Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
Hmmm, so everyone who disagrees with you is a "right winger". You exacerbate my point so well, just write off de-scenting views as a fringe group who is all on their own. You won't even respond to us directly but start apologizing on behalf of all Americans for our statements.
Yeah American can be brash & arrogant, no more so than Europeans. How many experiments with socialism & marxism do we need to figure out it isn't working so well?
The statement isn't that capitalism is perfect nor that America has all the right answers, but there is an unparalleled danger in leaving the rule of all in the hands of an elite few. Paint it however you like marxism & socialism don't have a very good track record in history.
As ideals they have the appearance of a Utopian government rule, problem is that to acheive their goals they require that the rulers be absolutely fair & without flaw. Hmmmm, anyone want to trust in that?
RE: water vapor, my mistake -- I misread "water vapor" as water.
The rest still stands. As I stated, the water vapor contribution to global warming is fixed whereas the CO2 contribution is not. So water vapor simply factors itself out of the equation. Anyone remotely informed on the subject understands this.
The recent relative preponderance of (anthropogenic) condensation nuclei in the atmosphere and its effect on condensation and cloud formation (solar dimming) however is a huge factor that has so far masked the true effects of CO2 on global warming. Scientists are only starting to take this into consideration (Initially global warming deniers tried to spin this as rebuttal of global warming--true guile.) The ridiculously optimistic 1/2 foot per century rise in sea level you mentioned above is a hopeful fantasy.
I don't claim you're the worst poster on this board, but,
Raising the fake idea that water vapor is relevant to the issue is is "political."
Pretending that you raised the issue because you "thought it was funny" is "political."
Your lack of interest in countries that will be destroyed by a rise in sea level is "political."
Your obvious disregard for inconvenient scientific consensus is "political."
Pretty much everything you have posted is "political" (but not much is factual.)
Actually the 1/2' per year was the bottom end of the range that the IPCC said (they actually said 7" but I rounded to 1/2' - my bad).
I didn't raise the idea that water vapor mattered - the way you phrased your initial comment was such that you thought water vapor wasn't a greenhouse gas - my bad.
I've got a science degree, I work in a science field, I did, in true belief, find it funny that you thought water vapor wasn't a greenhouse gas. Again, my bad but still, that's not political at all.
Your lack of interest in countries that have lost millions of lives in the name of a "greener earth" is no more political than my statement that people should be able to adapt to rising sea levels that we have shown we can do over the past 20,000 years. (i.e. it's still not a political statement)
Scientific consensus? What scientific consensus? The number of scientists that signed on to the IPCC's latest find was 52 - yes, 52. While there are over 700 renowned scientists out there that say, hold up, let's do our job as scientists and really fully examine everything. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
I give links to my facts, you on the other hand haven't presented any - who is on the negative end of the "fact" scale here? If you'd like to dispute fact against fact I'm good with that but you should probably provide some links rather than going around claiming politics when you haven't presented any documented facts yourself (pot calling the kettle black and all that).
You're still doing it by the way - taking any criticism and claiming it's politically based so you don't actually have to address it...
Hmmm, so everyone who disagrees with you is a "right winger". You exacerbate my point so well, just write off de-scenting views as a fringe group who is all on their own. You won't even respond to us directly but start apologizing on behalf of all Americans for our statements.
Yeah American can be brash & arrogant, no more so than Europeans. How many experiments with socialism & marxism do we need to figure out it isn't working so well?
The statement isn't that capitalism is perfect nor that America has all the right answers, but there is an unparalleled danger in leaving the rule of all in the hands of an elite few. Paint it however you like marxism & socialism don't have a very good track record in history.
As ideals they have the appearance of a Utopian government rule, problem is that to acheive their goals they require that the rulers be absolutely fair & without flaw. Hmmmm, anyone want to trust in that?
On a side note - isn't it strange that users who have been on here since August of 2007 with very, very few posts all of a sudden become posting monsters over 2 years after joining? Weird...
On a side note - isn't it strange that users who have been on here since August of 2007 with very, very few posts all of a sudden become posting monsters over 2 years after joining? Weird...
Haha, I blame Apple! On that note I got someplace to be, I'm stepping out. Now is a good time for a couple of you to step in & bash me. I can take it, I'm a big boy, didn't mean to hog to forum.
Definitely. These folks are the product of disinformation, a breakdown in news reporting, and a general lack of science education. It's mostly a political thing though. It decreases with education, (but also increases a bit with age.) It all started with Ronald Reagan, but even he would be disappointed at what his actions have brought about. Lack of civil discourse and wrangling over objective facts.
My parents have been life long Republicans, but even they have come to feel the Republican Party became too weird and outdated over the last 20 to 30 years. They are not typical though because they have traveled outside the US extensively and they both earned advanced degrees. Many of my fellow Chicagoans have rarely been out of the city (on the other hand many Chicagoans come from other countries, so the city tends to be more aware than most.)
One thing is for sure though, most Americans of any persuasion tend to be good people on a personal level. It's easier for them to be callous on a abstract political level though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblowjapan
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
You give links to opinions and call them facts. The fact is that the petition was presented. The petition itself is opinion. Did you want a link to the fact that water in the atmosphere is limited by its saturation point? Facts don't really need links because they stand alone.
But yours is a common tactic, find or create an opinion and then call it a fact and link to it. As Daniel P. Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts!" But since you like links how about this:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Funny how if peer reviewed science is the measure, your opinions melt way to nothing.
"On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents."
Is this one of the "petition" you referred to?
Do you want a link to another petition with over 12,000 signatures of scientists that supports the global warming consensus? Would you be swayed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
Actually the 1/2' per year was the bottom end of the range that the IPCC said (they actually said 7" but I rounded to 1/2' - my bad).
Scientific consensus? What scientific consensus? The number of scientists that signed on to the IPCC's latest find was 52 - yes, 52. While there are over 700 renowned scientists out there that say, hold up, let's do our job as scientists and really fully examine everything. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
I give links to my facts, you on the other hand haven't presented any - who is on the negative end of the "fact" scale here? If you'd like to dispute fact against fact I'm good with that but you should probably provide some links rather than going around claiming politics when you haven't presented any documented facts yourself (pot calling the kettle black and all that).
You're still doing it by the way - taking any criticism and claiming it's politically based so you don't actually have to address it...
You give links to opinions and call them facts. The fact is that the petition was presented. The petition itself is opinion. Did you want a link to the fact that water in the atmosphere is limited by its saturation point? Facts don't really need links because they stand alone.
But yours is a common tactic, find or create an opinion and then call it a fact and link to it. As Daniel P. Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts!" But since you like links how about this:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Funny how if peer reviewed science is the measure, your opinions melt way to nothing.
"On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents."
Is this one of the "petition" you referred to?
Do you want a link to another petition with over 12,000 signatures of scientists that supports the global warming consensus? Would you be swayed?
I won't bother to address any questions you have about what my link states until you actual read it. Ya know, that's generally how it works. You admitted that you didn't even click it and just went out about what you thought it might have linked to - what??
Look at the link, seriously, look at how it starts "epw.senate.gov" - you think that's a link to the heartland institute?
It's still not an opinion by the way - everything I've linked to is actual data or actual quotes from scientists w/ the credentials included. You can make your own decisions on what the data means but I linked to data. Which, since you've got so much scientific experience, you'd know is the place you go back to when trying to figure things out for yourself rather than just accepting what some people have told you.
I'll freely admit that most organizations have signed on to it, however, I think it's pertitent, and as a matter of proper scientific practice, to look at all sides of a scientific problem. Of course you already know that since you were raised by parents with advanced degrees means I some how didn't get a science degree...
EDIT: Also, if you'll pay attention - there's a growing number of skeptics in the late 2000's because new data is being made available that wasn't available when the so called consensus was reached (1997) - click on a few links of the second page of the article for a more detailed description (if you care to review the facts that is). As with all science there's always more to be researched... Maybe in the 2010's the research will show global warming again but as for today the in-flux of non-global warming peer-reviewed studies is astounding and certainly nothing to scoff at just because you think you had a good science education.
EDIT 2: Just to make my point clear... "Here's a quote from a Dec. 13 letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, by 100 top scientists, many of whom are themselves on the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change: ''In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.'' This letter can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org";
First, the link wouldn't load so I can't read it (it's probably a big document and I'm on a poor connection.)
Second, I can see the link address and you said it was a petition, therefor I can guess what petition is referenced. It was attached to a "US Senate Minority report" in 2007 and was then updated and resubmitted this year (have no idea about the quality of the petition.) I'm familiar with the journal articles it references though, and far from refuting global warming, they mostly take exception with aspects of previous research, as good journal articles tend to do (and coincidentally, mostly support current findings on solar dimming and aerosolization which affirm global warming.)
Third, opinions are always opinions. Facts are always facts. As I said, the petition presents the opinion of some people. The fact is that a) it is their opinion and b.) it has been presented to the senate.
Fourth I have no idea if you have a science degree or what quality it might be (but your conclusion that my parent's education affects the existence of your own degree raises questions.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
I won't bother to address any questions you have about what my link states until you actual read it. Ya know, that's generally how it works. You admitted that you didn't even click it and just went out about what you thought it might have linked to - what??
Look at the link, seriously, look at how it starts "epw.senate.gov" - you think that's a link to the heartland institute?
It's still not an opinion by the way - everything I've linked to is actual data or actual quotes from scientists w/ the credentials included. You can make your own decisions on what the data means but I linked to data. Which, since you've got so much scientific experience, you'd know is the place you go back to when trying to figure things out for yourself rather than just accepting what some people have told you.
I'll freely admit that most organizations have signed on to it, however, I think it's pertitent, and as a matter of proper scientific practice, to look at all sides of a scientific problem. Of course you already know that since you were raised by parents with advanced degrees means I some how didn't get a science degree...
So... there you have it. Proof, in the very words of a right winger that you can in fact be environmentally responsible, and still "make a ton of cash".
So what's the reason not to?
You're missing the forest for the trees... why have cozy agreements IF you can do business above board? The big ol' boys network made its deals with the big government boys. The money they're making was through deals tailored made specifically for them. Like a suit designed for one person, it won't fit very well on someone else. Tell the politicians what you want and how you want it and they'll see you get your campaign contributions next election. Smaller businesses can't work like that... they don't have the cash.
Did you hear that hez? His parents have advanced degrees and have travelled around and that makes up stupid! Wahoo!
What I heard was hypocrisy. We try discourse, present our own arguments, they come back with anyone who disagrees with them is lying or mean spirited. Yeah I summarized a bunch but that was the gist of what I was reading.
See this is the problem, our side is presenting theories & false information, their side is presenting "facts". BOTH sides are presenting facts, but the facts are subject to interpretation & that is why there is a need for discourse!
That goes back to my warning about the socialist mentality, it basically says that the elite are always right & can't be questioned. A Marxist society cannot exist without absolute submission to the authoritative elite in power. Come on!
Note I don't quote any articles of any sort, that's cause I don't believe it is an intellectual issue but a common sense one. We've drained the common sense of the world with our relativism. We've told everyone that they can live their own life & do whatever they want & it's alright with the rest of us. Problem is it's impossible for everyone to have their own way, sorry, that's life.
No system of government is perfect, & I believe that is the big point. People who say America is perfect & can do no wrong, well they've just been drinking a bit too much kool-aid. The responses on this forum are all focused on saying that w'ere nut jobs, or sheep, or worse (paraphrasing). No, we are people with a disagreement. We're willing to have discourse & debate, but the responses all keep focusing on discrediting us. You don't know me, how dare you assume you know my intentions!
I don't watch Fox news, heck I rarely even watch Fox at all. I also don't watch many of the other syndicates as well. They all do the same thing, over dramatize the debate so that it turns into a shouting match instead of contributing to healthy discussion.
I see the same thing in congress, everyone throwing around words like evil & hatred & racism & holocaust like they're casual assertions. There was a time in this country where people had duals, you know with swords & guns, over such enflamed & reckless accusations!
People who spew hatred see hatred in everything, because it consumes their every thought. All I'm asking for is some intelligent discourse & a little less rehashing of Al Gore's talking points (see I can do it too).
I think not using science for political and social ends is no option. You can't stop it and it would be a waste of knowledge. It's of all ages.
Scientific insight changes (and moves forward in my view)
So, for example, a couple of hundred years ago, the agreed consensus was that the earth was flat, now the consensus is it is round but maybe tomorrow they find out out it is actually a cube?
This nihilism might provide some mental shelter by making seemingly difficult questions almost irrelevant, it might be how we perceive the behaviour of most of our fellow human beings but to me it was always one of the human abysses against which one always has to guard oneself.
You're missing the forest for the trees... why have cozy agreements IF you can do business above board? The big ol' boys network made its deals with the big government boys. The money they're making was through deals tailored made specifically for them. Like a suit designed for one person, it won't fit very well on someone else. Tell the politicians what you want and how you want it and they'll see you get your campaign contributions next election. Smaller businesses can't work like that... they don't have the cash.
What's a 'right winger'?
& what's worse is it isn't just the businesses now, community organization groups are using the same tactics & destroying our communities. The divide in our country is becoming less & less about politics or religion & more about support of special interests.
Government is bailing out big business & at the same time trying to push through a bunch of legislation that will kill small business (the backbone of our country).
Like I said before, I am not opposed to the possibility global warming, just not 100% convinced. Yet I've said over & over again that I am not arguing that means we should do nothing. What I'm saying is watch out before we put all the power into the hands of a bunch of extremists! On either side!
I got kids & I do not want their futures in the hands of anyone that calls themselves an activist, right or left. It's time rational people took back this country.
Fourth I have no idea if you have a science degree or what quality it might be (but your conclusion that my parent's education affects the existence of your own degree raises questions.)
You're actually the one that brought up that your parents having advanced degrees somehow trumps whatever Hez and I know - that's on you buddy - sorry...
Also, we can continue this later when you've found a computer that's not on a 14.4 kbps connection and can actually read the senate document that DOESN'T base it's findings on the Heartland Institute and gives dozens upon dozens of quotes from respected Scientists around the globe (including the first woman in the world to get a PhD in meteorology and Nobel prize winners). Beyond that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of links to actual, peer reviewed articles. If you can't click on any of the links and can't actually address any of my points that's really a pathetic way to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong...
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) The idiot prize goes to the right wingers who attempt to justify their transparent, status quo, pro-business (i.e. pro-subsidy for business,) political stance with phony pretend science that has been hastily created for just this purpose.
The fact that these people are so ignorant of the facts does not surprise me since it is obvious from their pathetic posts, and I imagine that it is simply an expression of their generalized fear stemming from ignorance and desperation. But what does surprise me is how willing they are to be led around with these inane pseudoscientific notions, like a bunch of sheep. Whatever talking point is most recently trotted out on FOX News is paraded out as if it's the latest scientific consensus (today its the job scare tactic.) Just like real sheep, one will imagine it sees an imaginary snare and immediately jump over it and every other sheep, out of fear, will also jump the nonexistent obstacle and they'll all feel better. All the time gleefully unaware that they are all being led with care . . . to market and slaughter.
I'm the first to point out the how ridiculous and self serving organizations like Greenpeace can be, but they tend to be overly emotional amplifiers of social concern and are a drop in the bucket compared to these overly emotional amplifiers of irrational, dogma which is created to serve corporate interest. I suggest you guys mosey over to "Mac Daily News," where you are more appreciated.
Honestly, I don't think anyone thought the Chamber of Commerce wasn't business first. It's kinda sad really but name me an organization that isn't "me first"? I'd like to think that most care about the American people as a collective but they really don't. The only body that, supposedly, cares and puts the American people first is Congress but they don't exactly inspire anyone to think that.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
Here is a little graph:
What caused all the previous temperature rises? Lots of industrial revolutions, or does the earths temperature just naturally vary?
From 1940 to the beginning of the 80's, the average world temperature declined. Did industrial activity and CO2 output decline during that period?
The world ceased to get warmer in 1998, which is over a decade ago, and in fact the evaerage temperature has been declining since then.
But it's going to get warmer soon, dad, isn't it?
Well no son, it's actually going to decline further for at least another decade, possibly two.
The face saving has already started as evidenced in this article.
It's so funny, It brings tears to my eyes.
Quote:
Yes there are cycles, clearly evidenced in the ice records and the latest research shows those cycles of cooling and warming were trending cooler over all. Only in since the mass use of fossil fuels has man managed to drastically reverse that over all cooling trend.
Only? So the period when the Roman Empire flourished was notably chilly was it? And the Medieval warm period never really happened?
All the responses on this I think highlight just how big a mistake it was for Apple to rashly excuse itself from the chamber. People are not likely to see it as their opposition to any corruption in the chamber dealings (which possibly they were implying) but instead are going to see it as their support for the EPA (which has been equally shady as of late). This could have a very bad effect on who they potentially do business with, course maybe they aren't too shaken up about that.
It's all a big mess, tough time to be a business I guess.
Apple Inc. has made an excellent move in protest. It thrills me to know that Apple has significantly reduced the environmental impact of their products and facilities simply because they are able to do so and recognize the responsibilities of producing carbon emissions in the least amount possible. That is what separates Apple from other mindless corporations (as well as the government) where evil money is all that matters.
Comments
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
Hmmm, so everyone who disagrees with you is a "right winger". You exacerbate my point so well, just write off de-scenting views as a fringe group who is all on their own. You won't even respond to us directly but start apologizing on behalf of all Americans for our statements.
Yeah American can be brash & arrogant, no more so than Europeans. How many experiments with socialism & marxism do we need to figure out it isn't working so well?
The statement isn't that capitalism is perfect nor that America has all the right answers, but there is an unparalleled danger in leaving the rule of all in the hands of an elite few. Paint it however you like marxism & socialism don't have a very good track record in history.
As ideals they have the appearance of a Utopian government rule, problem is that to acheive their goals they require that the rulers be absolutely fair & without flaw. Hmmmm, anyone want to trust in that?
RE: water vapor, my mistake -- I misread "water vapor" as water.
The rest still stands. As I stated, the water vapor contribution to global warming is fixed whereas the CO2 contribution is not. So water vapor simply factors itself out of the equation. Anyone remotely informed on the subject understands this.
The recent relative preponderance of (anthropogenic) condensation nuclei in the atmosphere and its effect on condensation and cloud formation (solar dimming) however is a huge factor that has so far masked the true effects of CO2 on global warming. Scientists are only starting to take this into consideration (Initially global warming deniers tried to spin this as rebuttal of global warming--true guile.) The ridiculously optimistic 1/2 foot per century rise in sea level you mentioned above is a hopeful fantasy.
I don't claim you're the worst poster on this board, but,
Raising the fake idea that water vapor is relevant to the issue is is "political."
Pretending that you raised the issue because you "thought it was funny" is "political."
Your lack of interest in countries that will be destroyed by a rise in sea level is "political."
Your obvious disregard for inconvenient scientific consensus is "political."
Pretty much everything you have posted is "political" (but not much is factual.)
Actually the 1/2' per year was the bottom end of the range that the IPCC said (they actually said 7" but I rounded to 1/2' - my bad).
I didn't raise the idea that water vapor mattered - the way you phrased your initial comment was such that you thought water vapor wasn't a greenhouse gas - my bad.
I've got a science degree, I work in a science field, I did, in true belief, find it funny that you thought water vapor wasn't a greenhouse gas. Again, my bad but still, that's not political at all.
Your lack of interest in countries that have lost millions of lives in the name of a "greener earth" is no more political than my statement that people should be able to adapt to rising sea levels that we have shown we can do over the past 20,000 years. (i.e. it's still not a political statement)
Scientific consensus? What scientific consensus? The number of scientists that signed on to the IPCC's latest find was 52 - yes, 52. While there are over 700 renowned scientists out there that say, hold up, let's do our job as scientists and really fully examine everything. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
I give links to my facts, you on the other hand haven't presented any - who is on the negative end of the "fact" scale here? If you'd like to dispute fact against fact I'm good with that but you should probably provide some links rather than going around claiming politics when you haven't presented any documented facts yourself (pot calling the kettle black and all that).
You're still doing it by the way - taking any criticism and claiming it's politically based so you don't actually have to address it...
Hmmm, so everyone who disagrees with you is a "right winger". You exacerbate my point so well, just write off de-scenting views as a fringe group who is all on their own. You won't even respond to us directly but start apologizing on behalf of all Americans for our statements.
Yeah American can be brash & arrogant, no more so than Europeans. How many experiments with socialism & marxism do we need to figure out it isn't working so well?
The statement isn't that capitalism is perfect nor that America has all the right answers, but there is an unparalleled danger in leaving the rule of all in the hands of an elite few. Paint it however you like marxism & socialism don't have a very good track record in history.
As ideals they have the appearance of a Utopian government rule, problem is that to acheive their goals they require that the rulers be absolutely fair & without flaw. Hmmmm, anyone want to trust in that?
On a side note - isn't it strange that users who have been on here since August of 2007 with very, very few posts all of a sudden become posting monsters over 2 years after joining? Weird...
On a side note - isn't it strange that users who have been on here since August of 2007 with very, very few posts all of a sudden become posting monsters over 2 years after joining? Weird...
Haha, I blame Apple!
My parents have been life long Republicans, but even they have come to feel the Republican Party became too weird and outdated over the last 20 to 30 years. They are not typical though because they have traveled outside the US extensively and they both earned advanced degrees. Many of my fellow Chicagoans have rarely been out of the city (on the other hand many Chicagoans come from other countries, so the city tends to be more aware than most.)
One thing is for sure though, most Americans of any persuasion tend to be good people on a personal level. It's easier for them to be callous on a abstract political level though.
Not all Americans agree with the authors of the 2 quotes above. For the most part it's the right wing. They have a culture of blaming socialists, the UN, and Europeans in general, for whatever the current problem is. When there's criticism of American policy, the criticism is rejected by these right wingers as in the first quote above where it's called "resentment." I still see "Boycott France" bumper stickers on cars sometimes - a good example of the mindset here in the USA. That and the anti-Gore sentiment are the results of the right wing political machine here, and by extension, so is the rejection of the (overwhelming majority of) the world's climatologists.
But yours is a common tactic, find or create an opinion and then call it a fact and link to it. As Daniel P. Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts!" But since you like links how about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ersy#Consensus
Some prescient quotes:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Funny how if peer reviewed science is the measure, your opinions melt way to nothing.
"On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents."
Is this one of the "petition" you referred to?
Do you want a link to another petition with over 12,000 signatures of scientists that supports the global warming consensus? Would you be swayed?
Actually the 1/2' per year was the bottom end of the range that the IPCC said (they actually said 7" but I rounded to 1/2' - my bad).
Scientific consensus? What scientific consensus? The number of scientists that signed on to the IPCC's latest find was 52 - yes, 52. While there are over 700 renowned scientists out there that say, hold up, let's do our job as scientists and really fully examine everything. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-6e2d71db52d9
I give links to my facts, you on the other hand haven't presented any - who is on the negative end of the "fact" scale here? If you'd like to dispute fact against fact I'm good with that but you should probably provide some links rather than going around claiming politics when you haven't presented any documented facts yourself (pot calling the kettle black and all that).
You're still doing it by the way - taking any criticism and claiming it's politically based so you don't actually have to address it...
You give links to opinions and call them facts. The fact is that the petition was presented. The petition itself is opinion. Did you want a link to the fact that water in the atmosphere is limited by its saturation point? Facts don't really need links because they stand alone.
But yours is a common tactic, find or create an opinion and then call it a fact and link to it. As Daniel P. Moynihan said, "You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts!" But since you like links how about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...ersy#Consensus
Some prescient quotes:
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is likely attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Funny how if peer reviewed science is the measure, your opinions melt way to nothing.
"On April 29, 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore revealed that a list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" distributed by the Heartland Institute included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its contents."
Is this one of the "petition" you referred to?
Do you want a link to another petition with over 12,000 signatures of scientists that supports the global warming consensus? Would you be swayed?
I won't bother to address any questions you have about what my link states until you actual read it. Ya know, that's generally how it works. You admitted that you didn't even click it and just went out about what you thought it might have linked to - what??
Look at the link, seriously, look at how it starts "epw.senate.gov" - you think that's a link to the heartland institute?
It's still not an opinion by the way - everything I've linked to is actual data or actual quotes from scientists w/ the credentials included. You can make your own decisions on what the data means but I linked to data. Which, since you've got so much scientific experience, you'd know is the place you go back to when trying to figure things out for yourself rather than just accepting what some people have told you.
I'll freely admit that most organizations have signed on to it, however, I think it's pertitent, and as a matter of proper scientific practice, to look at all sides of a scientific problem. Of course you already know that since you were raised by parents with advanced degrees means I some how didn't get a science degree...
EDIT: Also, if you'll pay attention - there's a growing number of skeptics in the late 2000's because new data is being made available that wasn't available when the so called consensus was reached (1997) - click on a few links of the second page of the article for a more detailed description (if you care to review the facts that is). As with all science there's always more to be researched... Maybe in the 2010's the research will show global warming again but as for today the in-flux of non-global warming peer-reviewed studies is astounding and certainly nothing to scoff at just because you think you had a good science education.
EDIT 2: Just to make my point clear... "Here's a quote from a Dec. 13 letter to Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, by 100 top scientists, many of whom are themselves on the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change: ''In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is 'settled,' significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.'' This letter can be found at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org";
Here's a list of the Scientists that signed that letter - again - more linkage - you should try it - it's fun! http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004
Second, I can see the link address and you said it was a petition, therefor I can guess what petition is referenced. It was attached to a "US Senate Minority report" in 2007 and was then updated and resubmitted this year (have no idea about the quality of the petition.) I'm familiar with the journal articles it references though, and far from refuting global warming, they mostly take exception with aspects of previous research, as good journal articles tend to do (and coincidentally, mostly support current findings on solar dimming and aerosolization which affirm global warming.)
Third, opinions are always opinions. Facts are always facts. As I said, the petition presents the opinion of some people. The fact is that a) it is their opinion and b.) it has been presented to the senate.
Fourth I have no idea if you have a science degree or what quality it might be (but your conclusion that my parent's education affects the existence of your own degree raises questions.)
I won't bother to address any questions you have about what my link states until you actual read it. Ya know, that's generally how it works. You admitted that you didn't even click it and just went out about what you thought it might have linked to - what??
Look at the link, seriously, look at how it starts "epw.senate.gov" - you think that's a link to the heartland institute?
It's still not an opinion by the way - everything I've linked to is actual data or actual quotes from scientists w/ the credentials included. You can make your own decisions on what the data means but I linked to data. Which, since you've got so much scientific experience, you'd know is the place you go back to when trying to figure things out for yourself rather than just accepting what some people have told you.
I'll freely admit that most organizations have signed on to it, however, I think it's pertitent, and as a matter of proper scientific practice, to look at all sides of a scientific problem. Of course you already know that since you were raised by parents with advanced degrees means I some how didn't get a science degree...
So... there you have it. Proof, in the very words of a right winger that you can in fact be environmentally responsible, and still "make a ton of cash".
So what's the reason not to?
You're missing the forest for the trees... why have cozy agreements IF you can do business above board? The big ol' boys network made its deals with the big government boys. The money they're making was through deals tailored made specifically for them. Like a suit designed for one person, it won't fit very well on someone else. Tell the politicians what you want and how you want it and they'll see you get your campaign contributions next election. Smaller businesses can't work like that... they don't have the cash.
What's a 'right winger'?
Did you hear that hez? His parents have advanced degrees and have travelled around and that makes up stupid! Wahoo!
What I heard was hypocrisy. We try discourse, present our own arguments, they come back with anyone who disagrees with them is lying or mean spirited. Yeah I summarized a bunch but that was the gist of what I was reading.
See this is the problem, our side is presenting theories & false information, their side is presenting "facts". BOTH sides are presenting facts, but the facts are subject to interpretation & that is why there is a need for discourse!
That goes back to my warning about the socialist mentality, it basically says that the elite are always right & can't be questioned. A Marxist society cannot exist without absolute submission to the authoritative elite in power. Come on!
Note I don't quote any articles of any sort, that's cause I don't believe it is an intellectual issue but a common sense one. We've drained the common sense of the world with our relativism. We've told everyone that they can live their own life & do whatever they want & it's alright with the rest of us. Problem is it's impossible for everyone to have their own way, sorry, that's life.
No system of government is perfect, & I believe that is the big point. People who say America is perfect & can do no wrong, well they've just been drinking a bit too much kool-aid. The responses on this forum are all focused on saying that w'ere nut jobs, or sheep, or worse (paraphrasing). No, we are people with a disagreement. We're willing to have discourse & debate, but the responses all keep focusing on discrediting us. You don't know me, how dare you assume you know my intentions!
I don't watch Fox news, heck I rarely even watch Fox at all. I also don't watch many of the other syndicates as well. They all do the same thing, over dramatize the debate so that it turns into a shouting match instead of contributing to healthy discussion.
I see the same thing in congress, everyone throwing around words like evil & hatred & racism & holocaust like they're casual assertions. There was a time in this country where people had duals, you know with swords & guns, over such enflamed & reckless accusations!
People who spew hatred see hatred in everything, because it consumes their every thought. All I'm asking for is some intelligent discourse & a little less rehashing of Al Gore's talking points (see I can do it too).
I think not using science for political and social ends is no option. You can't stop it and it would be a waste of knowledge. It's of all ages.
Scientific insight changes (and moves forward in my view)
So, for example, a couple of hundred years ago, the agreed consensus was that the earth was flat, now the consensus is it is round but maybe tomorrow they find out out it is actually a cube?
This nihilism might provide some mental shelter by making seemingly difficult questions almost irrelevant, it might be how we perceive the behaviour of most of our fellow human beings but to me it was always one of the human abysses against which one always has to guard oneself.
You're missing the forest for the trees... why have cozy agreements IF you can do business above board? The big ol' boys network made its deals with the big government boys. The money they're making was through deals tailored made specifically for them. Like a suit designed for one person, it won't fit very well on someone else. Tell the politicians what you want and how you want it and they'll see you get your campaign contributions next election. Smaller businesses can't work like that... they don't have the cash.
What's a 'right winger'?
& what's worse is it isn't just the businesses now, community organization groups are using the same tactics & destroying our communities. The divide in our country is becoming less & less about politics or religion & more about support of special interests.
Government is bailing out big business & at the same time trying to push through a bunch of legislation that will kill small business (the backbone of our country).
Like I said before, I am not opposed to the possibility global warming, just not 100% convinced. Yet I've said over & over again that I am not arguing that means we should do nothing. What I'm saying is watch out before we put all the power into the hands of a bunch of extremists! On either side!
I got kids & I do not want their futures in the hands of anyone that calls themselves an activist, right or left. It's time rational people took back this country.
Fourth I have no idea if you have a science degree or what quality it might be (but your conclusion that my parent's education affects the existence of your own degree raises questions.)
You're actually the one that brought up that your parents having advanced degrees somehow trumps whatever Hez and I know - that's on you buddy - sorry...
Also, we can continue this later when you've found a computer that's not on a 14.4 kbps connection and can actually read the senate document that DOESN'T base it's findings on the Heartland Institute and gives dozens upon dozens of quotes from respected Scientists around the globe (including the first woman in the world to get a PhD in meteorology and Nobel prize winners). Beyond that there are dozens and dozens and dozens of links to actual, peer reviewed articles. If you can't click on any of the links and can't actually address any of my points that's really a pathetic way to come to the conclusion that I'm wrong...
<righteous indignation>
No wonder Europeans think Americans are so stupid.
I can't believe (with a few exceptions) the pathetic level of discourse and the lack of scientific knowledge on this page (don't get me started on water vapor as a greenhouse gas.) The idiot prize goes to the right wingers who attempt to justify their transparent, status quo, pro-business (i.e. pro-subsidy for business,) political stance with phony pretend science that has been hastily created for just this purpose.
The fact that these people are so ignorant of the facts does not surprise me since it is obvious from their pathetic posts, and I imagine that it is simply an expression of their generalized fear stemming from ignorance and desperation. But what does surprise me is how willing they are to be led around with these inane pseudoscientific notions, like a bunch of sheep. Whatever talking point is most recently trotted out on FOX News is paraded out as if it's the latest scientific consensus (today its the job scare tactic.) Just like real sheep, one will imagine it sees an imaginary snare and immediately jump over it and every other sheep, out of fear, will also jump the nonexistent obstacle and they'll all feel better. All the time gleefully unaware that they are all being led with care . . . to market and slaughter.
I'm the first to point out the how ridiculous and self serving organizations like Greenpeace can be, but they tend to be overly emotional amplifiers of social concern and are a drop in the bucket compared to these overly emotional amplifiers of irrational, dogma which is created to serve corporate interest. I suggest you guys mosey over to "Mac Daily News," where you are more appreciated.
</righteous indignation >
Wow, you sure used a lot of words to say NOTHING!
Today they successfully lobbied their toadies (i.e. Senators) to weaken provisions that would prevent off-shore tax havens.
In other words, loyalty to corporations first, America 2nd (if that).
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6...ore-businesses
Here's what the Chamber of Commerce stands for...
Today they successfully lobbied their toadies (i.e. Senators) to weaken provisions that would prevent off-shore tax havens.
In other words, loyalty to corporations first, America 2nd (if that).
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/6...ore-businesses
Honestly, I don't think anyone thought the Chamber of Commerce wasn't business first. It's kinda sad really but name me an organization that isn't "me first"? I'd like to think that most care about the American people as a collective but they really don't. The only body that, supposedly, cares and puts the American people first is Congress but they don't exactly inspire anyone to think that.
So all the data showing the exact start of the industrial revolution coincided with the start of a warming that in fact has over come what would have been a cooling period is bogus?
Here is a little graph:
What caused all the previous temperature rises? Lots of industrial revolutions, or does the earths temperature just naturally vary?
From 1940 to the beginning of the 80's, the average world temperature declined. Did industrial activity and CO2 output decline during that period?
The world ceased to get warmer in 1998, which is over a decade ago, and in fact the evaerage temperature has been declining since then.
But it's going to get warmer soon, dad, isn't it?
Well no son, it's actually going to decline further for at least another decade, possibly two.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...arm-later.html
The face saving has already started as evidenced in this article.
It's so funny, It brings tears to my eyes.
Yes there are cycles, clearly evidenced in the ice records and the latest research shows those cycles of cooling and warming were trending cooler over all. Only in since the mass use of fossil fuels has man managed to drastically reverse that over all cooling trend.
Only? So the period when the Roman Empire flourished was notably chilly was it? And the Medieval warm period never really happened?
It's all a big mess, tough time to be a business I guess.