way to explain the Hollywood elite.


It has nothing to do with cameras, since the Romans also considered actors and actresses to be "immoral" and "low class" - and that's saying something, considering it was fine for a master to rape their slaves!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> I ask everyone to think SINC, even me. It just ticks me off when information I get given is garbage - it is OK to make a mistake SINC, but how one behaves in a discussion when a mistake is made sets the tone for any discussion to continue.


I present information to make people think. You call it garbage. Fine by me.

Accusing me of some type of objectionable "behaviour" again in a written thread is just plain ludicrous.

Don't read it if you don't like it. Disagreeing with me does little to impress me and does nothing to prevent me from posting what I damn well please.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> I present information to make people think. You call it garbage. Fine by me.
> 
> Accusing me of some type of objectionable "behaviour" again in a written thread is just plain ludicrous.
> 
> Don't read it if you don't like it. Disagreeing with me does little to impress me and does nothing to prevent me from posting what I damn well please.


Actually SINC - I didn't call it "garbage" I called you on it, you admitted it was, and them excused yourself by saying that the other side did it too. Read back earlier in the thread - that's already established, you established it.

I read alot - I won't accept your telling me what to read anymore than I'll accept "guidance" from someone who knowingly presents incorrect data - or allow them to present that "guidance" to people who may not know that person's history or habits (or normal mode of behaviour in a conversation).

It just wouldn't be polite, or correct.

I also am not trying to impress you, though I might hope to make an impression on anyone out there who is impressionable.  

I also would not try to prevent you from posting what you


SINC said:


> damn well please.


 and I would expect the same courtesy from you.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> I also would not try to prevent you from posting what you and I would expect the same courtesy from you.


Like I said, I post what I find to be opinion from the opposing side to most in this thread and you are welcome to do the same. Posting such material spurs discussion and I happen to believe much of it is true.

But I don't rag on you personally because you choose to believe the current global warming spin that will destroy the economy IMO.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

The biggest single source of problems in the discussions of global warming is the dismal state of the public's general understanding of the process of science.

Science does *NOT* deal in "facts"! In truth one wonders if any such thing as a fact exists. The life of a 'fact' has NOTHING to do with its truth value. The life of a 'fact' is inversely proportional to the amount of work done on it.

Science deals with ebb and flow of information. Each scientist brings his/her own perspective - a result of differences in background and training, personal biases, etc., etc. - which goes a long way to accounting for variations in results. Occasionally, a "meta" analysis will get done on a particular field to attempt to assess the balance or weight of evidence, but again this is coloured by the individual perspective of the author.

Also, in the global warming discussion there is a big problem of tunnel vision - it is clear the human factors are not the only operators in this phenomenon. Pundits like David Suzuki tend to ignore this. As an aside, let us not forget that Suzuki made his name in _Drosophila melanogaster_ (fruit flies) and has no formal training in climate. Also, he has not been a "scientist" for a very long time. He is a media commentator. I am not trying to denigrate his intelligence, but his is somewhat myopic on the global warming stage. 

No one mentions the role of "moon farts" that I have discussed before here. Few bring up the role of volcanic ash. Few consider natural cycles of the planet such as el nina/el nino (sp?). Fewer yet point out that the ice melting in the Canadian arctic blamed on warming will in fact result in cooling. We only need to look at weather patterns in the Maritimes and in Europe for evidence. And on and on.

The simplistic blame on human factors does no one any good.

While it is imperative that _**** sapiens_ modify their behaviour vis a vis the climate, and while there are many pundits who want to be heard on the subject none wants to address the fundamental issue underlying all of this which is *population*. To discuss population harks back to the revolting concept of eugenics from which everyone wants to duck and run, and yet until we modify our behaviour re. population it isn't going to matter a rat's @$$ what we do in the long term.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

rgray said:


> The simplistic blame on human factors does no one any good.
> 
> While it is imperative that _**** sapiens_ modify their behaviour vis a vis the climate, and there are many pundits who want to be heard on the subject none wants to address the fundamental issue underlying all of this which is *population*. Until we modify our behaviour re. population it isn't going to matter a rat's @$$ what we do.


:clap: :clap:


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

Happy Dominion Day all!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here’s an interview from the PBS show “Frontline” with Dr. Fred Singer. Seems to me to be a well thought out position by all accounts.

Fred Singer is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most. 

"Some people hold that the threat of climate change is so great that we need to fundamentally change the way we produce and use energy. What's your response to this view?

Climate change is a natural phenomenon. Climate keeps changing all the time. The fact that climate changes is not in itself a threat, because, obviously, in the past human beings have adapted to all kinds of climate changes. 

The argument is that there's a new cause for climate change, which is human beings. And that the dimensions of this change might exceed what is natural or normal.

Well, there's no question in my mind that humanity is able to affect climate on a local scale. We all know that cities are warmer than the suburbs or surrounding countryside. So there's clear indication that human beings, in producing energy, in just living, generate heat. We're not going to go back to living without energy.

Whether or not human beings can produce a global climate change is an important question. This question is not at all settled. It can only be settled by actual measurements, data. And the data are ambiguous. For example, the data show that the climate warmed between 1900 and 1940, long before humanity used much energy. But then the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975. Then it warmed again for a very short period of time, for about five years. *But since 1979, our best measurements show that the climate has been cooling just slightly. Certainly, it has not been warming."* 

what's up with the weather: the debate: dr. s. fred singer


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

wasn't he the quack that stated there was no relationship between second hand smoke and lung disease?

good one.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

That's the thing about the global warming brainwashed crowd.

When confronted with some thoughtful dialogue on the possibility their scientific heros could be wrong, they resort to name calling. 

At least PBS allows free thought on Frontline.


----------



## rambo4 (Jun 14, 2008)

SINC said:


> That's the thing about the global warming brainwashed crowd.
> 
> When confronted with some thoughtful dialogue on the possibility their scientific heros could be wrong, they resort to name calling.
> 
> At least PBS allows free thought on Frontline.


Don't expect that from state run CBC...

One billion per year of our money. Remember that when you fill up at the pump. State run media will never advocate lower taxes, it's their lifeblood.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> That's the thing about the global warming brainwashed crowd.
> 
> When confronted with some thoughtful dialogue on the possibility their scientific heros could be wrong, they resort to name calling.
> 
> At least PBS allows free thought on Frontline.


I'm not name calling here. Scientists promoting the climate change theory are regularly being wiped with names like quacks, 'yellow science' what have you. If you're going to present a 'scientist's' theory we should be aware of his other, er, theories to put things into perspective don't you think?


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

groovetube said:


> wasn't he the quack that stated there was no relationship between second hand smoke and lung disease?
> 
> good one.


Unless Penn and Teller were pulling a fast one (which I suppose is their day job) there may not be any significant statistical relationship.

They did pull apart a number of these studies on second hand smoke and found them to be at least suspect - which isn't what a lot of people wanted to hear (including them - they are, IIRC anti-smoking).

I would point out that they are primarily an example of entertainment, and secondarily of skepticism.


+++++++
New Information

An interesting link discussing the validity / invalidity of Penn and Teller's data collection and evaluation techniques is found here:

Penn and Teller's episode on second hand smoke - Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum

An interesting additional fact - at least half of the posters in that discussion group are actually dogs!  

(that last is a joke - drawing heavily from the old New Yorker cartoon "on the internet no one knows you're a dog!" and as such is inserted here to highlight the fact that I have no idea regarding the scientific credentials or statistical abilities of any of the posters there - some of them may be willing to lie to make a point - that said, the thread is interesting - especially if you've seen the Penn and Teller Bull**** Second hand smoke episode referred to)


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

rgray said:


> The biggest single source of problems in the discussions of global warming is the dismal state of the public's general understanding of the process of science.
> 
> Science does *NOT* deal in "facts"! In truth one wonders if any such thing as a fact exists. The life of a 'fact' has NOTHING to do with its truth value. The life of a 'fact' is inversely proportional to the amount of work done on it.
> 
> ...


Thanks rgray, one of the clearer and more even handed examinations of the overall process of science seen here, and don't forget that the perspective of the author can also (obviously) be influenced by the author's need to obtain a paycheque and put food on their table. 

Some pretty difficult possible conclusions too (even if it is accurate as some say that in Western countries the birthrates are lower than the world average that may still mean "too many people" on the globe overall)
Birth rate(births/1,000 population) - Color Coded World Map - All Countries


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

eggman said:


> Unless Penn and Teller were pulling a fast one (which I suppose is their day job) there may not be any significant statistical relationship.
> 
> They did pull apart a number of these studies on second hand smoke and found them to be at least suspect - which isn't what a lot of people wanted to hear (including them - they are, IIRC anti-smoking).
> 
> ...


Correction - a bit more digging (which I honestly should have done sooner) found this tidbit on Wikipedia:



> Secondhand smoke
> Robert Todd Carroll, author of The Skeptic's Dictionary, originally sided with the show's conclusion that there was no link between secondhand smoke and cancer. Yet Carroll switched sides after further investigation into the studies. Carroll concluded that the studies were biased, and consequently decided that secondhand smoke does have negative effects on people.[17]
> At The Amaz!ng Meeting 3 the duo was asked about the evidence for this episode being faulty. Penn Jillette, with Teller sitting at his side, said regarding this episode they were "very likely" wrong and the next season would add a notation. Penn went on to describe "a new study that came out of England, just recently, that seems to have more stuff about it" and "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke." He went on to say that this was a small portion of the program, and their main point was their opposition to "outlawing" smoking in privately-owned businesses, which they still "stand behind 100%."[18]
> [edit]


Penn & Teller: Bull****! - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not that Wikipedia is always correct - but still, it appears I have posted something inaccurate. My apologies to all.

And now, back to our regular cast of characters hunkered down hip deep in a discussion of Global Warming


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> Not that Wikipedia is always correct - but still, it appears I have posted something inaccurate. My apologies to all.
> 
> And now, back to our regular cast of characters hunkered down hip deep in a discussion of Global Warming


For those who missed it, the "shot" above was intended for me.

Seems he can't tell the difference between "opinion of those who disagree with his beliefs" and "inaccurate posts".

Opinions can and perhaps should be inaccurate at times for the common good. It's how things work in this old world. 

But I'll be damned if I will stop posting others' opinions just because some self appointed thread sheriff thinks them inaccurate.

Opinions and accuracy are two very different things.

Global warming science is a crap shoot and if you buy their whole "Chicken Little" approach, good for you.

I don't.

And for the record, I make no apology for this opinion.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> For those who missed it, the "shot" above was intended for me.
> 
> Seems he can't tell the difference between "opinion of those who disagree with his beliefs" and "inaccurate posts".
> 
> ...


No SINC - I wasn't the "self appointed sherrif" who found a post was inaccurate - you were, and you admitted it (which was big of you) and then you said it was acceptable 'cos the other side does it (which wasn't) and then you've posted this -- which is whatever the reader wishes to make of it. 

I will draw, or direct no conclusions. If anyone wants to bother, all the info is back there earlier in the thread.

Happy Canada Day all!, time for the real fireworks here, this show is over (I think)


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I thought the great global warming swindle was old news...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> No SINC - I wasn't the "self appointed sherrif" who found a post was inaccurate - you were, and you admitted it (which was big of you) and then you said it was acceptable 'cos the other side does it (which wasn't) and then you've posted this -- which is whatever the reader wishes to make of it.


You still don't get it do you?

I said that scientists who support the theory of global warming had opinions that I disagree with, not the opinions I posted which I agree with. To please you, neither side is "accurate" because no one knows for sure what the future holds. I'll not apologize for either side's inaccuracies

I'll say it again to be clear:

I don't believe the scientists who cause world wide alarm by saying we must do something drastic to avoid a catastrophic meltdown called global warming.

They're full of crap and I don't buy their spin.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

SINC said:


> You still don't get it do you?
> 
> I said that scientists who support the theory of global warming had opinions that I disagree with, not the opinions I posted which I agree with. To please you, neither side is "accurate" because no one knows for sure what the future holds. I'll not apologize for either side's inaccuracies
> 
> ...


I get it SINC, I really do. It is also right back there in the thread (best seen here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/66114-yellow-science-global-warming-biggest-scam-history-14.html#post693444

You have demonstrated the strengths of your beliefs by presenting information you know to be wrong or questionable.

You find this to be acceptable behaviour in a discussion and justify it because you say the other side does it. 

I have to disagree with that position.

If you are selling "crap" as "putty" who is going to believe anything you present later on?

It isn't what you *believe* SINC, it is what you're willing to *do* for those beliefs.

Is it clearer now SINC? (I could ask "do you get it?" but that strikes me as less polite... and derivative)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

eggman said:


> You have demonstrated the strengths of your beliefs by presenting information you know to be wrong or questionable.


Ah, I see, you still don't know the difference between presenting dissenting opinion to yours and "wrong or questionable" information.

What I presented is the opinions of others on the issues. Opinions are not wrong or questionable. Or is it just when you disagree with those opinions expressed?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Eggman, it seems like you're being purposefully obtuse here. SINC is saying that he doesn't believe either side has a good enough case on which to base drastic action. He's putting up his straw men against the straw men of the other side. He is not agreeing or disagreeing, just showing the wide diversity of opinion among people who don't really have a hande on the situation.


----------



## eggman (Jun 24, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Eggman, it seems like you're being purposefully obtuse here. SINC is saying that he doesn't believe either side has a good enough case on which to base drastic action. He's putting up his straw men against the straw men of the other side. He is not agreeing or disagreeing, just showing the wide diversity of opinion among people who don't really have a hande on the situation.


Having had a two year + course in SINC, I doubt the likelihood of this MF.

Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Having had a two year course in MF (ran concurrently with the first one  ) I believe you have made a freudian slip and correctly used the term "straw man"
(see above wikipedia citation).

You may have meant this variant:

Straw man proposal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I would suggest that both SINC's presentation, and his behaviour would more point towards the use of the former.

That's fine. I can be ignored. If I'm simply an obtuse guy with a "truth" and "accuracy" fixation just ignore me... but SINC doesn't - which could be taken to indicate... something (the reader can decide - and once they have they can go on their way and laugh at me, or whatever)

I think that there is enough quality data out there for both sides of the argument that this technique is unnecessary.

I suggest that if SINC were presenting this as a "Straw man proposal" it would be an obviously constructive contribution to the discussion.(and he could easily frame it as such)

I further suggest that if SINC were not making "Straw man" based arguments (the logical fallacy kind) - we wouldn't see the laser focus of convenience and dynamic subject changes that we have. (it is a prerequisite)

But whatever I think is irrelevant, the reader (if there is one) can decide. SINC has me tagged as some "greenie" (he's wrong, but that is just as relevant as whatever I think -see previous sentence).

SINC can just ignore me - in the long run it hardly matters to me, but having his "debating technique" exposed seems to matter to him for some reason, perhaps he does not share my belief that there is enough quality data on both sides of the argument for a debate without tricks - I don't know. 



> The temperature of the entire Universe will reach a final temperature just above absolute zero.


We could just leave it at that, that would be cool with me.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

the truth here is both macfury and sinc (jumbojones and his odd quips included) have many times tried to hold up some supposed scientist as someone with a reasonable and believable theory, when all of them are clear quacks. When one of them present one that can be taken seriously, I'm more than happy to investigate.

How pages do we need to endure telling us what we already know, that science is often wrong?

Masters of reiteration. All of them.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eggman said:


> Having had a two year course in MF (ran concurrently with the first one  ) I believe you have made a freudian slip and correctly used the term "straw man"


It's not Freudian. With few exceptions, the arguments presented often exploit a particular facet of the other side's argument that is particularly weak, then represent it as the entire argument. ("The man who wrote that study once used oil in his automobile.") Most of the arguments are trotted out by the various proponents as an "Aha" moment, event though we never have access to enough information about the various studies or methods involved to truly know what is being supported. (It was a _learned_ journal. It was _peer reviewed_. Yawn.) 

In fact I would say that it was MacDoc's slavish reporting of any obscure study supporting his beliefs that set off this war of competing studies. ("Yes! I have proof! You are a caveman. At last I can show my albedo in public!") At this point it's more or less an indication that the blessing of "consensus" so valued by the Doc-ster has not been granted.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Maybe the whole issue of pollution would be simpler if, instead of spending billions of dollars trying to sort out what part of global waming has been caused by pollution and what part has been caused by nature, we just worked on getting rid of pollution because it is that - pollution. We end up breathing and drinking that which we emit into the environment, so why doesn't mankind just start to live better and smarter, rather than wasting all of our efforts on esoteric and costly debates that lead nowhere?

And why is Suzuki advocating the extermination of penguins on his latest ad?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

EvanPitts said:


> And why is Suzuki advocating the extermination of penguins on his latest ad?


Suzuki eats baby penguins.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Suzuki used to be cool in the 1970's, but he's turned into a really creepy character.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Lots of things used to be cool in the 70's, except bell bottoms and wide ties.

Suzuki's head is all over The Hammer today. No body, just his skull. We know a few things about him: he hates cold beer, he liked to "check out" the young pre-teenage girls, he wants people to hang their dirty laundry off of the CN Tower, and now, for some reason, he wants to set up a Penguin Death Camp. He's one crazy dude!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

It seems that “Norm”, the villain in a “Powerwise” commercial, has not been very hospitable to Dr. David Suzuki. While Suzuki is sitting in his T shirt shivering, Norm has his air conditioner set so low that the living room is comfortable for the penguins, but not for Dr.S., to whom he is apparently oblivious.

Dr. Suzuki tells Norm to forget about the Penguins and think about the fact that if we set our air conditioners (ACs) just one degree Celsius higher, it would release enough energy to power another 38,000 homes. 

Don't see where penguins are being exterminated.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I enjoy seeing that elitist Suzuki pretending he would hang out with the likes of Norm. And acting as if though he would be satisified with just a wee rise in room temperature.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

MacFury, I still don't see where penguins are being exterminated in this commercial.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Dr.G. said:


> Don't see where penguins are being exterminated.


First there were penguins - then there were none. So either Suzuki shoved them on an airplane and shipped them back to Antarctica, or Suzuki has been having quite a feast of penguin sashimi.

Plus, what's with the penguins anyways, they don't live in Canada! Maybe Suzuki "sees" penguins when he smokes that funny scented "tobacco" he's on. beejacon


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> MacFury, I still don't see where penguins are being exterminated in this commercial.


They're being exterminated one baby penguin at a time. Look out baby penguin, David has that look in his eyes, oh no the humanity. Damn you Suzuki!!!

http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj283/jumbojones/Misc/davidsuzuki_penguin.jpg


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Oh the humanity!!!!!! Thanks, JJ, for opening up my eyes to the evil Dr.S. I have believed in much of what he has said all these years. However, now seeing him on the verge of eating this poor bird is beyond even my comprehension.

Still ................ looking at this picture, it is a bit inconclusive as to the final result. Might you have a picture with actual penguin blood on his mouth?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Dr.G. said:


> Oh the humanity!!!!!! Thanks, JJ, for opening up my eyes to the evil Dr.S. I have believed in much of what he has said all these years. However, now seeing him on the verge of eating this poor bird is beyond even my comprehension.
> 
> Still ................ looking at this picture, it is a bit inconclusive as to the final result. Might you have a picture with actual penguin blood on his mouth?


I couldn't look at it much longer, I had to turn away, sorry Dr.G I'll try and stomach it next time and get the feasting shot for you.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

OK, JJ. Merci, mon ami. Who would have thought that Dr.S. would eat penguins????


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This is rather shocking, so I warn anyone with a sensitive stomach not to look:


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Wow._ That is the best Photoshopping I've seen in quite some time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Who wants to spend more than about 45 seconds on Suzuki?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Who wants to spend more than about 45 seconds on Suzuki?


Not I, that's why I didn't bother. If it was Harper and kittens, they would be applauding you, oh well you made me giggle.  :clap:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

those damn wascally wiberals.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I heard on the innertubes they'll be bringing Suzuki up on baby-raping charges very soon now.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: Now you have gone too far.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No, I don't think so. I just took the general tenor of the Suzuki-loathers and extrapolated it a tad... a bit of sarcastic torque. Steady on, MF. The world will indeed continue to spin.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I do not loathe Suzuki--I merely hold him up as a national embarrassment.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

So you say... but why on earth would you _hold him up?_. I should think you put him below you. No matter.

Well, on to other things. This thread feeds off of a seemingly inexhaustible supply of energy; if we could tap that we'd be laughing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Unfortunately, Max, you're laughing at your own jokes, thus creating an energy loop that will eventually launch you into orbit.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

But why would that be unfortunate for you, MF?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

or us ?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

One question at a time, MacDoc. We'll get to you soon enough...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> But why would that be unfortunate for you, MF?


Not for me...for you! Because you would be deprived of listening to my pontifications.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Who wants to spend more than about 45 seconds on Suzuki?


That will be the next Suzuki commercial - that a dozen hotties should share his bed "to conserve heat".


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> I heard on the innertubes they'll be bringing Suzuki up on baby-raping charges very soon now.


Only if one can conserve energy. I think he'd probably want to just kill the babies, since they are just going to suffer in a world where the Arctic Ocean is a boiling hell zone.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Should the Arctic ocean becomes a boiling hell zone I'm sure it would radically change ocean coastlines around the world. I'm guessing that literally boiling oceans where frigid waters once were would spell such magnitudes of change as to make the planet quite unrecognizable to we humans... and it would represent a real challenge to retain a viable population in such a world. We might need all the babies we could make.

Better that than the option Cormac McCarthy posits in _The Road_... babies as food for roving cannibals.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think that's called Venus 










••



> babies as food


I believe Swfit "proposed" that quite some time back


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not sure if it's Venus. I drove through Hamilton last Friday and it looked a lot like that....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Except there are no aimless drug abusers wandering around, nor are there any buildings in a state of imminent collapse.

Wait, if you look close enough, you can see a pack of politicians carpetbagging money from McGuilty...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

A urine-yellow desert planet... kewl. I love these fanciful artist's conceptions.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not so fanciful......last time I checked sulphuric acid was rather yellow and the density!!!!!! 



> Artist's impression of the surface of Venus
> Venus has a dense atmosphere, composed chiefly of carbon dioxide, which generates a surface pressure 90 times greater than that on Earth. This massive blanket of carbon dioxide is also responsible for a runaway greenhouse effect that heats the planet's surface to an average temperature of 467°C (872°F) – hot enough to melt lead.
> 
> Venus' atmosphere consists almost entirely (97%) of carbon dioxide, with clouds containing droplets of sulfuric acid along with compounds of chlorine and fluorine. These precipitate an acid rain called virga, which evaporates before it has the chance to reach the surface. In the upper part of the atmosphere, clouds swirl by at a rate of 300 km/h, driven by fierce winds.


Venus, atmosphere


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MacDoc, I grew up with this lovely old set of Time-Life books covering a range of topics... biology, physics, space... great books chock full of illustrations, photos, charts... well, I remember one artist's conception of Venus, which was depicted a lush, murky swamp world... it beautifully rendered, but it was based on a series of guesses all the same, depending as it was on then-contemporary knowledge of what Venus might look like at ground level.

Fast-forward over four decades and we have another educated guess. It might be surprisingly accurate, it might not. Point is, we won't know until we can get a lander down there and some decent pics back. 

After all, a handful of years ago the conventional wisdom is that earth-sized planets were exceedingly rare in the cosmos. Now scientists are saying they're much more plentiful than previously thought. Pluto was once a planet; now apparently it's not. So it goes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max: The surface of Venus was actually photographed by a Russian probe in 1975 which operated for about five minutes before tanking. I suppose professional jealousy prevented Western media from giving it much coverage, but the pesky Russkies have been there several times since. Check out this link for photos you don't see in the daily paper:

Soviet Venus Images


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Showing your age and reading level I see 

Things move on.....some people get stuck.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MF: thanks for that.

MacDoc: you can always unstick yourself; you just have to try really, really hard.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'm not the one referencing Time/Life....SciAm, Nature etc more my reading material. 

Comparing current science with decades old pop sic is REALLLLLLY...umm.. old.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> ...I remember one artist's conception of Venus, which was depicted a lush, murky swamp world... it beautifully rendered, but it was based on a series of guesses all the same, depending as it was on then-contemporary knowledge of what Venus might look like at ground level.


It was based on the detection of hydrocarbons in some of the earliest attempts at spectroscopy (ie. a planet with crude oil oceans and clouds of gasoline) - and in transcription, they reversed it and printed that it has carbohydrates (ie. a planet with excessive vegetation). Of course, better and accurate measurements, flybys, and landings have changed our whole concept entirely.



> Point is, we won't know until we can get a lander down there and some decent pics back.


It has been done...

Venera 13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Venera 13 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pioneer Venus project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> Pluto was once a planet; now apparently it's not. So it goes.


Only because they did not have any definition of what a planet is. It was controversial, since many wanted to retain Pluto as a planet - but they would have had to add at least 86 more planets to our Solar System, mostly Kuiper Belt objects some of while are larger than Pluto, but also the rather large "asteroid" Ceres, which has been an ambiguity since it's discovery. Pluto and others are now Dwarf Planets (sometimes called Plutinos).


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

"Pop sic?" MacDoc... dishing up word salad again, are we? Talk about getting old.

Evan: MF beat you to it... thanks all the same.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Macfury said:


> Max: The surface of Venus was actually photographed by a Russian probe in 1975 which operated for about five minutes before tanking. I suppose professional jealousy prevented Western media from giving it much coverage, but the pesky Russkies have been there several times since. Check out this link for photos you don't see in the daily paper:
> 
> Soviet Venus Images


^^^
Actually... The probe transmitted data for over an hour before circuming to the ultrahot atmosphere where "rain" is pure sulphuric acid (so harsh that chlorinated and flourinated compounds do not last long), and the 300 km/h wind gives a real punch with the atmospheric pressure that is ninety times that of Earth. It is a testament to the ability of the technology.

The Venera missions were actually covered, and were the first in a series of US-Soviet scientific cooperative missions (like Apollo-Soyuz); and at the time, they were covered by the media. I suppose the only downfall was that the heavy duty construction of the probe did not lead to spectacular series of pictures - considering that the polished diamond lens ended up melting within a few minutes. I actually recall watching both the Apollo-Soyuz and coverage of the Venera missions - but the first probe which had "real time" coverage was the Voyager I flyby of Jupiter (which I also watched in amazement on TV).


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

man. You must have quite the cranium.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

YouTube - Nathan Thurm interviewed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


----------

