# Are you a "global warming" follower???GDG



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

This was a letter sent to me I found interesting. Another attempt by the Algore crowd to seperate us from more of our $$$ and freedoms.

Read it or not, but it's amusing to find who buys into this GDG.

UB


Dear Friend, 

It's official: I have now heard the absolute stupidest consequence of the so-called global warming climate crisis. Scientists – and I use that term very loosely – are apparently worried that global warming will lead to an increase in the incidence of kidney stones. 

You're probably wondering how in the world something like global warming could possibly affect the occurrence of kidney stones. Here's the "logic" of this latest nonsensical claim: kidney stone formation accelerates in warm climates, thus when the entire world is warmer, there will there be more kidney stones. 

It's true that kidney stones are more common in hotter climates. Sweating removes fluid from the body, which increases the salt concentration in your urine, which increases the rate at which the kidney stones develop. Kidney stones are formed by the salt crystallizing in the kidneys, and one of the root causes is dehydration. 

According to Margaret Pearle of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, where this study was conducted, "We see a relationship between kidney stones and temperatures everywhere; even in places with air conditioning, warmer temperatures mean more stones." 

There's even an existing kidney stone "belt" in the southeastern U.S. Statistically, there are 50 percent more cases of kidney stones in the southeast than in the northeast every year. Scientists claim that this "new" threat of global-warming-induced kidney stones would theoretically (and I emphasize theoretically) push the spread of kidney stones northward, increasing the annual number of cases to at least 1.6 million by 2050. 

The researchers don't stop with kidney stones. They believe that any and all ailments associated with the warmer parts of the globe will also become more prevalent as greenhouse gases crank up the planet's thermostat. Also on the "up and coming" list: heat stroke and malaria. 

All of this, of course, depends on the climate change theories (and yes, they are only theories) of the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which opines that global warming will result in average global temperature jump of three to seven degrees over the course of the 21st century. 

It's hard for me not to be sarcastic when dealing with doomsayers who believe we'll all be several feet beneath a flood of melted polar ice caps (don't worry – the corpses of all those polar bears should do just fine as flotation devices). There's so much junk science and politics wrapped up in the global warming scam, it makes the idiotic Y2K panic seem rational. 

But trust me, if global warming will truly be as catastrophic as Al Gore and others of his freaked out, tree-hugging ilk claim, an increase in the number of kidney stone cases will surely be small potatoes compared to the collapse of Civilization As We Know It. 

Throwing kidney stones at the glass house of global warming, 

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.


----------



## Cleo Watson (Jun 28, 2006)

UB, does this mean that Bill and Travis will have to move north? If so, then they would no longer be in the SAND & GRAVEL business. I know one of them will just grin and bare it - I see no movement in that direction. LOL


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

oh great, another GDG thread by UB that he will never post on again....sort of like the "change" one.
________
 Oxygen Vaporizer


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

precisionlabradors said:


> oh great, another GDG thread by UB that he will never post on again....sort of like the "change" one.


U R WRONG as usual. Most of us enjoy UB's posts. Though still looking for fAlicitous. 

Great post, UB - This whole enviro movement is a huge WPA scam that is costing everyone huge amounts that could be better spent elsewhere & for very dubious results. 70% of the people in our country think we've gone overboard in our desire to be greener than someone else. You notice they aren't spending their own money, just want someone else to pick up the tab.


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

UB, It ain't global warming causing kidney stones, IT'S BLUE BELL ICE CREAM. I used to love a couple of bowls of BB with a small shot of Mount Gay Rum Liqueur pored over it. Man it was good, but the stones were painful, so I quit, cold turkey. I haven't touched a spoon full of that wonderful stuff in about 5 years.

Now the dehydration theory may hold water! My Oncologist wanted to get a CT Scan of my lymph nodes since I hadn't had a CT Scan in 6 years, but he said I needed to drink 3 liters of water a day for a week to get me re hydrated (I asked if beer would do and he said no). I could only get 2 liters a day down and I passed two stones about the size of bb's pretty quick. (No spurs, perfectly round AND IT WAS KINDA LIKE BLOWING A PEA THROUGH A PEA SHOOTER). You ladies will just have to use your imagination.

By the way, keep the posts coming, that dude that don't like your post is a Oboma Momma anyway and he don't belong on this board anyhoo. Still have wonderful memories of my trip to South Dakota. That is as cold as I can stand it, so I guess I will have to stay here in old South Mississippi. (It's fun typing Mississippi) Other Bill
________
TakeMeNow


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

wisconsin in jan/feb equals 20 below for days/weeks....can I get a double order of that global warming ???


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> U R WRONG as usual. Most of us enjoy UB's posts. Though still looking for fAlicitous.


lol. of course you do. .. falicitous-wtf?
________
New Mexico Medical Marijuana


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Global warming is real it has been happening sence the last ICE age we just now think somthing about it.This ocurance is somthing that happens naturly on this planet but dumbocrats are somthing we can deal with and get rid of now join me in a world wide wipe out of all dumbocrats. Then once it gets real hot the world will freeze again, and its gonna be duck sesson all year long. 


waitin for the be freeze!!!

Smitty


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

precisionlabradors said:


> lol. of course you do. .. falicitous-wtf?


Most likely a misspelling of felicitous, =
"Exhibiting an agreeably appropriate manner or style"

JD


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Precision, are you a Democrat?? How can you be and still be a dog person, and I assume (?) a hunter/outdoor enthusiast??

The Dems want to make spay and neuter laws nationwide, take away an individual's right to keep and bear arms, nationally control the market (thereby rendering it no longer a Free Market), excuse and reward fiscal irresponsibility, tax profits of business and redistributing that tax to that business' customers, increase federal taxes to around 62%, and pull out of Iraq so the Terrorists are free to attack the US...

etc., etc., etc...

Are you SURE you're a Dem??? If you are, my 11 week old pup doesn't have any points, can I have the AKC take some of yours from you (if you can any) and redistribute them to me and everyone else so we are all equal and I don't feel so oppressed??

Precision, I'm not attacking you specifically... but I am curious as to what your ideology is. It just seems contradictory to me...


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Global warming is not a man-made thing. Scientists who used to be in the global warming camp are now beginning to jump ship due to the FACTS. 

It is a cycle caused by our planet's rotation and orbit going back to the dawn of time. 

The dems are jumping on the global warming bandwagon because they want all of us to rely on big government for our very existence and happily pay more taxes for our safety when all it does is create larger government, more taxes, and more regulation. Many of the left have adopted socialist views and that is so scary to me because I don't want my children and grandchildren living in that kind of America. 

Excellent article which bears a close look: 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070315&articleId=5086


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Used to be socialism was the biggest threat to this nation, now its environmentalism.

We heat with a wood stove, no way we vote for tree huggers, as we like keeping warm in the winter.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Legacy 6 said:


> Precision, are you a Democrat?? How can you be and still be a dog person, and I assume (?) a hunter/outdoor enthusiast??
> 
> The Dems want to make spay and neuter laws nationwide, take away an individual's right to keep and bear arms, nationally control the market (thereby rendering it no longer a Free Market), excuse and reward fiscal irresponsibility, tax profits of business and redistributing that tax to that business' customers, increase federal taxes to around 62%, and pull out of Iraq so the Terrorists are free to attack the US...


I get tired of the old "If you are a hunter you have to be a Republican" line of thinking. I hope this is just hyperbole on your part, and that you don't ACTUALLY believe that Democrats want to 1) take away your guns 2) make you fix all your pets 3) eliminate the free market, etc. etc. Because those things are flat out not true.

And, the reality is that climate change is real and there IS consensus on this. At least according to the VAST majority of scientists, governments, etc. (As crackpot as that original post about kidney stones sounds, keep in mind that it was presented by the American Urology Assocation - not exactly an 'environmental whacko' organization.) Sure, you can find a scientist who will argue that climate change doesn't exist (or that it DOES exist, but humans aren't causing any of it -- or even more cynically, that it does exist, but it's too late to do anything abou it). But you will also find 'scientists' who will argue that the earth is flat, that the moon landing was faked, and that he earth is only 7000 years old. 

The reality is that hunters and fishermen are the original environmentalists. Organizations like DU, WTF, PF, TU, etc, etc have done more to protect the environment than non-sportsmen sponsored organizations. And with good reason -- climate change will effect the people that really enjoy the outdoors first. 

Being from Kansas, you should understand the impact that humans can have on the environment. Depletion of the Ogallalla aquifer can definitly be tied to humans (irrigation). When I was a kid, growing up in western Kansas, we had phenomenal duck hunting. However, as the water table dropped, many of the potholes dried up. The pondsthat I used to go to with my father are now gone, and the ducks don't come through the area in anywhere near the numbers they used to. It is easy to see how humans can alter their environment on a massive scale first hand in the high plains. Changes in farming practices (move to sprinkler iirigation, etc) have caused the depletion to slow, but the aquifer continues to shrink. This is not theory, it is fact. So, why is it so hard to accept that humans can also affect climate at large?

The reality is that hunters and fishermen should be out front on the issue of climate change, in the same way we have been out front on habitat conservation. We should be supporting initatives to help the environment. After all, there is a long history for doing so, and it is in our best interests.

I have plenty of friends who are both Democrats and hunters. I also have plenty of friends who are Republicans and anti-hunting. Believe it or not, most people don't just 'toe the party line'. If you just agree with every item in either party's platform, then you aren't thinking for yourself. It is possible to be a pro-life Republican, a hunting Democrat, a gay Republican, an limited government Democrat, etc, etc. It's even possible to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat (like me)!

Personally, when confronted with a left-leaning anti-hunter, I like to point out to them that the food that I shoot/catch is free range, organic, and locally grown. It is suprisingly effective, and, although I haven't turned any of them into hunters, I have at least convinved many of them that hunting isn't a bad thing at all.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

backpasture said:


> The reality is that hunters and fishermen are the original environmentalists. Organizations like DU, WTF, PF, TU, etc, etc have done more to protect the environment than non-sportsmen sponsored organizations. And with good reason -- climate change will effect the people that really enjoy the outdoors first.


I care about our enviroment very much and will always do my best to keep it clean and taken care of. The difference is that I don't trust big government to do it. 

The truth is that many of the scientists who initially came up with the theory of global warming have now changed their positions but the politicians have latched onto this THEORY and have blindly ran with it. 

When I was in high school in the mid 90s we were taught about global warming. Carbon emissions etc. I am now going back to college to complete my degree and we learned about climate change due to planetary motion and how the global warming theory is being disproved a little more everyday. 

Global warming is a political issue and less and less people are falling for it these days. As more and more people stand up for the truth this theory will be disproven.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Backpasture, here is what the Democrat party has become under the leadership of George Soros and his one world order "FRUITLOOPS".

LEFT WING FACISTS;
Despite this imitation of ancient forms, fascism was sociologically speaking a new phenomenon. It seems to have been a common response to the disappointment felt in most countries after World War I, and was strongest in those countries which had suffered psychologically the most. Another factor is claimed to be the degree of economic mobility experienced by the society. Commentators have claimed that fascist-style movements are prevalent where populations are changing from a predominantly rural, to a predominantly urban and industrial pattern of life. It has been suggested that the appeal of fascism is to those people who, for whatever reason, feel that their sense of community (for example as soldiers in the trenches, as members of threatened villages, or of minority ethnic communities) is being threatened. For such people, its has been argued, fascism provides a total, highly-structured, intellectually-undemanding, yet psychologically-satisfying, resort 



Please read the last line several times and ask yourself which party fits this sentence.

Best Regards
Raymond Little


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Page said:


> I care about our enviroment very much and will always do my best to keep it clean and taken care of. The difference is that I don't trust big government to do it.


Believe me, I don't trust the government. I also don't trust big business. At least government is accountable to the people, though (or at least to those who actually vote). Big business is only responsible to its shareholders. Like it or not, government actually does to SOME good (it is simple fact that government regulations have done a lot to curb pollution, etc.). Unforunately it also does a lot of bad. It is more complex than just 'Democrats = big government = bad'. The reality is that the Republicans have grown the size government even more in the past 8 years than the Dems had in the previous 8. Again, a reason why neither party can be trusted.



Page said:


> The truth is that many of the scientists who initially came up with the theory of global warming have now changed their positions.


Citation? If this is the case, name them. This is flat out not true.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

R Little said:


> Backpasture, here is what the Democrat party has become under the leadership of George Soros and his one world order "FRUITLOOPS".
> 
> LEFT WING FACISTS;
> Despite this imitation of ancient forms, fascism was sociologically speaking a new phenomenon. It seems to have been a common response to the disappointment felt in most countries after World War I, and was strongest in those countries which had suffered psychologically the most. Another factor is claimed to be the degree of economic mobility experienced by the society. Commentators have claimed that fascist-style movements are prevalent where populations are changing from a predominantly rural, to a predominantly urban and industrial pattern of life. It has been suggested that the appeal of fascism is to those people who, for whatever reason, feel that their sense of community (for example as soldiers in the trenches, as members of threatened villages, or of minority ethnic communities) is being threatened. For such people, its has been argued, fascism provides a total, highly-structured, intellectually-undemanding, yet psychologically-satisfying, resort
> ...


Could be either. Anyone who blindly follows any political party is likely someone who is seeking a "total, highly-structured, intellectually-undemanding, yet psychologically-satisfying, resort". Fascism exists on both ends of the political spectrum.

And, if you really believe that Soros controls the Democratic party and party members are blindly following, then I have some fake moon landing pictures I want to sell you.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

precisionlabradors said:


> . .. falicitous-wtf?


That as from UB's post at the end of his other GDG. Pay ATTENTION!



Page said:


> It is a cycle caused by our planet's rotation and orbit going back to the dawn of time.


Recently read an excellent article in Scientific American about the large volume of CO2 released into the atmosphere from Volcanic Activity.



Page said:


> The truth is that many of the scientists who initially came up with the theory of global warming have now changed their positions but the politicians have latched onto this THEORY and have blindly ran with it.


Politicians need an unsolvable issue to feel relevant - at present close to 70% of Americans believe we have tilted to GREEN in our direction.



backpasture said:


> And, if you really believe that Soros controls the Democratic party------


He is in on the scam but so are people like Warren Buffet who has made a lot of money using government programs - Why do you think Buffet opposes the Estate Tax being lifted? The biggest scam being the Farm Program!!!


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

Legacy 6 said:


> Precision, are you a Democrat?? How can you be and still be a dog person, and I assume (?) a hunter/outdoor enthusiast??
> 
> The Dems want to make spay and neuter laws nationwide, take away an individual's right to keep and bear arms, nationally control the market (thereby rendering it no longer a Free Market), excuse and reward fiscal irresponsibility, tax profits of business and redistributing that tax to that business' customers, increase federal taxes to around 62%, and pull out of Iraq so the Terrorists are free to attack the US...
> 
> ...


if you would like to talk via PM, we can do so. this board is not very amenable to anything left of GWB. it's a matter of being concrete. i'm not.
________
Interracial Tube


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

precisionlabradors said:


> this board is not very amenable to anything left of GWB.


Other than the War on Terror, Taxes & the SCOTUS (in which his 1st instincts were not correct) you can be moderate in your thinking & be Right of GWB. Has too many of his Daddy's instincts. But then again - look at the other choices we were given.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

backpasture said:


> Citation? If this is the case, name them. This is flat out not true.


You definitely need to read this. This scientist's articles on global warming are all included here. He was one of the first serious global warming experts and has now changed his position based on the facts. Scientists like him have received actual death threats by people not wanting the truth to be told. Since the mid 80s, several BILLIONS of dollars have been spent on this hoax, many people have been employed or put in positions of power to examine this hoax, and the public (including me at one point) totally fell for this hoax. 

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388&p=1



> As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
> Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
> Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.


Quote by Timothy Ball - PhD in Climatology



> The exploitation of climate science for purely political goals is occurring throughout the developed world. For example, politicians inCanada have started to ban inexpensive and convenient technologies such as light bulbs, coal fired electricity generation and used oil heating to "stop climate change." They can't show how the alternatives being promoted will actually help the environment – we are expected to simply believe that such sacrifices for the climate will benefit us all, even if real pollution levels rise, food prices increase as agricultural land is converted to biofuels production and millions of birds are cut to pieces by wind turbines. 'Believe' is the key word here, not 'think'.
> 
> Even the United States, previously one of the last bastions of common sense in climate wars, is being swept up in this dangerous movement. Besides the rise of ex-Vice President Al Gore to the status of climate change 'superstar', rhetoric has reached a fever pitch in the U.S. Senate now that an environmental extremist, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, has taken over as Chair of the powerful Committee on Environment and Public Works. Exposing her extraordinary naiveté Boxer maintains, "The American people have the will to slow, stop, and reverse global warming, and they sent a new cast of characters to Washington, and people are really hopeful that this new Congress will be able to do it." Claiming Gore as her hero, Boxer has even initiated an "online thank you card to Al Gore… -- thanking him for everything he has done to stop global warming!" To date, it has attracted over 77,000 endorsers.


Links to articles with food for thought from scientists....not politicians. 
400 Prominent Scientists from all around the world dispute global warming claims http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
100 scientists tell UN global warming is a natural trend that is not made by man and can not be affected by man's efforts. http://www.globalwarming.org/node/1521
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming091307.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming072007.htm

I'm sorry but I believe that the government's job is to protect its citizens, but not change their diapers and wipe their butts for them. 

Programs to redistribute wealth, feed the able who refuse to try to work, pay the rent of baby-makers because they can't afford the best housing, and continue to provide every need to Katrina "victims" years after the event is frustrating to me when I work very hard and have to make sacrifices to afford the things I want/need. 

I see it all the time because of my job. Welfare moms who don't work, or work a few short hours a day driving their new cars, talking on their new cell phones, and wearing the latest fashions as they pick up their checks from the government. Just watch Judge Judy for a month if you want to see how screwed up our welfare systems are. It is amazing how many people cheat the system. Now even if you buy a house that is clearly too much for you to afford, don't worry, the government will bail you out. 

Meanwhile I drive an older car, work long hours, don't get to buy all of the shoes, clothes or jewelry I want because I refuse to live off credit, and don't have my ideal home (yet) because I won't jump into something I know I can't afford. 

I was born with a blood disease where I don't have clotting factor. In college (the first time) I had to have surgery but couldn't afford to pay for it because of the added expense of extra medication, specialists, and extended hospital stays. I went to school full time and worked but still couldn't afford it so I went to apply for Medicaid. I was denied and I was told by the woman that the only way I could get it was to become pregnant. What!! I'm sorry but our system is screwed up when an honest, hardworking student with a serious medical condition can't get help with her bills but a knocked up drug addict can. 

Our country is rewarding the irresponsible by bailing them out all the time and creating a society of dependents who can't stand on their own or depend on themselves. 

I am not a cold-hearted person who thinks that people who honestly need help shouldn't get it, but too many abuse the system and not enough of the truly needy can even get in for special circumstances. 

I was laid off from my very profitable job after 9/11 and had to make changes to my lifestyle. Different foods, entertainment, shopping habits, etc. I had to relocate to another part of the country, get a new job in a completely different line of work, and I did it with a lot of hard work, sweat, and sacrifice. Sorry if I get upset to hear about the Katrina "victims" almost 4 fricking years after the fact. Unless you are handicapped from the event, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and get to work taking care of yourself. 

We have gone from a nation of hard workers to a nation of victims.

The truth is that the dems are always promoting more and more of these programs which take responsibility away from those receiving handouts and tax the hard working to do it. 

Let me clarify one more thing. I don't think the truly needy or people unable to work should ever be without. I give regularly to charities and also to my church. I have no problem giving of myself to help those in need but I don't think American tax-payers being raped to support several undermanaged, broken programs is right. 

One reason Republicans are afraid to speak up is because they are afraid that telling the truth will label them as racist, hard-hearted, or uncaring. I am not a racist, I am not an elitist, I am very caring. 



> In _Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism _(Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others


This is a great article: 
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

I'm sorry but I think some of these broken programs should be done away with and charitable contributions through community action should be implemented. I have helped to take food to the elderly with a community meals on wheels program, my own community opened its doors to Katrina victims in the days afterward and our church paid for hotel rooms for displaced families and fed them at no charge. I have personally volunteered my time to feed homeless people at shelters and I have a great deal of compassion. Along with that I have the desire to see those victims of circumstance get back on their own two feet and I have personally seen it. It is a beautiful thing.

It's sad to me when I see our police, fire dept, EMTs, and schools suffering constant cutbacks when this is what government taxes should be supporting.

Sorry for the rant.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Page,
I think I'm a little bit in love with you.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

nope, i'm not a global warming follower, but neither am i the sort of person who notices his pants are on fire only when his azz starts burning.

keep your eyes and mind open.....-paul


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Hookset said:


> Page,
> I think I'm a little bit in love with you.


I second this motion. Great writing.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

Page, you GO girl !!!!!


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

Page, one of the top 5 posts I have ever read. You need to submit it to some newspapers. 


....Don


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Page said:


> 400 Prominent Scientists from all around the world dispute global warming claims
> 100 scientists tell UN global warming is a natural trend that is not made by man and can not be affected by man's efforts.


I will again agree that you can find plenty of skeptics. However, keep in mind that:
1) Tens of thousands of Prominent Scientists, as well as the national academies of science in dozens of countries, have endorsed the report that these scientists are 'skeptical' of.
2) The 'skepticism' of many of these scientists isnt whether a) global climate change is real and b) humans bear some responsibility. Instead, their skepticism is the degree to which humans bear responsibility, and/or how 'catastrophic' it will be (how far sea levels rise, etc) and how quickly it will happen. This is touched on in the senate report you referenced:


> Disclaimer: The following scientists named in this report have expressed a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. As in all science, there is no lock step single view.



You can and will always find a minorty to support any view. But, facts are facts, the views you put forth are not shared by the majority (or even a significant minority) of the scientific community. 

Here is an interesting op-ed that makes some valid points. I don't expect to sway your opinion, but think it bears reading:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...08/04/convincing_the_climate_change_skeptics/

Now, one thing I think everyone can and should agree on, is that decreasing our oil usage through both production of renewables and conservation (and any other way) is important. If you don't believe it is important because you don't believe in global climate change, then you should believe it is important for national security. (And don't tell me that offshore drilling, ANWAR, and oil shale deposits are the answer, because the amount of oil we can get from those sources is a small percentage of what we use each year.) The best way to stop the crazed jihadists is to shut off their money. And, their money is coming from you and me at $4 per gallon. 

It is refreshing to see two people from other ends of the political spectrum - T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore find consensus on our nation's need to end our dependency on Middle Eastern oil. They may have gotten to that conclusion from seperate points of origin, but they share similar points of view on the solutions to each's perceived 'biggest problem'. Like them, I think we can find some common ground.

To your point about wasteful government spending, I couldn't agree more. Again, though, waste comes from both side of the aisle in Washington. It's not just Dems. Disasterous entitlement programs rife with fraud, ridiculous government bailouts of corporations (Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc), poorly planned and executed wars costing hundreds of billions more than estimated, and of course the hundred billions we spend each year just on the interest for our massive national debt -- all of these things are wastes of our money.

Back to my original point, though....

Just because you are a hunter, doesn't mean you have to be a Republican, any more than being vegetarian means you have to be a Democrat. The world isn't black and white, and there are lots of issues that are important to people that help them determine how they want to vote. Most people's views are more complicated than a political party's platform. 

Conversely, just because you are a liberal doesn't mean you have to be anti-gun. There is no better example than here in Vermont, which is arguabley one of the most liberal states in the country, and at the same time has some of the most non-restrictive gun laws in the nation (no permit required for concealed weapons, no waiting period, etc, etc). In reality, a person's views on hunting and gun rights is more closely tied to whether they live in an urban or rural area.

People who are on this list are here because we have something in common -- the love of our retrievers and the amazing work they do -- and they want to get advice, share tips, brag, etc. The list isn't 'Republican Retreiver Training Forum', just 'Retriever Training Forum'. I understand that the majority of hunters, etc ARE Repubs, but not all of us are!

And, we should all be thankful that, unlike most people in the world, we live in a country where we can 
1) Rant as much about the government as we want without being censored or hauled away.
2) Have a civil discourse despite our political differences.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Page, great post. I guess you're not going to support the new "Dept. of tire inflation"


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

i live in a very republican state with lopsided representation on the republican side. it is not strictly a democrat issue. 

page-i agree with you on most of what you said. i work as a mental health and substance abuse counselor and see exactly what you are talking about (people being enabled by the system) every day. i also see people that really need some sort of service and are busting their butts trying to get there (like you were in college when you applied for medicaid). 

when i was in graduate school, as part of my masters practicum, i developed a plan to try to get a ball rolling with our state legislature as part of my "Social Policy" course. i wrote letters to congressmen, department of health and welfare, governor, etc., (republicans). i was aiming to develop some sort of regulation of services that are provided. you see, the govt in my state allocates a certain amount of funds, then pays private agencies (capitalism) to carry out the services. the state's role is to audit the private agencies and dictate whether or not they are carrying out services appropriately.

well, since the private agencies are driven by their quest to make money, they write reports justifying funds that look good to the auditors. auditors look at paper, not people, so the private agencies pass their audits.

where the govt gets involved is during election time. you see, no politician likes to talk about how much money was allocated to the corrections system. there are volumes of articles of research about how health care, education, counseling, parenting classes, etc reduce a person's chance of landing in the corrections system. so, part of the campaign is to talk about all the monies that are allocated to govt programs designed to keep people out of the "black hole" corrections system. my theory is that republicans as well as democrats love to sell themselves on these points and are willing to throw tons of money at "feel good" programs to look like they are keeping people out of corrections.

but you are right, the legislatures non-caring as to how monies are spent does end up enabling people. i cannot deny it. i see it every day and it angers me as well. i put myself through school, and make a meager salary. by paying off my student loans and trying to live responsibly, i actually qualify for less services and receive way less help than lazy people that have learned to navigate the system.

is it their fault? yeah, partly. i have a greater problem with the legislation that allows it to happen without regulation. it's smoke and mirrors. not republican vs democrat. remember, the legilsation that allows it to happen in my state as well as in several other "republican" states are not dictated by democrat representatives. 

now, i like to talk to people. i have a friend that is very capitalistic and republican. has made fortunes in real estate. i discussed my disillusion with the idaho legislature to him. he threw out an idea that intrigued me. he proposed that as long as money is being circulated in the economy, it doesnt matter to a republican legislator how that happens. so, as long as things are going well and nobody is complaining (and the trick of making it look like enabling legislation is all democrat's fault is working) nothing changes.

just some food for thought.
________
Weed vaporizer


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

i would love more regulation of how public services are spent. a total overhaul of the welfare system. but more regulation is a "democrat" ideology and not supported by republicans. 

here is how i would like to see it work. a case manager that audit's peoples efforts through interviews and empirical data, rather than the subjective report made by the private agency vying for more money. it would appear to cost more up front (paying the new position's salary), but would save tons in the long run (less people on services for less time).

for example, a person that recieves disability or ssi or unemployment. it would be great if a "treatment plan" was made with target date goals for person to be working again. then it would be their responsibility to bring in copies of job applications, medical records, etc to continue to justify services. if they did not do it, they did not qualify for services.

as it is right now, since it is privatized (again a capitalist ideal), one can be made to appear to qualify for services when they actually don't. 

that is what i aimed to address in my master's practicum. my republican legislation didn't give a rats a$$.
________
Vision insurance forums


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Greg E said:


> Page, great post. I guess you're not going to support the new "Dept. of tire inflation"


Let's see who else thinks proper tire inflation is a good idea:

Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-arnold27-2008jun27,0,1954634.story


> Both governors appealed to those with the real power to make change — average citizens — to drive slower, keep engines tuned and tires properly inflated, to buy hybrids and lower overall consumption.


Nascar
http://www.nascar.com/2006/auto/07/25/tires/


> Tire maintenance key to safety, fuel economy



John McCain
http://www.youtube.com/v/iJdV599x6Gg&hl=en&fs=1


> McCain: "Yesterday, he (Obama) suggested we put air in our tires to save on gas. My friends, let’s do that. "


I guess that John McCain was for proper tire inflation before he was against it.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't have a problem with tire inflation. I'm a hardworking American Republican. I don't need the Govt. to tell me to inflate my tires. I actually pay for mine with hard earned cash. I guess if I were on the govt. free tire program it wouldn't matter. I'd just apply for another set.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Greg E said:


> I don't have a problem with tire inflation. I'm a hardworking American Republican. I don't need the Govt. to tell me to inflate my tires. I actually pay for mine with hard earned cash. I guess if I were on the govt. free tire program it wouldn't matter. I'd just apply for another set.



McCain, Crist, Schwarzenegger and Obama all suggested it as a way to reduce fuel consumption. Nobody is suggesting a government program to mandate proper tire inflation. How you paid for your tires is a non sequitur.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, though. ;-)


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

How you pay for your tires does have something to do with it. I work 84 hrs a week offshore. Away from my family and friends and dogs weeks sometimes two months at a time. That's my money paying for my tires that I'm going to take care of and use on my "tuned up" jeep. Why? because I'm responsible for myself. Don't need Obama telling me how to save fuel. My guess is that 99% of the people on here don't either.
PS I like your avatar


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

Some very good (and civil) points made by those on both sides of the question in this thread. Nicely done. Most of us who take the time to look beyond the soundbites and actually do some thinking will find that the truth of any issue is somewhere in between what the politicians of the two sides are trying to tell us.
On the issue of "climate change": is the overall temperature of the earth increasing? Maybe. Is it decreasing? Possibly, but probably not. Has the temperature of the earth at any time in its history been static for any significant lenth of time? Not likely. Does the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activity significantly affect the earth's temperature? I don't believe that it has been proven one way or the other. So if we all agree that the earth is continually going through cycles of warming and cooling, the only question is what part we play in that. As far as I can tell, there is no "scientific consensus" on the issue.
Our dependence on foreign oil and its affect on our economy and our security is a seperate and different issue.

Something I've been wondering about for a while: Whatever happened to "acid rain"? Or the hole in the ozone layer? Did those get fixed or did we just forget about them? Or maybe they were crises that didn't live up to the hype? Remember when the world was going to come to an end with the Y2K computer thing? Do you think that there might be just the slightest chance that the "global warming" issue could be somewhat overstated due to a sensationalist media and the politicization of the issue? Just sayin'.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hookset said:


> Something I've been wondering about for a while: Whatever happened to "acid rain"? Or the hole in the ozone layer? Did those get fixed or did we just forget about them?


They didn't get fixed entirely, but they have improved immensley due to --- wait for it--- the mobilization of citizens on the issue, resulting in government regulations. A classic example of where the government actually has done some good at the prodding of those it is accountable to (you and me). Those of us in the northeast have seen the improvement firsthand. (If you go to Asia, though, it is a different story.)

Similar story with the ozone layer. If you recall, CFCs and other ozone harming chemicals were regulated by the Montreal Protocol (adopted without much debate by most industrialized country), resulting in significantly lower emissions of those chemicals. Consensus is that the ozone has 'turned the corner' and is starting to heal itself. 

After the fact, there is very little debate on the reality of these environmental problems.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Greg E said:


> How you pay for your tires does have something to do with it. I work 84 hrs a week offshore. Away from my family and friends and dogs weeks sometimes two months at a time. That's my money paying for my tires that I'm going to take care of and use on my "tuned up" jeep. Why? because I'm responsible for myself. Don't need Obama telling me how to save fuel. My guess is that 99% of the people on here don't either.


My point was that you ridicule the Democrat who says it, but ignore it when it previously came from a Repub. It's not the message you find bothersome, just the messenger. A suggestion isn't 'telling you what to do'. You can choose to take advice or not, but there is no reason to be offended when someone gives advice as benign as this.

Again, I will reiterate that I am no fan of either party, but just because I don't plan to vote for someone doesn't mean I discount and/or disparage everything they say. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally! 



> PS I like your avatar


Thanks! One of these days I will update it. She's no puppy anymore.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

The thing is capitalism will fix this problem not the gooberment. When someone comes out with a vehicle that fits the bill for what people need want AND is fiscally correct the car companies will profit. People are not stupid they know that buying some hybrid sh*@box that costs them more than a Cadillac will take 15 years to break even with a very small increase in fuel mileage and still drive a POS. Besides that how bout all the folks that pass me a 80 mph in their prius in the morning whats with that? My truck weighs almost 8000 lbs and gets close to 20 mpg hiway. A economy car that is 2000 lbs and gets 40 mpg is still 25% as efficient as my truck. 

But having the gooberment tire PSI police will waste at least 10 times the amount of money that they are trying to save.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

BTW Algore should have stopped while he was ahead after he invented the internet


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

backpasture said:


> Let's see who else thinks proper tire inflation is a good idea: Republican Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charlie Crist


Believe me when I say that very few of the Conservative Republicans claim Arnold. *HE* might claim he's a Repub, but most of *US* don't... California is politically ready to fall off the United States and the universe... most of the state seems to be in their own Dimension...

But, as for gas efficiency, I have a GREAT story to relate!

I bought a '95 VW Jetta 3. This thing is FUGLY!! I call it my Green Goblin... but I digress. Two weeks after I get the Green Goblin, Manhattan, KS got hit by a HUGE storm where there were many tornadoes (tornados?) and funnel clouds and HAIL. Hold Hell the Hail!! At any rate, the Green Goblin was out in the storm, got three visible dents in the roof and 2-3 in the trunk lid, and the insurance company gave me $1600 for it...

Did I mention I bought the car for $1500 and I figured that if I drove the Goblin instead of Burt (my truck), it would take me appx 17 fill-ups for the car to pay for itself (this included my insurance payment)... Then I get the insurance check... WHAT UP!!! I get 32 MPG!!

One drawback. The AC doesn't work and it's been 100+ degs here for 2-3 weeks... DANGIT!!!

Oh, and I filled my tires to proper inflation BEFORE any politician included the Tire Pressure Equals Fuel Economy Plan (or TiPEFEP) in their Campaign Strategy... Can you say, Responsible Individual American Conservative??? I knew you could.

"Power to the Meople"


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> McCain, Crist, Schwarzenegger and Obama all suggested it as a way to reduce fuel consumption. Nobody is suggesting a government program to mandate proper tire inflation. How you paid for your tires is a non sequitur.
> 
> Don't let the facts get in the way of your opinions, though. ;-)


 
Umm, those folks said it was a way to reduce fuel consumption, it is in a very small amount, less than 1%. Obama said that properly inflating tires will do more to help gas prices than drilling for oil. Moronic.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Backpasture, point taken. I do understand and respect your opinion. Bottom line is that tire inflation is not going to solve anything. Just as drilling more oil will not correct anything. Do you think American investors are going to sell Americans cheap oil. No. They're going to sell it for whatever to whoever will pay the most money. Personally I'm sick of both parties.

Off subject, my county is either going to or has already passed an ordinance limiting the amount of dogs a person can own. They'll let some little bimbo punch out five or six kids that a pay for and then exspect me to have my dog fixed. Who needs fixing. It's not about the tires. It's about the govt having to regulate responsibility. I know it's only a suggestion today, but may be a mandate tomorrow.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> Umm, those folks said it was a way to reduce fuel consumption, it is in a very small amount, less than 1%. Obama said that properly inflating tires will do more to help gas prices than drilling for oil. Moronic.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html


1% now beats whatever benefit we might get from OCS 20 years from now (when we would actually see a benefit).

Both offshore drilling and tire inflation make minor differences, but little things add up (or as a boss of mine used to say 'Watch the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves!').


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

backpasture said:


> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html
> 
> 
> 1% now beats whatever benefit we might get from OCS 20 years from now (when we would actually see a benefit).
> ...


If it were that easy, then just getting everyone to drive 55 would show major results.....but very few will drive 55 even when posted.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> If it were that easy, then just getting everyone to drive 55 would show major results.....but very few will drive 55 even when posted.


Totally correct, Tom. Despite the truckers that will tell you that driving 55 is totally counterproductive.

It will, however, swell the coffers of the police and hiway patrol.

UB


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/from-the-fact-1.html
> 
> 
> 1% now beats whatever benefit we might get from OCS 20 years from now (when we would actually see a benefit).
> ...


False data, they are assuming that EVERY car on the road is in a state that it needs a tune-up, its tires are under-inflated and it has a completely clogged air filter, that is the only way you see a 18-19% increase. And even that amount of increase is an extreme stretch. All cars on the road aren't in that state of dis-repair so all their assumptions are bubkiss in the real world. If every vehicle on the road was maintenanced into top shape it would be a small affect. And that is a big "IF" to boot, how you going to enforce someone having their car in tip top shape? Let police pull cars over for air filter checks? Check your papers from your last oil change?

Drilling in the places we actually have large reserves (ANWAR, OCS) has up to 80 Billion barrels of oil. 42 gallons of gas per barrel of oil c 80 billion barrels = 3.36 Trillion gallons of gasoline. To "Save" that much gasoline with tuneups even giving ABC its outrageous assumptions (2 million gallons per day) would take 4,602.7 YEARS.


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

I may be a simpleton, but it seems to me that ideologically, there are two ways to deal with how increased gas prices affect your life. You can do something to change your situation or you can complain and wait for the federal government to fix it for you. THe first is the conservative approach and the latter is the liberal approach. 
My wife and I both drive full-size pickups because I tow a dog trailer and she tows a horse trailer. When gas prices approached $4.00 a gallon, I bought a used motorcycle to commute to work on. It isn't a perfect solution and sometimes I get to enjoy a good thunderstorm on my way home. But it has cut my monthly gas bill considerably and I'm not waiting for some politician to solve my problem for me. 
I believe that many of the problems that this country faces would be solved if more people would simply take responsibility for their own lives. If we are honest with ourselves, the majority of the problems we as individuals face in life are self-inflicted and are the result of choices that we have made.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Both offshore drilling and tire inflation make minor differences, but little things add up (or as a boss of mine used to say 'Watch the pennies and the dollars take care of themselves!').


Tell your boss to watch his pennies. I tell my people, "don't sweat the small stuff". Watch the pennies/dollars and stay poor. Anyone would be better off watching the c-notes. 

We have vast reserves of oil. The idea is to increase the supply and drive down the price. Yes, oil companies will sell for as much as they can. More supply lower prices, simple economics. We already have the infrastructure to increase supply in a short time. Don't buy into the Democrate BS. Palossi, Read, Obama just to name a few are fools. They hate big oil because they are outsiders and don't understand the business.

Do you want to see $10. per gallon gas? That what you will see if Americans are foolish enough to elect Obama.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

What the Dumbocrats don't realize is that the major oil comapines are bigger than them. Don't forget that moveon.org now owns the Democratic Party and their goal is One World at the expense of the prosperity we once had. Socialism doesn't work because it penalizes those that do work!


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Hookset said:


> You can do something to change your situation or you can complain and wait for the federal government to fix it for you. THe first is the conservative approach and the latter is the liberal approach.


The standard liberal approach is to have someone else do something to solve the problem (even when it is not a problem). 

What is worse is all the people who put nothing on the line, but stand ready to criticize the folks who do.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

like predicted, uncle bill has not posted anything.
________
Cheap spire double caliber magnum pellets


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

precisionlabradors said:


> like predicted, uncle bill has not posted anything.


What is your point? If you're after a piece of me, just have the balls to say it. This BB has an excellant way to NOT get involved in that which you dislike...it's called an ignore list. Please place me on yours, and it will cause you less angst.

To paraphrase an old statement...it's one thing to be thought of as a mental midget, but another to open your mouth, or in this case, pecking on a keyboard, and remove all doubt.

UB


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

I'd like to thank Page for some 'heavy lifting' on this thread. but as we discover, those in the socialistic camp aren't the least bit interested in any facts, their mind is made up. I just wish they would put THEIR MONEY into what they so fervently believe in, and not constantly requiring the tax payers to be the ones to provide the funds for their folly.

Let me offer another point of view on the subject from a reasonably reputable source...certainly someone that has done more than wander around in the back pasture, stepping in stuff, causing a stink, but can't recognize it's his own crap he's stepping in.

This is lengthy, so may need two posts to complete. It won't convince the Algore followers....they won't even read it. But for those that are uncertain about what to believe, here's further food for thought.




*In Science, Ignorance is not Bliss*

Written by Walter Cunningham 

Launch Magazine


NASA has played a key role in one of the greatest periods of
scientific progress in history. It is uniquely positioned to
collect the most comprehensive data on our biosphere.

For example, recently generated NASA data enabled scientists
to finally understand the Gulf Stream warming mechanism and
its effect on European weather. Such data will allow us to
improve our models, resulting in better seasonal forecasts.

NASA's Aqua satellite is showing that water vapor, the
dominant greenhouse gas, works to offset the effect of
carbon dioxide (CO2). This information, contrary to the
assumption used in all the warming models, is ignored by
global warming alarmists.

Climate understanding and critical decision making require
comprehensive data about our planet's land, sea, and
atmosphere. Without an adequate satellite system to provide
such data, policy efforts and monitoring international
environmental agreements are doomed to failure. Our
satellite monitoring capability is being crippled by
interagency wrangling and federal budget issues. As much as
a third of our satellites need replacing in the next couple
of years.

NASA should be at the forefront in the collection of
scientific evidence and debunking the current hysteria over
human-caused, or Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).
Unfortunately, it is becoming just another agency caught up
in the politics of global warming, or worse, politicized
science. Advocacy is replacing objective evaluation of data,
while scientific data is being ignored in favor of emotions
and politics.

There are excellent correlations between the regular
fluctuations of the Sun and the Earth's temperature, while
scientists cannot find a relationship between industrial
activity, energy consumption, and global temperatures. But
global warming is an issue no longer being decided in the
scientific arena.

Saying the Earth is warming is to state the obvious. Since
the end of the ice age, the Earth's temperature has
increased approximately 16 degrees Fahrenheit and sea levels
have risen a total of 300 feet. That is certain and
measurable evidence of warming, but it is not evidence of
AGW-human-caused warming.

We can track the temperature of the Earth back for
millennia. Knowing the temperature of the Earth, past or
present, is a matter of collecting data, analyzing it, and
coming up with the best answer to account for the data.
Collecting such data on a global basis is a NASA forte.

I believe in global climate change, but there is no way that
humans can influence the temperature of our planet to any
measurable degree with the tools currently at their
disposal. Any human contribution to global temperature
change is lost in the noise of terrestrial and cosmic
factors.

Our beautiful home planet has been warming and cooling for
the last 4.8 billion years. Most recently, it has been
warming-be it ever so slightly-but there is nothing unusual
about it! The changes and rates of change in the Earth's
temperature, just since the Industrial Revolution, have
occurred many times in our climatic history. While climate
scientists generally agree that the Earth's temperature is
always changing, not many of them would say that humans are
responsible for those changes.

None of this is to say there are not legitimate reasons to
restrict emissions of any number of chemicals into the
atmosphere. We should just not fool ourselves into thinking
we will change the temperature of the Earth by doing so.

In a December 2007 Senate report, 400 prominent scientists
signed a letter pointing out that climate change was a
well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is
far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Their ranks
included experts in climatology, geology, oceanography,
biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, economics,
chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering,
physics, and paleo-climatology. Their message: When changes
are gradual, man has an almost infinite ability to adapt and
evolve.

The fearmongers of global warming base their case on the
correlation between CO2 and global temperature, even though
we cannot be sure which is cause and which is effect.
Historically, temperature increases have preceded high CO2
levels, and there have been periods when atmospheric CO2
levels were as much as 16 times what they are now, periods
characterized not by warming but by glaciation. You might
have to go back half a million years to match our current
level of atmospheric CO2, but you only have to go back to
the Medieval Warming Period, from the 10th to the 14th
Century, to find an intense global warming episode, followed
immediately by the drastic cooling of the Little Ice Age.
Neither of these events were caused by variations in CO2
levels.

Even though CO2 is a relatively minor constituent of
"greenhouse gases," alarmists have made it the whipping boy
for global warming (probably because they know how fruitless
it would be to propose controlling other principal
constituents, H2O, CH4, and N2O). Since human activity does
contribute a tiny portion of atmospheric CO2, they blame us
for global warming.

Other inconvenient facts ignored by the activists: Carbon
dioxide is a nonpolluting gas, essential for plant
photosynthesis. Higher concentrations of CO2 in the
atmosphere produce bigger harvests.

In spite of warnings of severe consequences from rising
seas, droughts, severe weather, species extinction, and
other disasters, the U.S. has not been stampeded into going
along with the recommendations of the UN Panel on Climate
Change-so far. Even though evidence supports the American
position, we have begun to show signs of caving in to the
alarmists.

With scientific evidence going out of style, emotional
arguments and anecdotal data are ruling the day. The media
subjects us to one frightening image of environmental
nightmare after another, linking each to global warming.
Journalists and activist scientists use hurricanes,
wildfires, and starving polar bears to appeal to our
emotions, not to our reason. They are far more concerned
with anecdotal observations, such as the frozen sea ice
inside the Arctic Circle, than they are with understanding
why it is happening and how frequently it has occurred in
the past.

After warnings that 2007 would be the hottest year on record
and a record year for hurricanes, what we experienced was
the coolest year since 2001 and, by some measures, the most
benign hurricane season in the Northern Hemisphere in three
decades.

Even though recent changes in our atmosphere are all within
the bounds of the Earth's natural variability, a growing
number of people are willing to throw away trillions of
dollars on fruitless solutions. Why do we allow emotional
appeals and anecdotal data to shape our conclusions and
influence our expenditures with the science and technology
we have available at our fingertips?

The situation is complex, but the sad state of scientific
literacy in America today is partially to blame for belief
in AGW. When a 2006 National Science Foundation survey found
25 percent of Americans not knowing the Earth revolves
around the Sun, you know that science education is at a new
low and society is vulnerable to the emotional appeal of
AGW. And don't underestimate the role of politics and
political correctness.

The public debate should focus on the real cause of global
temperature change and whether we can do anything about it.
Is global warming a natural inevitability, or is it
AGW-human caused?

The conflict over AGW has deteriorated into a religious war;
a war between true believers in human-caused global warming
and nonbelievers; between those who accept AGW on faith and
those who consider themselves more sensible and better
informed. "True believers" are beyond being interested in
evidence; it is impossible to reason a person out of
positions they have not been reasoned into.

It doesn't help that NASA scientist James Hansen was one of
the early alarmists claiming humans caused global warming.
Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when
NASA's own data contradict him.

Warming in the upper atmosphere should occur before any
surface warming effect, but NASA's own data show that has
not been happening. Global temperature readings-accurate to
0.1 degree Celsius-are gathered by orbiting satellites.
Interestingly, in the 18 years those satellites have been
recording global temperatures, they have actually shown a
slight decrease in average temperatures.

Hansen is currently calling for a reduction of atmospheric
CO2 by 10 percent and a moratorium on coal-fired power
plants, while claiming the Bush administration is censoring
him. Other so-called scientists are saying the world must
bring carbon emissions to near zero to keep temperatures
from rising.

....to be continued.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

....from Wally Cunningham

In today's politically correct environment, many are
reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom; when they do, they
are frequently ignored. When NASA Administrator Michael
Griffin, Hansen's boss and a distinguished scientist in his
own right, attempted to draw a distinction between Hansen's
personal and political views and the science conducted by
his agency, he was soon forced to back off.

It is the true believers who, when they have no facts on
their side, try to silence their critics. When former NASA
mathematician Ferenc Miskolczi pointed out that "greenhouse
warming" may be mathematically impossible, NASA would not
allow him to publish his work. Miskolczi dared to question
the simplifying assumption in the warming model that the
atmosphere is infinitely thick. He pointed out that when you
use the correct thickness-about 65 miles-the greenhouse
effect disappears! Ergo: no AGW. Miskolczi resigned in
disgust and published his proof in the peerreviewed
Hungarian journal Weather.

For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming.
Even though atmospheric CO2 has continued to accumulate-up
about 4 percent in the last 10 years-the global mean
temperature has remained flat. That should raise obvious
questions about CO2 being the cause of climate change.

Instead, AGW enthusiasts are embracing more regulation,
greater government spending, and higher taxes in a futile
attempt to control what is beyond our control-the Earth's
temperature. One of their political objectives, unstated of
course, is the transfer of wealth from rich nations to poor
nations or, as the social engineers put it, from the North
to the South, which may be their real agenda.

At the Bali Conference on Climate Change in December 2007,
the poor nations insisted that the costs of technology to
limit emissions and other impacts of climate change on their
countries be paid by the rich nations. Most anticipated a
windfall of money flowing into their countries to develop
technology or purchase carbon credits. In this scenario,
selling allotments for CO2 emissions would provide a
temporary boost to their own cash flow, while severely
limiting the economic development of those countries
purchasing the carbon credits.

In the face of overwhelming evidence for natural temperature
variation, proponents of AGW are resorting to a
precautionary argument: "We must do something just in case
we are responsible, because the consequences are too
terrible if we are to blame and do nothing." They hope to
stampede government entities into committing huge amounts of
money before their fraud is completely exposed-before
science and truth save the day.

Politicians think they can reverse global warming by
stabilizing CO2 emissions with a cockamamie scheme of "cap
and trade." A government entity would sell CO2 allocations
to those industries producing it. The trillions of dollars
in new taxes and devastation to the economy would be
justified by claiming it will lower the temperature of the
Earth. This rationalization is dependent on two assumptions:
(1) that CO2 is responsible for the cause of changes in the
Earth's temperature, and (2) a warmer Earth would be bad for
humanity.

The reality is that atmospheric CO2 has a minimal impact on
greenhouse gases and world temperature. Water vapor is
responsible for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect. CO2
contributes just 3.6 percent, with human activity
responsible for only 3.2 percent of that. That is why some
studies claim CO2 levels are largely irrelevant to global
warming.

Without the greenhouse effect to keep our world warm, the
planet would have an average temperature of minus 18 degrees
Celsius. Because we do have it, the temperature is a
comfortable plus 15 degrees Celsius. Based on the seasonal
and geographic distribution of any projected warming, a good
case can be made that a warmer average temperature would be
even more beneficial for humans.

For a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars a
cap-and-trade system would eventually cost the United
States, we could pay for development of clean coal,
oil-shale recovery systems, and nuclear power, and have
enough left over to pay for exploration of our solar system.

By law, NASA cannot involve itself in politics, but it can
surely champion the role of science to inform politicians.
With so many uninformed and misguided politicians ignoring
the available science, NASA should fill the void. NASA is
synonymous with science. Allowing our priorities to drift
away from hard science is tantamount to embracing decadence.
NASA will surely suffer; and politicizing science is killing
it.

I do see hopeful signs that some true believers are
beginning to harbor doubts about AGW. Let's hope that NASA
can focus the global warming discussion back on scientific
evidence before we perpetrate an economic disaster on
ourselves.
_______________________________________________________


NAME: Walter Cunningham
NASA Astronaut (former)



SPECIAL HONORS: Awarded the NASA Exceptional Service Medal
and Navy Astronaut Wings; co-recipient of the AIAA 1969
Haley Astronautics Award; presented the UCLA Alumni
Professional Achievement Award for 1969 and the National
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Special Trustee
Award (1969); the American Legion Medal of Valor, and
Outstanding American Award of the American Conservative
Union, 1975; named to the International Space Hall of Fame
and Houston Hall of Fame; Judge for the 1984 Rolex Awards
for Enterprise. Listed in Who's Who in America, the world,
Aviation and other similar publications.

EXPERIENCE: Cunningham joined the Navy in 1951 and began his
flight training in 1952. In 1953 he joined a Marine squadron
and served on active duty with the United States Marine
Corps until August 1956 and in the Marine Corps Reserve
program until 1975. His present rank is Colonel, USMCR
(Retired).

He worked as a scientist for the Rand Corporation prior to
joining NASA. While with Rand, he worked on classified
defense studies and problems of the earth's magnetosphere.


Mr. Cunningham was one of the third group of astronauts
selected by NASA in October 1963.

On October 11, 1968, he occupied the lunar module pilot seat
for the eleven-day flight of Apollo 7--the first manned
flight test of the third generation United States
spacecraft. With Walter M. Schirra, Jr., and Donn F. Eisele,
Cunningham participated in and executed maneuvers enabling
the crew to perform exercises in transposition and docking
and lunar orbit rendezvous with the S-IVB stage of their
Saturn IB launch vehicle; completed eight successful test
and maneuvering ignitions of the service module propulsion
engine; measured the accuracy of performance of all
spacecraft systems; and provided the first live television
transmission of onboard crew activities. The 263-hour,
four-and-a-half million mile shakedown flight was
successfully concluded on October 22, 1968, with splashdown
occurring in the Atlantic--some eight miles from the carrier
ESSEX (only 3/10 of a mile from the originally predicted
aiming point).

Mr. Cunningham's last assignment at the Johnson Space Center
was Chief of the Skylab Branch of the Flight Crew
Directorate. In this capacity he was responsible for the
operational inputs for five major pieces of manned space
hardware, two different launch vehicles and 56 major
on-board experiments that comprised the Skylab program. The
Skylab program also utilized the first manned systems
employing arrays for electrical power, molecular sieves for
environmental control systems and inertia storage devices
for attitude control systems.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

I was posting the same time as you UB and missed your posts. Very insightful, thanks. 

Wow....great points about the gas on the last page Steve, Mr Booty, Iowa etc. 

To me it is ridiculous to state that drilling won't drop prices as much as tune-ups because it will. I have always taken care of my car. Always gotten oil changes, rotate and inflate my tires, and guess what? Gas is still twice as expensive for me as it was a few years ago. 

I agree that alternative fuels and energy should be examined and used; but the fact is that we are not close enough right now to really implement these changes. It will take some time and in the meantime we need oil to keep running. 

Oil prices have been dropping lately and I heard a report that it is because of the global economy, but I have to wonder about the speculators too. Now that the American people have shown a 70% approval for drilling the prices are beginning to fall and the politicians are feeling the strain. 

The argument that it will take 5 years to feel a price break so why drill really pisses me off. It takes a while to drive from FL to CA too, but if you never get in the car and turn on the engine your scenery will never change. If the American people would just get in the car, crank it up, and begin driving to CA together the whole world would know that we may not be to our destination yet, but we're not in FL anymore either. 

That alone will help to drive prices down. 

While all of this is happening, let's use capitalism to bring about new energy solutions.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> False data, they are assuming that EVERY car on the road is in a state that it needs a tune-up, its tires are under-inflated and it has a completely clogged air filter...


Guess you didn't read the article:



> It means that if every American was running around with significantly underinflated tires and improperly tuned cars, then, yes, Sen. Obama is right, the savings from inflating the tires and tuning the cars could arguably match or exceed current output from the OCS.
> 
> However, since estimates of significant tire underinflation affect only about a quarter of the cars on road -- as we noted above with the NHTSA statistics -- and it’s highly unlikely that 100% of the cars are in need of tune- ups at any given time, the maximum savings amount is probably closer to 10%, Verrastro says.
> 
> "So the production offset is more likely to approach 800 thousand barrels per day – a tidy sum and a worthwhile target for savings, but not equal to OCS output," he rules. "Finally, without knowing what production volumes could be expected from lifting the ban on OCS drilling moratoria, it’s impossible to assert that taking these fuel savings actions would exceed future offshore oil volumes, and in fact, one might argue that the combination of achieving these savings AND developing new supply would doubly enhance US energy security."


The point is that all the calculations are based upon estimates that people make about:
- How many cars are 'out of tune'
- How many gallons are available in offshore reserves.

Nobody knows what these number really are, but there are good estimates about what they 'might' be. Reasonable people can make the numbers work either way based upon the recognized ranges (of course McCain supporters will estimate that there are a small portion of cars out of tune, and lots of oil in the reserves, and Obama supporters vice versa).

What this researches posits is that, no, tuning cars will not give us the same amount of oils savings as drilling, but it is still a substantial amount, and it benefits the country RIGHT NOW, not 20 years from now.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

Uncle Bill said:


> What is your point? If you're after a piece of me, just have the balls to say it. This BB has an excellant way to NOT get involved in that which you dislike...it's called an ignore list. Please place me on yours, and it will cause you less angst.
> 
> To paraphrase an old statement...it's one thing to be thought of as a mental midget, but another to open your mouth, or in this case, pecking on a keyboard, and remove all doubt.
> 
> UB


lol: [rolleyes]

somebody said something uncle billy didn't like.

i don't want a piece of you. that is one republican principle i have chosen to implement in my life. pretty freudian of you to talk about giving me a piece and my balls in the same statement.

my point is that you post up copy and pastes rather than talk about your own ideas and then sit back while people praise you for what a great thinker you are.

have whatever opinion you like. i just found it interesting and somewhat annoying at the same time. 

mental "little person" regards
________
Coach Handbags


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

backpasture said:


> Nobody knows what these number really are, but there are good estimates about what they 'might' be. Reasonable people can make the numbers work either way based upon the recognized ranges (of course McCain supporters will estimate that there are a small portion of cars out of tune, and lots of oil in the reserves, and Obama supporters vice versa).
> 
> What this researches posits is that, no, tuning cars will not give us the same amount of oils savings as drilling, but it is still a substantial amount, and it benefits the country RIGHT NOW, not 20 years from now.


This mentality kills me. 

The fact is that there are people out there with very little money who have to drive. When I was laid off I had to pick and choose where I spent my money. Guess what? I didn't properly service my car for over a year because eating was a little more important at the time. 

What's happens when the politicians realize that those who can afford to service their vehicles already are? Oil change and lube vouchers for those who can't afford to properly take care of their cars? 

A huge part of the oil price is speculation based on the fear that we won't be able to be energy independent anytime soon. Start drilling and that fear goes way down. That alone will drop prices.


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

BP.... sorry it took so long for me to respond to you. I had to rub a few of my Conservative Braincells together... I try not to use too many when I talk to Liberals so I don't outgun them too much (just injecting a little humor)... My Comments Below In Red:

I get tired of the old "If you are a hunter you have to be a Republican" line of thinking. I hope this is just hyperbole on your part, and that you don't ACTUALLY believe that Democrats want to 1) take away your guns 2) make you fix all your pets 3) eliminate the free market, etc. etc. Because those things are flat out not true. 1. Every socailist society in the world, that's the left by the way, has anti-gun laws. In fact, Stalin, when he came to power, the first thing he did was take away people's guns. Barak Obama, in fact authored only one bill in the Illonois State Legislature, and it was a bill that should ban every semi-automatic weapon in the state (that's shotguns too!). I'd call that a gun grab. Just a little quote for you, "If you want a gun, you should join the army, otherwise it is unecessary." ~Adolf Hitler. 2) Sorry, wrong on that count too. The Humane Society is not a republican invention. Unless I'm losing my mind, Bob Barker definitely wassn't a conservative. Not to mention the fact that it is groups like PETA that want to end 'puppy mills' by neutering all pets. Environmental Defense that want to block hunting and fishing areas in Alaska. I'd bet a lot of $$ that PETA doesn't vote for McCain. 3) Of course they are, please don't insult my intelligence. Price controls are a derivitive of Keynes Economic theory, based on a Central Planning commission. That, in short, is Communism. We currently have a fuel supply problem, lots of people want gas, we're not producing enough globally, ergo, prices go up, pretty simple, right? Do the democrats want to affect the price by allowing more supply and therefore have more people with product to sell, apropo they can't sell it for as much? No, they want to attack the 'speculators,' the people who buy and sell the gas, that's a price control, not free markets, again, Communism/Socialism/Central Planning.

And, the reality is that climate change is real and there IS consensus on this. This is a complete croc. First, prove it. Second, of course climate changes. Do we have the same climate that we had when the dinosaurs roamed the earth? Of course not. A little history, why is Greenland called Greenland? Because it was GREEN when Erikson found it. No SUV's then friend. Do you know why we have beer? Because at some point it got too cold in northern Europe to grow wine grapes. And finally, one more for the old logic test, we had ice ages right? How did we get out of that if not for 'global warming?' No coal power plants then either. This is the insanity of all of this, you can't even say 'global warming' now because we haven't warmed for the last decade, so now the argument becomes, 'global climate change.' Don't you think at least for a few minutes that something is wrong when the 'concensus' can't keep the same name for the disaster that is befalling us? Finally, please check out www.junkscience.com and if you can prove it to climate SCIENTIST Stephen Milloy, go ahead and win the 500K he's wagered that you can't. They aren't the vast majority, just look up the Canadian News Service, an independent media source in Canada, you'll find several articles that shows the 'global climate change scientists' are not the majority, just the most vocal. (As crackpot as that original post about kidney stones sounds, keep in mind that it was presented by the American Urology Assocation - not exactly an 'environmental whacko' organization.) No, not necessarily a crackpot organization, but one who's beget matters. Do organizations get more or less government money by toeing the government line or the 'popular' line?

The reality is that hunters and fishermen are the original environmentalists. I agree with you on this, but the 'environmentalist movement' has been taken over by the leftists. Don't believe me? Just look up the founders of Greenpeace. On of its founders wants to shut Greenpeace down because he now sees that it has become an organization for global socialism, not environmental protection. Organizations like DU, WTF, PF, TU, etc, etc have done more to protect the environment than non-sportsmen sponsored organizations. And with good reason -- climate change will effect the people that really enjoy the outdoors first. Prove that climate is changing. Oh, yes, one last 'climate change' question for you. What, exactly, is the earth's perfect temperature? What's the perfect temperature for Kansas City, on July 22, at noon? Don't know? Of course we don't know. Let's use your logic, if the world is very old, which I would assume that you think. How much of the Earth's history in temperature, do we have? Accurate readings, mind you? Very very very little right? Maybe a couple of decades? So you're telling me, that we should take the data of a couple of decades and assume the global climate of a planet that is millions of years old? Sampling data might just be a bit small, don't you think?


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Being from Kansas (I'm NOT from Kansas, I'm a Minnesotan) you should understand the impact that humans can have on the environment. Depletion of the Ogallalla aquifer can definitly be tied to humans (irrigation). When I was a kid, growing up in western Kansas, we had phenomenal duck hunting. However, as the water table dropped, many of the potholes dried up. The ponds that I used to go to with my father are now gone, and the ducks don't come through the area in anywhere near the numbers they used to. It is easy to see how humans can alter their environment on a massive scale first hand in the high plains. Changes in farming practices (move to sprinkler iirigation, etc) have caused the depletion to slow, but the aquifer continues to shrink. This is not theory, it is fact. So, why is it so hard to accept that humans can also affect climate at large? For two simple reasons, number one: human effect on local areas can have obvious impacts, as you note, but human impact on global thermoclines is in serious question. Number two: the percentage of the world that humans effect is actually very limited. Back to number one, local impact is very different than global impact. In logic we would call that the fallacy of hasty generalizations, because you've seen rapid changes in one spot does not mean that the same is true on a global scale. Also, you make the mistake of the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, that because the climate has warmed, we caused it. Therefore you are saying because someone assumed that because B comes after A, therefore A caused B. That is not always the case. What if it was exactly the opposite? In history did humanity make great advances or retreat when the temperatures were warm? The answer is that we made great advances in warmer generations than in colder ones, so B caused A. 

What, then, is the largest contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere? I doubt you'll believe me as it violates your religious beliefs, but the answer is volcanoes. What percentage of global carbon emissions comes from humans? At this point you should hum the Jeopardy theme. The answer is 3%. Finally, what comes first, carbon level increases in the atmosphere, or temperature levels increasing? ........... Temperatures first, then CO2 levels. www.junkscience.com Why? Because when temperatures go up, water evaporation occurs more rapidly and it is water vapor in the atmosphere that has a much large affect on global temperatures than global carbon.
The reality is that hunters and fishermen should be out front on the issue of climate change, in the same way we have been out front on habitat conservation. We should be supporting initatives to help the environment. After all, there is a long history for doing so, and it is in our best interests. Actually, sportsmen should be out pushing for more private property rights. So, do you hunt in parks or do you hunt on someone's private property? Odds are that you're probably hunting on private property. Environmentalists restrictions on private property are much more likely to produce the 'shotgun, shovel, shut up' reaction than letting people do what they'd like with their property. Besides, most environmental 'initiatives' initiate only economic hardships, how does that help a recreational sportsman? Cheaper to hunt lately? No, if I remember right, most states are raising prices on permits. Cheaper to fish lately? No, not if you're using a boat with an engine. So how have the environmentalists helped hunters? PETA making it easier for you to hunt? Environmental Defense making it easier for you to get a couple of ducks?

I have plenty of friends who are both Democrats and hunters. I also have plenty of friends who are Republicans and anti-hunting. Believe it or not, most people don't just 'toe the party line'. If you just agree with every item in either party's platform, then you aren't thinking for yourself. I agree with you on this point. It is possible to be a pro-life Republican, a hunting Democrat, a gay Republican, an limited government Democrat, etc, etc. It's even possible to be neither a Republican nor a Democrat (like me)! That's fine too.

Personally, when confronted with a left-leaning anti-hunter, I like to point out to them that the food that I shoot/catch is free range, organic, and locally grown. It is suprisingly effective, and, although I haven't turned any of them into hunters, I have at least convinved many of them that hunting isn't a bad thing at all. That's also fine, and I like the way you put that to them, although you're using a gun and if they, the left-leaning-anti-hunter, gets their way, we'll be like Great Britain and Australia and you won't have a gun to hunt with. The simple fact of the matter is that, though generalizations are of course not universally correct, they provide a framework for a worldview and always come with some portion of the truth. I can't say what kind of a person you are, I don't know you, but I can make the generalization that you have been sucked in by the 'global climate change' hoax and you won't bother to do a little research to figure out whether or not you're being taken for a ride and the whole economy with you. You also don't know your environmentalist groups very well, or you'd also realize that the vast majority of them are simply vehicles for socialism/communism. Global Climate Change is not about the planet's temperature, we can't even measure it acurrately (www.junkscience.com), we don't have a model that actually works because it only predicts the future and the weatherman can't even get that right. Ever notice they don't really give a whole lot of forecast anymore? They've realized they don't get that right with good frequency, instead most weather news is 'what happened' and 'what's happening now?' Why would that be? If we have models that can predict the end of the world through sun burn two hundred years into the future, why can't the weatherman accurately tell us what's happening next week?

Either way, good luck to you and your worldview. Whether or not you're a Republican, or a Democrat, you are complict in advancing global socialism and the end of the recreational sportsman as well.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Just to get back to the main point I was trying to make...

We can't and shouldn't all try to fit into neat little boxes. I don't have to be a Republican just because I am a hunter.

From what I read here from the conservative idealogues (spoon fed their talking points by Rush, Ann Coulter, and Savage) the assumption is:
- Liberals are lazy POS's who just want the government to take care of them at the expense of hard working Americans.
- If it comes out of a liberal's mouth, it is probably a lie. 
- There is a grand conspiracy, run by Soros, Al Gore, Warren Buffet, etc, etc that is designed to bleed us all of our money so they can have it. 
- Global warming is nothing more than a hoax perpetrated by those people.
- Liberals want to take your guns away, force you to fix your dogs (or take them away from you entirely).

Of course the liberal idealogues are saying that:
- Conservatives are heartless bastards who cheat the system to grab all the money (as in "we will take those profits, but if our company takes a loss I want the government to bail us out")
- There is a vast right wing conspiracy that is headed by the oil companies, halliburton and kbr which is bleeding the country dry.
- Conservatives who claim they want government out of peoples lives are always the first to want to get government into people's lives if it meets their agenda.
- Republicans always claim that government doesn't work, then when they get elected they prove it.

My position is that the idealogues on either side gravitate to the 'news sources' that tell them what they want to hear, and cherry pick the data they want to use to support their points. However, the vast majority of people in this country take a more nuanced view (and so they might be pro-gun liberals, pro-choice conservatice, or just plain old 'moderates'), and can find things they agree with and disagree with on both sides. Sometimes it is difficult to remember that, because the idealogues are all screaming at the tops of their lungs about how the other side is tearing apart this country. If you are one of those people who is screaming at the tops of your lungs about the other side, then you aren't thinking for yourself, you are just parroting what the demagogues have said.

And, in terms of the various conspiracy theories, I find it laughable that someone can think that either our government or either party is competent enough to pull off any grand conspiracies.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

legacy6-those weren't my arguments. who are you paraphrasing? backpasture?
________
EXTREME Q VAPORIZER


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

precisionlabradors said:


> legacy6-those weren't my arguments. who are you paraphrasing? backpasture?


Yes, I messed up... It happens to the best of us, and I'm certainly no where near the cream most days... Sorry! I hope you can appreciate the effort I took to repond to "you" anyway!! HA HA!!

backpasture has some work to do... maybe some reading, maybe some watching of other news sources... I watch FOX, and listen to Sirius Patriot, but I also watch CNN, MSNBC (even though they are the WORST news people ever), and even switch to Sirius Left news sometimes... There's LOTS of perspective out there. None of it's complete.

...but rhetoric isn't fact.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

1. Every socailist society in the world, that's the left by the way, has anti-gun laws. 

Yes, and so does most every non-socialist country. The US has some of the most liberal gun laws in the world. And we can thank the founding fathers for that! And, I agree that liberals are the ones most likely to be in favor of anti-gun laws. My point, however, is that you can be a liberal AND be pro-gun, just as you can be a conservative and pro-choice. I don't HAVE to be a Republican just because I am pro gun, because there are many other things that I don't like about the Republican party, and they outweigh the things I do like. I have some views that are VERY liberal, and others that are VERY conservative, which is why I am fiercely independent. I wanted to point that out because your original post was you wondering how precisionlabs could be a hunter and not a repub. I guess that precisionlabs, like myself, has complicated views. I'm just a complicated guy, which is why the ladies love me;-)



2) Sorry, wrong on that count too. The Humane Society is not a republican invention. Unless I'm losing my mind, Bob Barker definitely wassn't a conservative. Not to mention the fact that it is groups like PETA that want to end 'puppy mills' by neutering all pets. Environmental Defense that want to block hunting and fishing areas in Alaska. I'd bet a lot of $$ that PETA doesn't vote for McCain. 


Not all liberals or democrats belong to PETA or the Humane Society, just as not all republicans or conservatives belong to the KKK. Yes, PETA is a far left organization (and their agenda goes way beyond spay/neuter - but that's another subject, and I am sure that everyone here agrees that PETA sucks). It is disingenous to take the most extreme wing of any ideology and claim it represents that end of the political spectrum, but it is a common practice of idealogues.


3) Of course they are, please don't insult my intelligence. Price controls are a derivitive of Keynes Economic theory, based on a Central Planning commission. That, in short, is Communism. We currently have a fuel supply problem, lots of people want gas, we're not producing enough globally, ergo, prices go up, pretty simple, right? Do the democrats want to affect the price by allowing more supply and therefore have more people with product to sell, apropo they can't sell it for as much? No, they want to attack the 'speculators,' the people who buy and sell the gas, that's a price control, not free markets, again, Communism/Socialism/Central Planning.


We have never had a true free market economy. There have ALWAYS been checks and balances in place (central banking, anti-trust laws, tariffs and import taxes, etc, etc). It is a matter of degree. The reality is that there is very little difference between Dems and Repubs when it comes to economic polices, because both parties kowtow to corporate America since that is where they get their money.

A little history, why is Greenland called Greenland? Because it was GREEN when Erikson found it. 

You must have skipped history class that day. Greenland has never been green. It was named Greenland in order to fool people into thinking it was green so people would move there. In fact, the Vikings tried to live there as if it was the same as their native climate (farming, livestock, etc). It didn't work, and they left because it was an arctic environment. Meanwhile the native Inuits, who had an arctic subsistence (hunting whales, seals, etc) continued to thrive there.

I know the 'Greenland used to be green' meme is one of the talking points. But, it's not true. 

To summarize my beliefs:

Do I believe climate change is real? 
Yes.
Do I believe human's are affecting it? 
Yes.
Do I think thing there is overwhelming evidence at to this? 
Well, I'm not a scientist, but I believe that if the vast majority of the scientific community believes it, then it is probably the case. And, 400 skeptical scientists constitute a small minorty, not the majority.
Do I think I will change the opinion of those who don't believe what I do? 
Probably not.
Can climage change be proven beyond any doubt? 
No. Neither can evolution, but I believe in that, too. 

But again, my point wasn't to try to defend the majority of population that agrees with me (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/mar07/CCGA+_ClimateChange_quaire.pdf), it was to counter the notion that "If you hunt you have to be a Republican". My point was that most people have more nuanced views of the world than that.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

What, then, is the largest contributor of CO2 in the atmosphere? I doubt you'll believe me as it violates your religious beliefs, but the answer is volcanoes. What percentage of global carbon emissions comes from humans? At this point you should hum the Jeopardy theme. The answer is 3%. Finally, what comes first, carbon level increases in the atmosphere, or temperature levels increasing? ........... Temperatures first, then CO2 levels. www.junkscience.com Why? Because when temperatures go up, water evaporation occurs more rapidly and it is water vapor in the atmosphere that has a much large affect on global temperatures than global carbon.

The false volcano meme has also been widely refuted:
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/

And, yes, I believe that water vapor is a contributing factor. The warmer it gets, the more vapor there is, which in turn makes it even warmer. Water vapor appears to help accelerate the problem. That doesn't make it the cause in and of itself.




Cheaper to hunt lately? No, if I remember right, most states are raising prices on permits. Cheaper to fish lately? No, not if you're using a boat with an engine. So how have the environmentalists helped hunters? PETA making it easier for you to hunt? Environmental Defense making it easier for you to get a couple of ducks?

The reason that the prices are going up is that the number of licenses sold is declining, as fewer and fewer people hunt. And, this gets back to the heart of my original post:

One of the things that bothers me is the 'You have to be a conservative if you hunt, and if not you can go to hell' attitude I see to often. We should be trying to recruit new people to the sport rather than demonizing (and thereby alienating) everyone who disagrees with our own point of view. My hope is that we can actually bring some of those tree huggers into the sport, by making them aware of:
- The great work that hunters have done to protect the environment.
- The fact that when you harvest your own food you are engaged in a sustainable practice.
The best way to eliminate your enemy is to make him your friend.



That's also fine, and I like the way you put that to them, although you're using a gun and if they, the left-leaning-anti-hunter, gets their way, we'll be like Great Britain and Australia and you won't have a gun to hunt with. The simple fact of the matter is that, though generalizations are of course not universally correct, they provide a framework for a worldview and always come with some portion of the truth. I can't say what kind of a person you are, I don't know you, but I can make the generalization that you have been sucked in by the 'global climate change' hoax and you won't bother to do a little research to figure out whether or not you're being taken for a ride and the whole economy with you. You also don't know your environmentalist groups very well, or you'd also realize that the vast majority of them are simply vehicles for socialism/communism. Global Climate Change is not about the planet's temperature, we can't even measure it acurrately (www.junkscience.com), we don't have a model that actually works because it only predicts the future and the weatherman can't even get that right. Ever notice they don't really give a whole lot of forecast anymore? They've realized they don't get that right with good frequency, instead most weather news is 'what happened' and 'what's happening now?' Why would that be? If we have models that can predict the end of the world through sun burn two hundred years into the future, why can't the weatherman accurately tell us what's happening next week?

Either way, good luck to you and your worldview. Whether or not you're a Republican, or a Democrat, you are complict in advancing global socialism and the end of the recreational sportsman as well.

Specious arguments. Weather != Climate. And, no one has claimed to have 'a model' that accurately predicts the future of the climate, only a range of models, which are all admittedly 'theories'. Absolutism doesn't exist in all corners.

The reality is that those who think that climate change is 'a hoax' (and I still can't figure out who benefits from the hoax, unless I buy into the theories about he vast left wing conspiracy) are in the minority. You can continue to be a skeptic (and thank god we live in a county where we are allowd to hold contrarian views), but the train has already left the station whether you are on board or not.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Page said:


> This mentality kills me.
> 
> The fact is that there are people out there with very little money who have to drive. When I was laid off I had to pick and choose where I spent my money. Guess what? I didn't properly service my car for over a year because eating was a little more important at the time.
> 
> ...


Not sure why it kills you...

Keeping your tires inflated and your car tuned has bipartisan support, and it makes a difference. Is it 1%, 1/2%, 3%? I don't know, and neither do you. Too poor to get your car tuned? OK, just keep your tires inflated. Air is free at a lot of gas stations, and might cost as much as $1 at others. 

You ask "What's happens when the politicians realize that those who can afford to service their vehicles already are? Oil change and lube vouchers for those who can't afford to properly take care of their cars?"

Standard idealogue hyperbole. No one said anything about vouchers, but keeping your tires filled is a good idea, so it's hard to get riled up about it. "But, vouchers?! Now that's just crazy, what will those liberals want next?" Your fantasy about what this 'might lead to' is just that - a fantasy.

I agree with John McCain on this issue: "Lets do it!". 

The message has been ridiculed not because it is a bad idea, but because you don't like who delivered it.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

backpasture;317424
The message has been ridiculed not because it is a bad idea said:


> You finally spewed something I can agree with...only because we know the yahoo that brought it up doesn't give a FRA about what it might do for gas savings, but what it might do for his political life.
> 
> You are so misinformed about what this empty suit stands for. Can't you realize he isn't anything more than a front for a socialistic movement in this country. I almost hope he does win, so my basic view of folks like you will be realized. You won't get what you want, but you will get what you deserve.
> 
> UB


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Uncle Bill said:


> You finally spewed something I can agree with...only because we know the yahoo that brought it up doesn't give a FRA about what it might do for gas savings, but what it might do for his political life.
> 
> You are so misinformed about what this empty suit stands for. Can't you realize he isn't anything more than a front for a socialistic movement in this country. I almost hope he does win, so my basic view of folks like you will be realized. You won't get what you want, but you will get what you deserve.
> 
> UB



UB finally gets to the argument of last resort -- 'You are so misinformed'. It's a good one, I admit, because it requires me to detail everyplace I receive information from in order to refute it.

Is this where I use the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument?

UB, I hope we never get into a discussion about something REALLY important, like which is better - chessie or lab. That could get ugly. ;-)

Believe it or not, reasonable people can receive the same information and reach different conclusions. Of course, if your conclusions are always the ones that the idealogues tell you to reach, they are probably going to be different than mine.

I really enjoy the spirited discussions with some of the folks here (Page, Legacy 6, Greg E, etc). They lay down their thoughts, give background as to why the feel that way, and make me understand how a reasonable person can come to their position, regardless of whether I agree or not. We can even agree on some points occasionally! I would be happy to share a duck blind with any of those folks.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

backpasture said:


> UB finally gets to the argument of last resort -- 'You are so misinformed'. It's a good one, I admit, because it requires me to detail everyplace I receive information from in order to refute it.
> 
> Is this where I use the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument?
> 
> ...


very classy response to obvious disdain for something different by the prior post.
________
DODGE HORNET HISTORY


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

backpasture said:


> I would be happy to share a duck blind with any of those folks.


Thats what we should be talking about. Only a few more months. And likewise on sharing the duck blind


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Greg E said:


> Thats what we should be talking about. Only a few more months. And likewise on sharing the duck blind


24 DAYS TILL THE EARLY GOOSE SEASON 10 A DAY IN VA 

Black cloud bought by the case, blind has been put in place, guns come out evey night for a good petting!!!

Man I am getting pumped 

gotta go pull out the goose call and get'er toned up 

Smitty


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

backpasture said:


> Not sure why it kills you...
> 
> Keeping your tires inflated and your car tuned has bipartisan support, and it makes a difference. Is it 1%, 1/2%, 3%? I don't know, and neither do you. Too poor to get your car tuned? OK, just keep your tires inflated. Air is free at a lot of gas stations, and might cost as much as $1 at others.
> 
> ...


I never said it wasn't a good idea, and I never said I disagreed because of the person who delivered it, and I certainly wouldn't put more stock into it because McCain said it. 

It kills me because inflating tires to solve the gas crisis is about as effective as putting a bandaid on a severed artery. 

Eating apples is a wonderful and healthy thing to do. I would suggest everyone eat apples especially if you have cancer and your system needs a boost. It may boost your system by 1%, 2%, or 3%.

...but when someone asks me how you should treat cancer I don't tell them to eat an apple. It's about as stupid as telling Americans to inflate their tires to combat rising gas prices.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

I thought we were changing this to a share your duck blind thread enough of this mombojombo bull about the two crazies we have runnin for the white house. I will not be sharing my blind with either of them.


Smitty

I show you mine if you show me yours in No VA (duck blind that is)


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Page said:


> It kills me because inflating tires to solve the gas crisis is about as effective as putting a bandaid on a severed artery.


Nobody claimed it would solve the gas crisis, only that it was one of the many small steps that will help. The fallacy you are repeating (that 'inflating your tires' is the cornerstone of Obama's energy policy) originated with Rush, Hannity, etc... 

Resident goose season starts in less than a month. We will be chasing grouse through the woods 3 weeks after that. And then the woodcock arrive, and all is right in the world.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Smitty, I'm actually going to Va in a couple of months. I bought a chessie pup from Julie R. I may have to looke you up


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

well it is early August and there is snow on the mountains and we had snow on the mountains the second week of July, Today is August 6 and our high temp is not going to be above 50 degrees..... I don't think I believe too much in global warming...

not that I ever believed in it in the first place.....
At the rate our summer has gone (or maybe it is gone), you guys can plan on an early duck season in the Pacific Flyway!

Page...excellent posts...thanks for sharing!

Juli


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

For those who remain skeptics (which is apparently everyone on this list but me ;-)), here is a site where you can learn what some crazy left wing organizations are saying about climate change and its effect on hunting and fishing:

http://www.seasonsend.org

Oh ya, those organizations that collaborated on this project (and buy into the global climate change 'hoax' include):

American Sportfishing Association
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
BASS/ESPN
Coastal Conservation Association
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
Isaac Walton League of America
Pheasants Forever
Trout Unlimited 
Wildlife Management Institute
Delta Waterfowl 

This website is a product of the Bipartisan Policy Center, which is presided over by a board consisting of left wing nutjobs like former Republican Senators Howard Baker and Bob Dole.


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Good posts backpasture, there's more of us here than you may suspect.
Keep it up.

JD


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Nobody claimed it would solve the gas crisis, only that it was one of the many small steps that will help. The fallacy you are repeating (that 'inflating your tires' is the cornerstone of Obama's energy policy) originated with Rush, Hannity, etc...


I hope the rest of your sourcing is better than this. 

“...we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,” Barack Obama - Associated Press

I realize how common it is to over simplify things public figures say in order to make them look bad. All sides do it. But Obama said these words and later offered a softened version.

Actually, Paris Hilton's energy independence plan makes more sense than that of either candidate so far.

Evan


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> I hope the rest of your sourcing is better than this.
> 
> “...we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,” Barack Obama - Associated Press
> 
> ...


What Page said (I'm paraphrasing):
Obama said that inflating tires will solve the gas crisis.

What I said:
Obama never said it would solve the gas crisis, only that it is a step.

What you said:
Obama said we would get as much benefit from keeping our tires inflated as we would get from offshore drilling.

These things are not the same. The flaw in your logic is that offshore drilling does not equal 'solving the gas crisis'. 

Obama made, what I agree, is a specious argument -- that the amount of oil we would save from keeping our cars tuned equals the amount we would get from offshore drilling. (You can make it work if you use the right assumptions about how many cars are out of tune and how much oil is available offshore, but it is a stretch IMHO.) Of course, reasonable people can reach different conclusion. Time Magazine, among others, says Obama's numbers are legit: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html. (Cue the screams about the 'liberal media'.)

But he did NOT say this was the answer to the energy crisis.

As for Paris Hilton, she's been open for drilling for years!


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> For those who remain skeptics (which is apparently everyone on this list but me ;-)), here is a site where you can learn what some crazy left wing organizations are saying about climate change and its effect on hunting and fishing:
> 
> http://www.seasonsend.org
> 
> Oh ya, those organizations that collaborated on this project (and buy into the global climate change 'hoax' include):


Do you think maybe those organizations are not necessarily believing in Global Warming but more believing in trying to grab some of the Billions in tax dollars pi$$ed away on this farce? If DU or DW can funnel some of the cash to their cause and away from AlGore, more power to them.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

backpasture said:


> *What you said*:
> Obama said we would get as much benefit from keeping our tires inflated as we would get from offshore drilling.
> 
> These things are not the same. The flaw in your logic is that offshore drilling does not equal 'solving the gas crisis'.


I didn't say it. Obama did, per my source, the Associated Press. I didn't construe it as a policy, but if you're signing on to what Obama is campaigning on, you must sign on to two fatally flawed premises. Those are:

Our nation can

Tax its way into prosperity
Conserve its way into energy independence
Neither is possible. It's never happened. It never will happen. But I agree about Paris H. at least! 

Evan


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I hope you all air up yours tires cause I will be flying my jet up to pick up Al Gore then off to the Hampton's to meet Ted Kennedy for lunch out on his yacht. On the way with the 15 car and suburban security detail we will stop at Quiktrip and air up the tires so we can do our part. Dont worry about the 1500 gallons of jet fuel or the 4000 gallons of diesel in the yacht. I think Paris is flying over in her helo and is bringing Sheryl Crow (who BTW still smells like a baby that crapped it diaper, I guess she is still on the 1 sheet of TP kick) then talk about raising taxes or even better seizing money from evil big oil. I dont know jack squat about the economy, science or engineering but hey who cares I have so much money it doesnt make any difference to me. Sorry to cut this short but Juan the gardener who I pay cash is saying something about having to leave, ICE and rose bushes.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> Do you think maybe those organizations are not necessarily believing in Global Warming but more believing in trying to grab some of the Billions in tax dollars pi$$ed away on this farce?


No, I don't. I am PROUD to belong to both DU and TU , and I am pretty sure that neither of them receives a penny from the government. Correct me if I am wrong about that. I'm not sure about all the others on the list. 

But, let's assume they DO, and follow your logic -- DU is trying to grab money to line the pockets of....who? The ducks themselves? DU is a non-profit organization, and a model one at that. The vast majority of the money they collect goes to wetland restoration, etc (rather than adminstrative overhead, ie - salaries for fatcat executives). It is an insult to the integrity of these organizations to suggest that they are making false claims so they can 'grab money'. 

I am guessing there are some DU officers on this board (and probably active members of some of the other organizations). Hopefully they can confirm that DU isn't part of the 'global climate change cabal' that you think exists.


----------



## Goose (Oct 7, 2003)

I think my new favorite player in this global warming hoax is Comrade Speaker Pelosi who won't even allow the House a simple up or down vote on drilling. How's that for democracy. Joseph Stalin would be proud of her. I can't believe she gets away with this.

The dirty little secret with politicians like Pelosi and Reid and Obama is they really do want gas to reach $10 a gallon. And they're hoping we're too stupid to understand this before the presidential elections when they hope to retake the White House and dominate the House and Senate. Then you can forget about drilling. 

And McCain stumbles along without realizing he could hit a home run with this issue if he pressed it and focused his entire campaign around it. Thinking Americans see through Obama's stupid 'inflate your tires' comment. The rest are taking double shots of his kool-aid. Goober Obama...our new gas station attendant. Or 'air' station attendant.


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

Goose said:


> I think my new favorite player in this global warming hoax is Comrade Speaker Pelosi who won't even allow the House a simple up or down vote on drilling. How's that for democracy. Joseph Stalin would be proud of her. I can't believe she gets away with this.
> 
> The dirty little secret with politicians like Pelosi and Reid and Obama is they really do want gas to reach $10 a gallon. And they're hoping we're too stupid to understand this before the presidential elections when they hope to retake the White House and dominate the House and Senate. Then you can forget about drilling.
> 
> And McCain stumbles along without realizing he could hit a home run with this issue if he pressed it and focused his entire campaign around it. Thinking Americans see through Obama's stupid 'inflate your tires' comment. The rest are taking double shots of his kool-aid. Goober Obama...our new gas station attendant. Or 'air' station attendant.


is this speculation or something else? if it is something else, please cite your source.

if what you say is, indeed, true, who would want the idiot mccain that can't even realize how to run a methodical and productive campaign to run this country? i've never done either, but i imagine running a country is more difficult than running an effective campaign.

or, maybe what you said is your exaggerated speculation and would leave mccain looking like more of an idiot if he tried to center his campaign around it.

i don't have the answer; just speculating.
________
Depakote Class Action Lawsuit


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

If you think things are rough with Comrade Pelosi as speaker, just wait. Should the dumocrats win the White House in November, it will get far worse. The tax changes that he proposes will get us out of the recession and into a *DEPRESSION*. I don't know who will be happier, John Maynard Keynes or Karl Marx. Just the $.50 per gallon gas tax hike that Rep Dingell(or is that Ding a ling)proposed is bad enough. Then we can all kiss our guns goodbye, along with those big pick-ups we use to get us to our favorite duck blind or deer stand. The environmental wackos and the anti gun nuts will have a field day. Did I mention SCOTUS? You can bet your hip boots that no more Alitos or Roberts will be appointed to the Supreme Court. SCOTUS after some changes by the dums will make the US IX Circuit look like a group of strict constructionists.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> You can bet your hip boots that no more Alitos or Roberts will be appointed to the Supreme Court.


Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> if you're signing on to what Obama is campaigning on, you must sign on to two fatally flawed premises. Those are:
> 
> Our nation can
> 
> ...


Well, that's not actually his position on either of those issues. I suspect you knew that already, but it's easier to repeat the GOP talking points than to do your own homework. 

And to get back to your initial misrepresentation of my position:

1) Obama's position is that if everyone tuned their cars, that it would save more oil than we would get from offshore drilling. _The quote, which you included “...we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups,” Barack Obama - Associated Press_
2) Page implied that Obama's position is that inflating your tires would 'solve the gas crisis'. _Specifically: "It kills me because inflating tires to solve the gas crisis is about as effective as putting a bandaid on a severed artery"_
3) I stated that to 'save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling' is not the same as 'solving the gas crisis'.

The right wing idealogues made a leap from "save some oil" to "solve crisis", and are saying that 'Obama's entire energy plan is to inflate your tires'. That is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

Someone once wrote "I realize how common it is to over simplify things public figures say in order to make them look bad." Oh ya, that was you. 

I stand by my original statement.


----------



## Page (Jul 21, 2005)

Question for you: 
Does anyone here know what happened in the 80s when the oil companies were taxed in a windfall profits tax? 



> *Fiscal Fact No. 41*
> This week, the Senate will hold hearings on rising oil and fuel prices and the subsequent record earnings recently posted by U.S. oil companies. Some lawmakers have suggested that these profits are unseemly and, thus, should be subject to a new “windfall profits” tax.
> Before rushing to create a new federal tax, lawmakers should ask two questions:
> (1) Do oil companies currently pay too little in taxes compared to profits?
> ...


http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1168.html


> *The 1980 Windfall Profits Tax *
> during the 1980s the federal government experimented with a new tax intended to limit the “windfall profits” of domestic oil companies. In reaction to the rise of energy prices during the late 1970s and the removal of price controls on the energy industry, President Jimmy Carter signed the Crude Oil Windfall Profits Tax Act into effect on April 2, 1980.
> The tax was technically misnamed because it was in fact an excise tax, not a “profits” tax. The tax was imposed on the difference between the market price of oil and a government-determined base price. For example, a 70 percent tax was levied on the difference between the market price received by oil companies and the average base price of $12.81 per barrel. Independent producers, stripper wells and heavy oils were taxed at different rates.
> As shown in Figure 2, the windfall profits tax was forecasted to raise more than $320 billion between 1980 and 1989. However, according to the CRS, the government collected only $80 billion in gross tax revenue ($146 billion in 2004 dollars). The net amount was actually less than this—roughly $40 billion—because the tax was deductible against corporate income.
> ...


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> But, let's assume they DO, and follow your logic -- DU is trying to grab money to line the pockets of....who? The ducks themselves? DU is a non-profit organization, and a model one at that. The vast majority of the money they collect goes to wetland restoration, etc (rather than adminstrative overhead, ie - salaries for fatcat executives). It is an insult to the integrity of these organizations to suggest that they are making false claims so they can 'grab money'.
> 
> I am guessing there are some DU officers on this board (and probably active members of some of the other organizations). Hopefully they can confirm that DU isn't part of the 'global climate change cabal' that you think exists.


I am not insulting their integrity, just sayin' follow the money. If they are being smart and trying to get some of this BS money for the ducks, great, better than lining AlGore's pockets. Are there any experts on climate in those organizations? My guess is no, so they have about as much standing to comment on long term historical climate change as the AKC does on NASCAR rules.

If there are some of the Officers on here, I would be intriguided to hear there reasoning behinding supporting junk science. Preferrably before I send in my dues.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

One thing is for sure!! If the terriosts Obama is elected I for one will be getting out of the Corps!! I will not serve for him in His Jehad against America from within. In stead I will get out and draw what ever moeny it is they give to the non working breeders that they gave the right to vote to who voted them in. Instead of making us spay or nuder our dogs spay and nuder the Dumbocrats and all the welfare receviers. Then America will be the proud nation that we once were. A nation of hard working people who earn there keep, INSTEAD OF A NATION FULL OF CRY BABIES WHO WANT THE GOV TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES 

smitty


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> I am not insulting their integrity, just sayin' follow the money. If they are being smart and trying to get some of this BS money for the ducks, great, better than lining AlGore's pockets. Are there any experts on climate in those organizations? My guess is no, so they have about as much standing to comment on long term historical climate change as the AKC does on NASCAR rules.
> 
> If there are some of the Officers on here, I would be intriguided to hear there reasoning behinding supporting junk science. Preferrably before I send in my dues.



But you ARE insulting their integrity. You postulate that they are claiming to believe the science, when they don't. And, they are doing that for financial gain. That would obviously be extremely unethical, and a clear violation of the organization's Core Values (which you can see here: http://www.ducks.org/Aboutdu/default.aspx). Clearly such a scenario would show lack of integrity.

And, yes, DU employs a number of scientists in different disciplines, many of which relate to studies of the climate. You can find out more about some of them here: http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/ConservationExperts/1218/ConservationExpertsContacts.html They have obviously reviewed the data and agree with the conclusions.

I doubt you would really be 'intriguided to hear there reasoning behinding supporting junk science', because you know exactly what their reasoning is: As an orginzation they have reviewed the data, and they support the conclusions. It's real science, not junk. This approach is consistent with one of DU's core values -- 'Science-Based Decisions'. They use science to determine their position, not ideology. 

And, if you believe that you must be a scientist, or have scientists on staff to have 'standing to comment on long term historical climate change', then you have disqualified yourself from being able to comment as well.

As with climate change itself, when you look at the overwhelming evidence, and it doesn't fit your world view, you just discount it, or come up with a convoluted conspiracy theory so you can continue to believe what you want to believe.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> And, if you believe that you must be a scientist, or have scientists on staff to have 'standing to comment on long term historical climate change', then you have disqualified yourself from being able to comment as well.
> 
> As with climate change itself, when you look at the overwhelming evidence, and it doesn't fit your world view, you just discount it, or come up with a convoluted conspiracy theory so you can continue to believe what you want to believe.


No, I'm just a lowly Engineer that had to take all those science classes which never ONCE taught that a scientific principle was based on Consensus. Science by consensus is a farce, even moreso when the actual consensus is a fake and propogated by money grabbing "scientists" who live of gov't grants because they can't function in a real job.

By the way, the link to DU's supposed Climate Scientists that YOU put up, has exactly ZERO climate scientists on it. They are all waterfowl bioligist, marine bioligist, even a lawyer and an engineer. None of them even have any Climate studies in their bios. Actually the word "Climate" does not even appear on that page. So their opinions on the subject really have no merit outside of being their personal opinion.

A wildlife bioligist is not an expert on long term climate trends and their cause/effect. At least not anymore than an EE that works in the Aerospace industry.

Wholly Carp! DU is actually buying Carbon Credits from a link on your page. I know where my money won't be going.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> But you ARE insulting their integrity. You postulate that they are claiming to believe the science, when they don't. And, they are doing that for financial gain. That would obviously be extremely unethical, and a clear violation of the organization's Core Values (which you can see here: http://www.ducks.org/Aboutdu/default.aspx). Clearly such a scenario would show lack of integrity.


I for one won't lose sleep over what he wrote as environmentalists seem to have zero qualms about attacking the integrity of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming as shills of Big Oil or whomever. The fact is that there is a magnitude more money available to scientists who happen to believe in global warming than those who don't. While I won't contend that DU scientists are shills, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe DU's snout isn't suckling up to global warming money. They've even assigned a scientist to attend to the teat:



> She (Dawn Brown) works on the development of additional lines of new business for Ducks Unlimited related to future marketing opportunities of ecological goods and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality credit trading.


and



> She is also overseeing ongoing carbon sequestration research and business process development relating to the DOE Prairie Carbon Reduction Regional Partnership grant.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> No, I'm just a lowly Engineer that had to take all those science classes which never ONCE taught that a scientific principle was based on Consensus. Science by consensus is a farce, even moreso when the actual consensus is a fake and propogated by money grabbing "scientists" who live of gov't grants because they can't function in a real job.
> 
> By the way, the link to DU's supposed Climate Scientists that YOU put up, has exactly ZERO climate scientists on it. They are all waterfowl bioligist, marine bioligist, even a lawyer and an engineer. None of them even have any Climate studies in their bios. Actually the word "Climate" does not even appear on that page. So their opinions on the subject really have no merit outside of being their personal opinion.
> 
> A wildlife bioligist is not an expert on long term climate trends and their cause/effect. At least not anymore than an EE that works in the Aerospace industry.


'Climate science' is made up of many disciplines. You don't need a PhD in 'Climatology' to study climate patterns, particularly when those patterns touch upon your area of study. Wildlife biology, marine biology, etc are all touched by climate studies. And, your engineering degree still disqualifies you from being able to comment based upon your determination as to who is qualified or not. (No merit outside of being your personal opinion as you say.)

Furthermore, most Climatologists in the world DO accept human affected climate change as true. You discount them, though, because those are obviously the 'money grabbing "scientists" who live of gov't grants because they can't function in a real job'. And I know you can trot out a few who will support your view, all the while ignoring the fact that they are in the minority. 

You are correct that Consensus and Scientific Principle are not the same. I will restate what I said earlier - climate change is a theory, like evolution. I happen to agree with the majority of the members of the scientific community who believe that both are likely true.

The standard tactic here seems to be:
- Accept the data that supports your belief
- Reject data that does not
- Question the qualifications and/or motivations of anyone who disagrees with your conclusions.

Just because someone believes something different than you doesn't mean that they are naive or nefarious. It would be easy for me to claim that the 'skeptics' out there all have alterior motives ('Their just lining their pockets with oil money!', for example), but I don't. No one can credibly claim to know another's motivations, particularly when you know nothing about that person. It doesn't bolster my position at all to make such claims.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> I for one won't lose sleep over what he wrote as environmentalists seem to have zero qualms about attacking the integrity of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming as shills of Big Oil or whomever. The fact is that there is a magnitude more money available to scientists who happen to believe in global warming than those who don't. While I won't contend that DU scientists are shills, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe DU's snout isn't suckling up to global warming money. They've even assigned a scientist to attend to the teat:
> 
> 
> and



Right, the old 'everybody else is doing it' defense. When I learned about ethics in Sunday school, they taught us that they were absolute. Maybe I missed something. ;-)

And, I guess I just have more faith than both of you that DU staff and volunteers abide by the principles outlined in the organization's core values.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> And, I guess I just have more faith than both of you that DU staff and volunteers abide by the principles outlined in the organization's core values.


Oh, I don't doubt that they are true believers of the global warming orthodoxy. I only doubted your assertions that they had no financial stake in global warming or that they didn't accept govt. money.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> You are correct that Consensus and Scientific Principle are not the same. I will restate what I said earlier - climate change is a theory, like evolution. I happen to agree with the majority of the members of the scientific community who believe that both are likely true.
> 
> Right, the old 'everybody else is doing it' defense. When I learned about ethics in Sunday school, they taught us that they were absolute. Maybe I missed something. ;-)


So you paid attention in Sunday School on Absolute Ethics day but were absent on Creation day? The teachings of the Bible are absolute as well, can't pick and choose.

You're pretty masterful at trying to disguise your liberal left-wingism but you really shouldn't contradict yourself within a couple posts of each other.

If you think money doesn't influence scientists or non-profits you need to get out a little more.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

*IBD*,

It's become transparent that in this case we're dealing with another politically sleep walking, soul. Matt 7:6 is sounding wise about now.

Evan


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> So you paid attention in Sunday School on Absolute Ethics day but were absent on Creation day? The teachings of the Bible are absolute as well, can't pick and choose.
> 
> You're pretty masterful at trying to disguise your liberal left-wingism but you really shouldn't contradict yourself within a couple posts of each other.
> 
> If you think money doesn't influence scientists or non-profits you need to get out a little more.



I'm not going to jump into a debate about your interpretation of the Bible vs. mine. Obviously they differ. 

I'm also not trying to disguise anything. I think I have been clear that I have some pretty liberal views. I also have some pretty conservative views. I don't march lock step with either party. My original post in this thread was to argue that I'm not required to be a Republican or conservative just because I am a hunter and a gun rights advocate.

I've also been around the block a few times, and understand that money corrupts. I don't agree that it corrupts everything, though (or selectively corrupts the organizations that don't support my views). I think that DU is an honorable organization that adheres to its core values. I believe that their position on climate change is influenced by science, not money.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> *IBD*,
> 
> It's become transparent that in this case we're dealing with another politically sleep walking, soul. Matt 7:6 is sounding wise about now.
> 
> Evan


You are suggesting I have been brainwashed by the left wing cabal? The irony there is that you are the one who is regurgitating the party line. 

As far as Matt 7:6... I think it's interesting that, despite our differences, we are both drawn to the sermon on the mount. It is by far my favorite part of the Bible. 7:6 is one of the more obscure verses -- I had to look it up ("_Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. _"). 

The one that always comes to mind for me is 7:1 - "Judge not, that ye be not judged."


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

backpasture-

speaking of the sermon on the mount, can't you see how Christian it is to emplore the poor, hungry, sick, and lowly of heart to get off their lazy butts and provide for themselves? how dare you believe there are eternal truths that manifest themselves in every religion but not believe in God exactly the same as such wise men as Evan Graham and IBD? Damn you. Repent!!

After all, Jesus did teach that everybody should earn their own forgiveness, their own grace, their own resurrection, etc.

oh, and Obama is a Jehad (Jihad) because he supports an idea that could conserve fuel. what and idiot!!
________
Asatru (Norse Paganism) Forum


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

SMITTYSSGTUSMC said:


> One thing is for sure!! If the terriosts Obama is elected I for one will be getting out of the Corps!! I will not serve for him in His Jehad against America from within. In stead I will get out and draw what ever moeny it is they give to the non working breeders that they gave the right to vote to who voted them in. Instead of making us spay or nuder our dogs spay and nuder the Dumbocrats and all the welfare receviers. Then America will be the proud nation that we once were. A nation of hard working people who earn there keep, INSTEAD OF A NATION FULL OF CRY BABIES WHO WANT THE GOV TO SAVE THEM FROM THEMSELVES
> 
> smitty


so you're saying you haven't learned the true meaning of respecting authority figures in the marines?

you served under the jihadi george bush. how much more of a terrorist can obama be?
________
Dc Medical Marijuana


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

backpasture said:


> You are suggesting I have been brainwashed by the left wing cabal? The irony there is that you are the one who is regurgitating the party line.


Son, you could not pen a clearer confession of ignorance. Enjoy the Alan Colmes cool aid. The regurgitaion of leftist blather is all you've done in the presence of a simple presentation of facts, to which you've allowed yourself to become impermiable. 

This isn't a discussion.

Good luck...really,

Evan


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

:snipersmile:


precisionlabradors said:


> so you're saying you haven't learned the true meaning of respecting authority figures in the marines?
> 
> you served under the jihadi george bush. how much more of a terrorist can obama be?


There is nothing respectable nor dose he that we dont speak of have any authority to lead the free world or at least the US part of it. *Did he serve this country in Uniform* NO Dose he know what it takes to have to kill someone I am sure he dose as he sat in the pue of the Anti-American church for some 20 years and never said a word until someone else cought it!!!

My mother tought me you are judged on the company you keep for those that would try to disput this if you hang out with thugs your a thug. If you hang with jocks your a jock nerds with nerds and so on and so on.... 

So if:snipersmile: Obama hangs out with Anti Americans who vomit racist comits againts "the white man" then :snipersmile:Obama is an Anti American who hate whites


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> Son


Um, Dad? 



Evan said:


> , you could not pen a clearer confession of ignorance. Enjoy the Alan Colmes cool aid. The regurgitaion of leftist blather is all you've done in the presence of a simple presentation of facts, to which you've allowed yourself to become impermiable.
> 
> This isn't a discussion.
> 
> ...


Evan and UB must be from the same school of rhetoric. Start with some GOP talking points, add some non sequiturs, (maybe even throw in some scripture for good measure), then finally conclude that I'm 'ignorant'. I'm 'misinformed'. Obviously I haven't been reading enough, or watching enough TV, or listening to enough talk radio. Or I'm just getting my information from the wrong sources. 

And, of course, if I'm not a disciple of Hannity, I must be a disciple of Colmes! Because those are the choices, right? You're with us, or you're against us! Republican or Democrat. Choose your side and get in line. 

Good luck to you too, Evan.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Um, Dad?
> 
> 
> Evan and UB must be from the same school of *rhetoric*.


*Thought*. That's what's throwing you off. I don't represent my friend UB, or Hannity, or anyone else. But, because I corrected your misquote of the candidate with the "D" behind his name, your party line platitudes have flowed with accusations toward me, as if I must be reading from the home page of www.rushlimbaugh.com . 

Maybe that's your version of political scholarship, so you make the assumption that everyone does it that way. Or at least any with whom you don't agree.

I make decisions for myself, based on all the evidence I can gather. Some truths really are self evident.

Can you discern for yourself the aircraft of the two candidates? The choices each makes is intended to say something about them, and are not made casually. I don't know if clear evidence makes any impact on you or not.










Yes, I do like scripture. It guides my life beyond campaign speaches given by anyone, and surely beyond anyone's party line posturing. Joshua 24:15. It's a good read.

Evan


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> *Thought*. That's what's throwing you off.


Of course, my problem is that I'm actually thinking. 

And, I definitely disagree with you that the design of the campaign airplanes are 'self evident' of anything. You have obviously drawn some conclusions about something or another, apparently that Obama is a traitor because he doesn't have a flag on the tail of his plane (I am guessing?). Incidently, neither does McCain. Both have flags on the fuselage. I will give you that McCain's flag is larger. (Which is definitely a sign that he loves America more!)

If you want to read some more about the Obama plane meme, see the snopes entry:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/airplane.asp


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

SMITTYSSGTUSMC said:


> :snipersmile:
> 
> There is nothing respectable nor dose he that we dont speak of have any authority to lead the free world or at least the US part of it. *Did he serve this country in Uniform* NO Dose he know what it takes to have to kill someone I am sure he dose as he sat in the pue of the Anti-American church for some 20 years and never said a word until someone else cought it!!!
> 
> ...


so, by your logic, what does that make your current commander in chief? there are volumes of photos of the bush's and bin laden's. you salute that terrorist?
________
Ipad Guides


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

the repubs have to be pretty desperate when they focus on things like the paintjob of the D candidate or how his last name sounds Arab. 

McCain sucks. 

Evan-what's with the elitist attitude? you think you are so 'liberated' with your understanding of politics and self-evident truths? where does one find such self-evident truths? 

please give me 10 self evident truths.

your rigidness indicates blindness. unwillingness to think and question yourself or your paradigm. 

"i'm right. if you don't think like me , you're misinformed because i read." maybe that's why you bother some of the professional dog trainers wrong. you think you know it all.
________
CALIFORNIA MEDICAL MARIJUANA


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> No, I don't. I am PROUD to belong to both DU and TU , and I am pretty sure that neither of them receives a penny from the government. Correct me if I am wrong about that.


You are mostly wrong, but not entirely. Both organizations receive grant money from the government _for projects._ Not for the organization.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

precisionlabradors said:


> speaking of the sermon on the mount, can't you see how Christian it is to emplore[sic] the poor, hungry, sick, and lowly of heart to get off their lazy butts and provide for themselves?


That is a straw man.

Conservative Christians believe in helping the poor, hungry, and sick. We just don't think it is the government's job. It is ours.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> You are mostly wrong, but not entirely. Both organizations receive grant money from the government _for projects._ Not for the organization.


Thanks for the correction. 

PS - Nice avatar. I've been looking for the old patches with that saying on it for a while (seems I recall it was something DU might have put out around the same era as that stamp). I haven't seen one in years.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

precisionlabradors said:


> Evan-what's with the elitist attitude?


Read the thread. You are the one copping an attitude. There is no need to be rude.



> _where does one find such self-evident truths? please give me 10 self evident truths._


I would have thought someone who knows and understands the word "paradigm" would know this answer?

In reasoning there are three kinds of truths -- analytic a_priori, synthetic a_posteriori, and synthetic a_priori. All analytic a_priori truths are self evident. Math, logic, etc. They don't need to be tested in a laboratory to be known to be factual like synthetic a_posteriori truths.


----------



## Goose (Oct 7, 2003)

I'll bet there's some "global warming" in John Edward's house tonight!


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> That is a straw man.
> 
> Conservative Christians believe in helping the poor, hungry, and sick. We just don't think it is the government's job. It is ours.


well, you didn't do it well enough, nor has anybody else in history. many "christian nations" in south america don't take care of each other. so, people run to where they can get resources: the govt. they elect officials that put down legislation to do so because the conservative capitalist christians have never stepped up to the plate once in history and been able to take care of the poor, hungry, and sick on their own.

if you conservative christians did a better job, the govt wouldn't have to do it and this argument would be moot.
________
UNITARIAN-UNIVERSALISM FORUMS


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Evan said:


> I don't know if clear evidence makes any impact on you or not.


So "No", then.


precisionlabradors said:


> And, I definitely disagree with you that the design of the campaign airplanes are 'self evident' of anything.


Already saw it. Snopes confirms that Obama had a very large American flag removed from the tail section and replaced it with the emblem seen. Of course you continue to make up what I'm saying or meaning to say. So, I'll leave it to others to waste their time and information on you. Fact cleary has no effect on you. That's sad, but not uncommon among party line leftists.

Evan


----------



## precisionlabradors (Jun 14, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> Read the thread. You are the one copping an attitude. There is no need to be rude.
> 
> 
> I would have thought someone who knows and understands the word "paradigm" would know this answer?
> ...


this does nothing to help me understand where Evan draws his self-evident truths. i know where i get mine. it's my paradigm.

and i'm not copping anymore attitude than is Evan with backpasture. just stickin up for my homie.
________
Bestsquirt69


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

So, someone who plans to vote democratic can also be a hunter. How far fetched is that? 

People who don't believe in global warming also don't think that the earth is billions of years old and animals change through selection. Why bother with the pedigrees then?

Osama is all show, and no substance. I'm surprised he even shows up in photographs. He looks like paintings of demons done by Michagelo. Nostrodamus knew a thing or two back then.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> So "No", then.Already saw it. Snopes confirms that Obama had a very large American flag removed from the tail section and replaced it with the emblem seen.
> 
> Evan



OMG! That means he isn't a patriot! 

And McCain's plane is red YELLOW and blue instead of red white and blue. It's the color of the European Union flag! Soros must have his hooks into him, too.

My point is that the paint scheme of either candidates plane is a laughable non-issue. Just ridiculous stuff. When the vast majority of people read that snopes article about Obama's plane, they think "so what".

Just to clarify a couple of your misrepresentations about me and/or my positions:



Evan; said:


> I don't represent my friend UB, or Hannity, or anyone else.


I never suggested you did. I know that UB, for one, is capable of speaking for himself. I suggested you share a rhetorical style with UB, and that you parrot Hannity. I stand by those assertions. 



Evan; said:


> I corrected your misquote of the candidate with the "D" behind his name


A misquote would mean that I quoted that candidate, which I did not. You are the only one that quoted that candidate, and you continue to interpret that quote as meaning something other than what it says. I continue to stand by the fact that the quote in question ("...we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups") does not mean that Obama's solution to the energy crisis is to inflate your tires:



backpasture; said:


> The flaw in your logic is that offshore drilling does not equal 'solving the gas crisis'.


But, you persisted:



Evan; said:


> I didn't say it. Obama did, per my source, the Associated Press.


But he didn't. He never said or suggested that inflating tires would come anywhere close to solving the problem. That notion, however, is the Hannity/Rush line. You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it the truth.

Then, of course, your next course of argument is to change the subject to something not relevant to the discussion -- that you claim Obama's platform is to:


Evan; said:


> - Tax its way into prosperity
> - Conserve its way into energy independence


Or you change the subject to the paint scheme on their campaign planes(?!), and grasp even further by claiming that the paint on the planes is 'clear evidence' of.... well, I guess I'm still not sure what it is clear evidence of. Whatever it is it doesn't meet the bar of 'a priori' (thanks, AmiableLabs, for the Latin refresher!).

Now, we get


Evan; said:


> Fact cleary has no effect on you.


Pot, meet kettle. 

And, of course, the continued assertion that I'm a "party line leftists" because I don't share the same views as you. It is abundantly clear that anyone that doesn't fit into your worldview is a 'party line liberal', 'leftist', etc. (As well as 'ignorant', a 'politically sleep walking soul', etc, etc.) For some reason you can't wrap your head around the thought that someone can have views that aren't neatly 'liberal' or 'conservative'. 

By knowing only a small portion of my overall views (on global climate change, and tire inflation, primarily), you have reached the conclusion that I'm not one of 'your kind', so I must be one of 'them'. Oh, I've also clearly stated that I am pro-gun, pro-hunting, which clearly gets me kicked out of the 'liberal ideologue' camp. They have as much disdain for me as you do, because they are also ideologically 'pure'. 

It is this 'us' against 'them' attitude that I am railing against, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Backpasture, you can't be all that bad. At least you picked the right kind of dog. I am a cons. republican, but not real happy. I guess 4.00/gal gas, years and years of straight out lies, banks folding, homes being forclosed, a weak dollar, groceries too high for the average family, etc could make anyone want change. I just don't want that kind of change.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Greg E said:


> Backpasture, you can't be all that bad. At least you picked the right kind of dog.



See, we can all find some common ground!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> But he didn't. He never said or suggested that inflating tires would come anywhere close to solving the problem.


Obama said ". . . .We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

Do you agree that is absurd?



> That notion, however, is the Hannity/Rush line. You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it the truth.


Citation please? I listen to Rush regularly and Hannity one a week or so, and haven't heard then say it yet.

Thanks.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Just ridiculous stuff. When the vast majority of people read that snopes article about Obama's plane, they think "so what".


My experience is when someone claims to know what "the vast majority of people" think they are -- 1. Speaking primarily about what their circle of friends and acquaintances think and assuming everyone thinks like they do; 2. Practicing sophistry (literally -- thinking themselves wise, when in fact showing their ignorance).



> By knowing only a small portion of my overall views (on global climate change, and tire inflation, primarily), you have reached the conclusion that I'm not one of 'your kind', so I must be one of 'them'. Oh, I've also clearly stated that I am pro-gun, pro-hunting, which clearly gets me kicked out of the 'liberal ideologue' camp. They have as much disdain for me as you do, because they are also ideologically 'pure'. It is this 'us' against 'them' attitude that I am railing against, regardless of which side of the political spectrum it comes from.


Read that again. Intentionally or unintentionally, you come off sounding like an elitist. Do you know which "camp" elitists belong in?


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

man i have been following this thread from the start....i gotta say....KEEP IT UP GUYS/GALS...this stuff is GREAT!!!!!!!!!

thanks for the entertainment.....

and to awnser the origional question....are you a "global warming" follower???

*NO*.

NCA


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Goose said:


> I'll bet there's some "global warming" in John Edward's house tonight!


Jon Edwards, what a piece of work he is. Thought he could buy the Presidency.

For the record, I think Rush and Rush Jr(Hannity) are idiots and do the Republican Party more harm than good. Radio ratings across the country have been coming out for the last two weeks and Rush's audience is down by nearly 40%.That on the heels of his $400,000,000.00 annual deal with his syndicator, Clear Channel/Premier Networks.

Oh, and Obama is not only unqualified he is the worst thing that could happen to this country. Our choices for the next POTUS may be slim but MCCain is not going to do anything that is major stupid. Get ready for the riots when Obama looses.

Can ANYONE name or state what Obama's qualifications are without mentioning Pres. Bush's name? Pres. Bush may be a disaster but, Kerry or Gore would have been bigger disasters.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Amen Mr. Booty


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Can ANYONE name or state what Obama's qualifications are without mentioning Pres. Bush's name?


When asked a similar question:

_"Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience he can bring to the White House.
Senator Obama has a good speech he gave in 2002."_ -- Hillary Clinton

CLICK HERE.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Obama said ". . . .We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."
> 
> Do you agree that is absurd?


No, I don't. As I noted in previous posts, there are plenty of folks who have run the numbers on this, and you can do it yourself as well (Rush/Hannity also could, but they don't). Not all agree that the amount saved from proper tuning and tire inflation would equal what we an get from opening up offshore drilling. Most all agree that it would at least come close. Here are just a couple:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/how_to/4276844.html?series=19
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/08/politifact-find.html


The Popular Mechanics article, btw, refutes Rush and others arguments like 'we can't possibly know' how many people have underinflated tires, etc, etc, so that means we can't actually run the numbers on it and know how much we the country would save. Of course, the estimates of how much oil is available offshore they considers to be rock solid, even though those numbers are also estimates. Standard ideologue tactics. Accept the data you like, discount what you don't.





AmiableLabs said:


> Citation please? I listen to Rush regularly and Hannity one a week or so, and haven't heard then say it yet.
> 
> Thanks.



Hannity: 
"“All you need to do is inflate your tires. That’s all you need to do. If every American would join in this effort of inflating one’s tires, then it’s all going to be fine! And we can still import 70% of our oil from Saudi Arabia. Just keep those tires inflated. And just keep that car tuned up of yours. The problem is Americans are not being responsible.’"
Found at http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/index.html

Rush:
"Obama Solves Energy Crisis: Inflate Your Tires"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_073108/home.guest.html

Although Rush also asks a question, that he himself should be answering:
"How can we actually be debating this total stupidity?"
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_080608/home.guest.html

Of course, the reason we are debating this total stupidity is because the McCain campaign (and Rush, etc) latched onto single line in a single speech, and have chosen to make that the part of Obama's energy policy that they want to debate. It would be great if we could actually debate relevant, important issues-- like the paint schemes on the candidates' planes.




AmiableLabs said:


> My experience is when someone claims to know what "the vast majority of people" think they are -- 1. Speaking primarily about what their circle of friends and acquaintances think and assuming everyone thinks like they do; 2. Practicing sophistry (literally -- thinking themselves wise, when in fact showing their ignorance).


You are correct to call me out on me claiming to know how the vast majority would react. I jumped to that conclusion. (Sophistry, BTW, isn't what you define -- a sophist is rarely ignorant, just manipulative of the facts.) I still stand by my original assertion, though, that the paint schemes of the planes are 'clear evidence' of absolutely nothing.



AmbiableLabs said:


> Read that again. Intentionally or unintentionally, you come off sounding like an elitist. Do you know which "camp" elitists belong in?


Ooooh, now I'm an 'elitist'. That really hurts. Of course, if I'm not 'ignorant' or 
'misinformed', I must be an 'elitist'. I'm either too dumb or too smart to agree with your point of view. 

And, yes, I know what 'camp' you think 'elitists' belong to. They are one of 'them'. You have to put me in a 'camp', either yours or theirs. Like Evan, you appear to have an 'us' vs 'them' mentality. You're with us, or you're against us!

Your arguments started out strong --you called me out on some hyperbole of my own (assuming what 'most people' think), and justifiably asked for some citations. When your the basis of your argument devolved to labeling me an 'elitist', you are arguing from a pretty weak position, based not on facts, but on ideology.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

How bad do you have to hate this country and what it stands for to vote for a guy like Obama? Not saying I like McCain and in the end I think we are screwed either way …but Obama? Come on.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> (Sophistry, BTW, isn't what you define -- a sophist is rarely ignorant, just manipulative of the facts.)


I said "literal." The sophists were teachers of wisdom during the times of Socrates. What set Socrates apart form the sophists was that where the sophists claimed to have all the answers he claimed to have, percentage-wise, very few. Socrates argued that as soon as you claim to have all the answers, you demonstrate how ignorant you are. Because in fact, the truth is the more you know, the more you realize how little you know.



> _I still stand by my original assertion, though, that the paint schemes of the planes are 'clear evidence' of absolutely nothing._


You keep coming back to this point. It appears it bothers you? In any case to others, it means a lot. I don't see why the truth in this regard can't be subjective. Some people see no problem with a mindset that paints their own personal emblem over where the American flag once was painted. Some people see that as arrogant and disrespectful of a cherished American emblem. That two totally different opinions of this issue can be concluded does not surprise me at all. And that people from both sides can argue the other side is wrong, is even less surprising. :roll: I am from the camp that sees it as wrong, arrogant, and disrespectful. You are from the camp that thinks I am ludicrous. Nothing new here.



> _Ooooh, now I'm an 'elitist'._


Is that a straw man or just an example of your reading comprehension? I can't tell. Obviously I never called you an elitist. I said "Intentionally or unintentionally you are coming off sounding like an elitist." You jumped to the conclusion you are one, not me.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> He never said or suggested that *inflating tires would come anywhere close to solving the problem*. That notion, however, is the Hannity/Rush line.


I am sorry, I read your citations of Rush and Hannity, and still cannot find this line in there.

In places, they sort-of _imply_ it. But then, so did Obama.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> No, I don't. As I noted in previous posts, there are plenty of folks who have run the numbers on this,


Did you read the Popular Mechanics article? They say off-shore drilling would increase the domestic output by only 1%, therefore Obama is correct in saying we can offset the need for off-shore drilling by just properly inflating our tires. Excuse me?!? Isn't 2% (off-shore drilling and proper tire inflation) more of an improvement than 1% (drilling) OR 1% (tire inflation)? McCain says do both. Obama, beholden to environmentalist groups, says just inflate the tires, no drilling. 

It is absurd.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> I said "literal." The sophists were teachers of wisdom during the times of Socrates. What set Socrates apart form the sophists was that where the sophists claimed to have all the answers he claimed to have, percentage-wise, very few. Socrates argued that as soon as you claim to have all the answers, you demonstrate how ignorant you are. Because in fact, the truth is the more you know, the more you realize how little you know.


Thanks for the history lesson. You will also recall that Socrates himself studied with the Sophists, and was accused of Sophistry at his trial. That was long before 'sophist' attained the deragatory connotation it has today. 



AmiableLabs said:


> You keep coming back to this point. It appears it bothers you? In any case to others, it means a lot. I don't see why the truth in this regard can't be subjective. Some people see no problem with a mindset that paints their own personal emblem over where the American flag once was painted. Some people see that as arrogant and disrespectful of a cherished American emblem. That two totally different opinions of this issue can be concluded does not surprise me at all. And that people from both sides can argue the other side is wrong, is even less surprising. :roll: I am from the camp that sees it as wrong, arrogant, and disrespectful. You are from the camp that thinks I am ludicrous. Nothing new here.


Yes, I DO keep coming back to this point. The reason I keep coming back is because Evan presented the photos as 'Clear Evidence' of something, yet never stated what it is clear evidence of. You, at least, give an indication of what you think it is evidence of - "Some people see that as arrogant and disrespectful of a cherished American emblem.". That, of course, isn't 'Truth' or 'Clear Evidence' -- it is opinion.

And, reasonable people can argue whether or not Truth is subject (which is your position). The nature of Truth is one of the great philosophical debates. But, when someone cites 'Clear Evidence', they are implying that it is an Absolute Truth, which is never subjective.



AmiableLabs said:


> Obviously I never called you an elitist. I said "Intentionally or unintentionally you are coming off sounding like an elitist." You jumped to the conclusion you are one, not me.


Give me a break. You are trying too hard to be clever. When you make an assertion, stand behind it. 



AmiableLabs said:


> I am sorry, I read your citations of Rush and Hannity, and still cannot find this line in there.


You've got to be kidding me. I'm not sure what 'line' will satisfy you, but there is no question that they are representing that Obama's ONLY and/or MAIN solution to the energy crisis is 'fill your tires'. Here they are again:

"All you need to do is inflate your tires. That’s all you need to do. " Hannity

"Obama Solves Energy Crisis: Inflate Your Tires" Rush




AmaiableLabs said:


> Did you read the Popular Mechanics article? They say off-shore drilling would increase the domestic output by only 1%, therefore Obama is correct in saying we can offset the need for off-shore drilling by just properly inflating our tires. Excuse me?!? Isn't 2% (off-shore drilling and proper tire inflation) more of an improvement than 1% (drilling) OR 1% (tire inflation)? McCain says do both. Obama, beholden to environmentalist groups, says just inflate the tires, no drilling.


The debate we are having is whether this statement is absurd:
"". . . .We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."

You just acknowledged that it is NOT absurd ("Obama is correct in saying we can offset the need for off-shore drilling by just properly inflating our tires"), but then shifted to arguing that "Isn't 2% (off-shore drilling and proper tire inflation) more of an improvement than 1% (drilling) OR 1% (tire inflation)?". 

Of course, neither Obama nor I have ever said, implied, asserted, etc that 1 is greater than or equal to 2. I am pretty sure that "1 < 2" is an Absolute Truth.

Could I accuse you of 'sounding like' a sophist based upon these posts? Yes. I can and will. And I won't use the 'Obviously I never called you a sophist' defense.


----------



## J Connolly (Aug 16, 2007)

Count me as one of those that feels insulted when Obama says we can accomplish the same goal by inflating our tires properly and getting a tune up as drilling for more oil. If as has been suggested we can only get a 2% gain if we do both we are screwed. Alternatives cannnot fill the gap quick enough. Remember China and India are consuming more and more petroleum and even as we curb our use the global demand is increasing. 

We have been led to believe far too long that the US cannot produce any more oil, when the fact is we have large reserves waiting to be tapped. New techologies and higher prices are unlocking the potential for vast amounts of gas and oil. OCS is estimated to hold at least 435 trillion cubic feet of gas and 84 billion barrels of oil. For every million barrels of oil produced we lower or dependence on foreign oil by 9%. Let's not forget the potential economic boom that will occcur when part of the 700 billion dollars/year spent on foreign oil is spent for product here at home. Jobs, increased tax revenues and a secure source of energy.

Please check out this op ed piece from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121763386509806241.html.

I am about thirty miles from what will be the largest producing natural gas field in the US. Land owners are leasing by the hundreds. I believe in the message of hope and the can do spirit of America and don't want someone to tell me we can't produce any more oil (when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary) so inflate my tires and be quiet.

God Bless Ronald Reagan!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Thanks for the history lesson. You will also recall that Socrates himself studied with the Sophists, and was accused of Sophistry at his trial. That was long before 'sophist' attained the deragatory[sic] connotation it has today.


Huh? He was accused of being a sophist at his trial, but it was not derogatory back then?! I don't know what you are talking about. All sophist means in Greek is "wisest." That is all. As I said previously, the sophists claimed to be the wisest people and to have all the answers. Socrates said that as soon as you say you know everything like the sophists do, you profess to knowing very little. While it is true Socrates started out studying under sophists, it was Socrates who spoke derogatorily of the sophists after he rejected them. Since Plato, sophistry has always been a derogatory word.



> That, of course, isn't 'Truth' or 'Clear Evidence' -- it is opinion.


No, subjective truth is not "opinion." Opinions can be wrong, subjective truth is factually true to the person (where absolute truths are true for everyone). There are countless examples. A simple one is if I hold up a coin and you look at it from the side and I ask you what shape it is? You would say "round," and you would be correct. But a person sitting off 45 degrees would say "elliptical," and they would be correct. And a person sitting off 90 degrees would see a straight line. These are not "opinions." They are subjective truths, relative to where the person is sitting. "Clear evidence" to that person, but different from the others, without it being absolutely true. 



> And, reasonable people can argue whether or not Truth is subject[sic] (which is your position).


No, I believe that truth can be absolute, subjective, or relative. I believe in this case of Obama painting his plane it can be subjective.



> Give me a break. You are trying too hard to be clever. When you make an assertion, stand behind it.


So your argument is if I said to you "Either intentionally or unintentionally you are sounding like a girl," that is the equivalent of calling you a girl? So caveats, conditionals and qualifiers do not exist? Whatever you say. :roll:



> The debate we are having is whether this statement is absurd:
> "". . . .We could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups."
> You just acknowledged that it is NOT absurd. . . .


I am sorry if I gave you that impression by my quoting the PM article and then refuting it reductio_ad_absurdum. When a person applies a reductio, that does not mean they agree with the propositiion. My point was the argument the columnist makes is absurd. And if you look at the comments left by other readers they make the same point.

Obama's numbers do not add up. Here is what the editor of _Car & Driver _says -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw60RIrFXJs (his points are valid though he confuses off-shore drilling with ANWR).

Some calculations are done HERE,, which links to HERE, and to HERE.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Huh? He was accused of being a sophist at his trial, but it was not derogatory back then?! I don't know what you are talking about. All sophist means in Greek is "wisest." That is all. As I said previously, the sophists claimed to be the wisest people and to have all the answers. Socrates said that as soon as you say you know everything like the sophists do, you profess to knowing very little. While it is true Socrates started out studying under sophists, it was Socrates who spoke derogatorily of the sophists after he rejected them. Since Plato, sophistry has always been a derogatory word.











Bill: Socrates - "The only true wisdom consists of knowing you know nothing". 

Ted: That's us, dude!


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

J Connolly said:


> as has been suggested we can only get a 2% gain if we do both we are screwed.


2% may very well be on the low side (if you take the pessimistic view of both estimates -- amount of oil available, and savings from proper tuning). But, I don't think many sources are saying that we can get more than a few % points gain from OCS and tuning. The reality is that both are just a drop in the bucket.




J Connolly said:


> We have been led to believe far too long that the US cannot produce any more oil, when the fact is we have large reserves waiting to be tapped. New techologies and higher prices are unlocking the potential for vast amounts of gas and oil. OCS is estimated to hold at least 435 trillion cubic feet of gas and 84 billion barrels of oil. For every million barrels of oil produced we lower or dependence on foreign oil by 9%. Let's not forget the potential economic boom that will occcur when part of the 700 billion dollars/year spent on foreign oil is spent for product here at home. Jobs, increased tax revenues and a secure source of energy.


I don't dispute those numbers. But, the total amount available in those sources isn't as relevant as how much we can actually get out on a daily basis. A significant portion of that isn't economically feasible to recover, or just isn't recoverable at all. Dept of Energy estimates that, at peak, OCS can yield about 200,000 barrels daily, which would account for 1% of our overall consumption.


Sources:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/ongr.html
http://www.eia.doe.gov/basics/quickoil.html



J Connolly said:


> Please check out this op ed piece from the WSJ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121763386509806241.html.
> 
> I am about thirty miles from what will be the largest producing natural gas field in the US. Land owners are leasing by the hundreds. I believe in the message of hope and the can do spirit of America and don't want someone to tell me we can't produce any more oil (when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary) so inflate my tires and be quiet.


I agree with you 100% that we should be doing MUCH more with natural gas in this country. That is one reason I enthusiastically support the Pickens plan.
http://www.pickensplan.com/
(FWIW - I'm not opposed to offshore drilling, either.)

I don't agree with you that Obama has suggested that 'we can't produce any more oil' or told you to 'inflate your tires and be quiet'.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> So your argument is if I said to you "Either intentionally or unintentionally you are sounding like a girl," that is the equivalent of calling you a girl? So caveats, conditionals and qualifiers do not exist? Whatever you say. :roll:


No, my argument is that you appear to think that if you 'assert' or 'imply' something, that it means you don't actually think or believe it. That kind of doublespeak let's you make any outrageous claim you want, and then step back and claim that you didn't actually mean it. ("I didn't say you were a jacka**, I just said you act like a jacka**", for example. Either way you say it, it is an insult.)

If you want to get into an argument about semantics, then I will agree that you did call me an 'elitist', but you accused me of 'elitism' ("sounding like an elitist"). The next thing we know we are going to be diagraming sentences together. ;-)




AmiableLabs said:


> Obama's numbers do not add up. Here is what the editor of _Car & Driver _says -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw60RIrFXJs (his points are valid though he confuses off-shore drilling with ANWR).
> 
> Some calculations are done HERE,, which links to HERE, and to HERE.



Yes, I have noticed that most of the calculations that argue your side rely on 'how much oil is available in the OCS', ignoring how much can actually be accessed, and how quickly. That number isn't really relevant. The relevant number is how much we can actually retrieve. See more in my response to J Connolly.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> How bad do you have to hate this country and what it stands for to vote for a guy like Obama?


If you want a model for what the country would look like after 4 years of Obama, Reid & Pelosi look no further than the district Pelosi represents (San Francisco). & don't look at your pocketbook cause there won't be anything in it. 

I'm not ready for 4 years of HIPPIEVILLE, the individual from Vermont may be - look at who they sent to the Senate - Bernie Sanders.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could do more damage to the country than the current administration. I'll take my chances on Obama.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> . . . . .the individual from Vermont may be - look at who they sent to the Senate - Bernie Sanders.


Now why did you go and do that! Follow his reasoning! Even though you used a qualifier like "may be" instead of saying "is," he is going to accuse you of saying "is" -- calling him a socialist. :robot:


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could do more damage to the country than the current administration.


You've made the statement - I'd like to hear what you believe is wrong with the current administration & what is right about the current administration.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could do more damage to the country than the current administration. I'll take my chances on Obama.


You mistakenly equate McCain with this administration.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Yes, I have noticed that most of the calculations that argue your side rely on 'how much oil is available in the OCS', ignoring how much can actually be accessed, and how quickly. That number isn't really relevant. The relevant number is how much we can actually retrieve.


Bunk. The one thing that the Democrats have right is that a major problem with the fuel market is the speculators on the commodities floor. They are betting on futures -- where is the demand going to be in the next quarter. Many factors effect their speculation, the most common is current supply and demand. But storms like hurricanes, a fire at a refinery, discontent in the Middle East, all these and more effect the trading value of the oil commodity because they are seen as influencing either supply or demand. Guess what else does? Politics! As soon as the "Drill Here, Drill Now!" movement began to rise, and poll after poll is saying it is time to drill in the states, the price of oil futures fell twenty-percent in two weeks! If there was a vote in congress tomorrow to begin drilling, the price would fall again IMMEDIATELY.

LONG term, we need an alternative to oil. We need more nuclear plants. We need more widespread use of natural gas. We need to try and develop clean coal. But short term, we need to get all the oil we can, right here, right now. We already have rigs off the coast in California that could be started right back up again if congress and the state would allow.

Just taking steps in that direction, and speculators will begin looking for other, better investments in futures.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Now why did you go and do that! Follow his reasoning! Even though you used a qualifier like "may be" instead of saying "is," he is going to accuse you of saying "is" -- calling him a socialist. :robot:


No thanks. I will leave the linguistic gymnastics to you.

I also have no interest in defending Pelosi or Reid. They are just as bad as the party-loyal zombies on the right (except more spineless).

I have mixed feelings about Sanders -- I applaud his ability to work outside the two party system, for sure. But, he is also a self-righteous blowhard who I disagree with on a number of issues.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

post your duck blind sharring info here this board is in need of some good times think of it as a timeshare for duck blinds demorats, repubs we can all hunt togeather until they take that away.

Smitty


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

This alone seals the vote for the republicans for me...I get taxed enough in this country - now I should support the entire world. Talk about redistribution of wealth! Throwing money at a problem does not work if the economics problems in those areas are not addressed and fixed. And when did the UN become capable of overseeing that much money and it's distribution?

http://www.libnot.com/2008/02/19/ob...hat-would-cost-the-united-states-845-billion/


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> You mistakenly equate McCain with this administration.


That's not what he said. He didn't even 'imply' or 'assert' that.

I believe YardleyLabs's point is that we can't do any worse than what we have now, and is in response to those who think the country will go to hell in a handbasket if Obama is elected. 

I agree wholeheartedly. Either candidate is a serious upgrade from the current adminstration.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> You've made the statement - I'd like to hear what you believe is wrong with the current administration
> Major war with the wrong coutry
> banks failing (they are regulated)
> Oil prices
> ...


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Bush rocks and you know it!!!
I would share a duck blind with him anyday that as long as it was a Sunday since turkeys tend to scare off duck Gobble Gobble 

Now I dont think that I would be cought near the dick with a gun that guy shoots lawyers and gets away with it. :snipersmile:


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

I have a blind that will kick some serious ass durring the early goose season, but will freeze up any cold day or there will be no water in the wind is strong out of the west. What I am tryin to say is I be glad to have you in the blind early goose if you got some open water or a field we can hunt in the later part of the year!!! we gotta kill some birds befor the petacrat congress take the right away!!!


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Joe S.

Gotta good spot you would be willing to share ?
I think you are close to me in Northern VA


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Smitty, I'll be in Middleburg, Va at the end of Sept first of Oct. Is that anywhere near you


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Greg E said:


> Smitty, I'll be in Middleburg, Va at the end of Sept first of Oct. Is that anywhere near you


I dont know if you look at quantico VA that is where I will be hunting so close is in the eye of the traveler!!! but you are welcome to share the blind with us !!!


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Smitty, I'll PM you. Thanks


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> You've made the statement - I'd like to hear what you believe is wrong with the current administration & what is right about the current administration.


On the positive, Bush has made me appreciate a president who likes to take a lot of time off. I'm looking forward to the time his vacations become permanent and don't even mind the fact that he will be receiving some of the largest welfare payments ever. Of course, with his propensity to spend he may still end up as bankrupt as he has left the country.

On the negative, the list is too long for a forum post. In the end, I believe Bush is best judged by what has happened to the country under his stewardship. Our economy has been dramatically weakened. Our moral stature in the world and the moral stature of the presidency are both at their lowest levels in our history at a time when we need both. Our freedoms and our security have both been undermined by his policies. While there are those who like to use teflon spray paints in an effort to absolve Bush of responsibility for what has happened, the reality is that no president in modern history has enjoyed the level of unchallenged power that Bush has had.

I do not confuse McCain with Bush. However, whatever "maverick" and bi-partisan tendencies McCain may have enjoyed in the past, I believe he has forsaken them in his efforts to gain support from the same forces that brought us Bush. The fact that I think his vice president is more likely to finish his term (if McCain is elected) than McCin is doesn't improve my confidence. I do not trust him any more and want nothing more than to see all remnants of the current administration to be swept away.


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reports today that in the past year, the Arctic Ice caps have INCREASED over a 1/2 Million square miles...


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> It's hard for me to imagine how anyone could do more damage to the country than the current administration. I'll take my chances on Obama.


My Granddad told me to “never say thing that sound like famous last word…they just might be”


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> Of course, with his propensity to spend he may still end up as bankrupt as he has left the country.


Congress has the SPENDING habit - when Bush vetoe'd the Farm Bill it was over ridden by CONGRESS. Remember Reagan - he had that same problem with Tip O'Neil. 



YardleyLabs said:


> On the negative, the list is too long for a forum post. In the end, I believe Bush is best judged by what has happened to the country under his stewardship. Our economy has been dramatically weakened. Our moral stature in the world and the moral stature of the presidency are both at their lowest levels in our history at a time when we need both. Our freedoms and our security have both been undermined by his policies. While there are those who like to use teflon spray paints in an effort to absolve Bush of responsibility for what has happened, the reality is that no president in modern history has enjoyed the level of unchallenged power that Bush has had.
> 
> I do not confuse McCain with Bush. However, whatever "maverick" and bi-partisan tendencies McCain may have enjoyed in the past, I believe he has forsaken them in his efforts to gain support from the same forces that brought us Bush. The fact that I think his vice president is more likely to finish his term (if McCain is elected) than McCin is doesn't improve my confidence. I do not trust him any more and want nothing more than to see all remnants of the current administration to be swept away.


Again, all things with Congressional approval. It would strike me that William Clinton & Jimmy Carter are more of an embarassment to our nation. As for what other countries think of us, be smart enough to recognize no one likes the leader of the pack. There isn't a country in this world that wouldn't trade places with us. 

As for McCain, he hasn't always been right - but he has been embarassed by the fallout from some of his actions. Remember his opponent is a good friend of many who do not like this country.

But if you dislike this country so much that you believe Obama is a solution you should find a different country to spread your stuff around.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> But if you dislike this country so much that you believe Obama is a solution you should find a different country to spread your stuff around.


So now you're suggesting that it's Un-American to disagree with you? Democracy must be such a burden. 

We used to be proud of the fact that to be American meant that the ends did _not_ justify the means. This administration has come down on the side that used to be the hallmark of totalitarians. If that's your America I am more than willing to fight against it because in _my_ America we believe that dissent is healthy and that fighting for the freedoms won by our ancestors (and mine were there) is the essence of patriotism. 

Joe McCarthy dragged some of our greatest patriots through the mud. It was the generals of the army that showed him up for the cowardly worm that he was. When you make comments such as the one I quoted above, I hear Joe's bones yelling with glee in recognition of a kindred spirit.

Fortunately, I believe that both of our presidential candidates are patriots


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> You've made the statement - I'd like to hear what you believe is wrong with the current administration & what is right about the current administration.


Hummmm...

Here is a link to what I thought was a fairly balanced piece on this very subject:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/151731

Good And Bad Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> But if you dislike this country so much that you believe Obama is a solution you should find a different country to spread your stuff around.


Sorry, Marvin. I fought for my RIGHT to speak up, and yours as a matter of fact.

Try and expand the ulta-narrowness of your mind enough to understand that just because someone doesn't believe in your vision of America, it doesn't mean they don't believe in America. It might interest you to consider that the biggest liberals in the history of the country were the Founding Fathers. 

If, however, you are looking for a place where the government is always considered right, I hear your ilk might enjoy China and Russia...they are looking for a few good men.

You Are A-MAZZZZZING Too Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

YardleyLabs said:


> So now you're suggesting that it's Un-American to disagree with you? Democracy must be such a burden.
> 
> We used to be proud of the fact that to be American meant that the ends did _not_ justify the means. This administration has come down on the side that used to be the hallmark of totalitarians. If that's your America I am more than willing to fight against it because in _my_ America we believe that dissent is healthy and that fighting for the freedoms won by our ancestors (and mine were there) is the essence of patriotism.
> 
> ...


Well said! This little ditty deserves a rebuttal, too:


Marvin S said:


> Remember Reagan - he had that same problem with Tip O'Neil


We can only hope that the next president has as good as a relationship with the opposition as Reagan did with O'Neil. Despite their political differences, they had an outstanding personal relationship, and by all accounts had enormous respect for one another. The debate that played out between them on the national stage is something that both sides could (and still can) be proud of.

Personally, I think Reagan would be disgusted by your remarks.

(So, if Marvin S thinks the people that want Obama should just leave the country, does that mean that HE is leaving if Obama wins?)


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported today that the Arctic Icecaps have increased over a 1/2 million square miles over the past year...

I'll post the article link later tonight... interesting article, I just have to find it again!!!

Have a great night!!


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Legacy 6 said:


> The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported today that the Arctic Icecaps have increased over a 1/2 million square miles over the past year...
> 
> I'll post the article link later tonight... interesting article, I just have to find it again!!!
> 
> Have a great night!!


I'm guessing this isn't the NSIDC release you're talking about:


NSIDC Press Release said:


> *10 June 2008*
> 
> *MEDIA ADVISORY: Permafrost Threatened by Rapid Retreat of Arctic Sea Ice, NCAR/NSIDC Study Finds*
> 
> ...


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Legacy 6 said:


> I'll post the article link later tonight... interesting article, I just have to find it again!!!


You are correct the NSDIC said there is more ice this year than last year. But the whack-0s spin it as "that is because last year was a record loss."

But it is still an increase!!! :roll:

Their minds are made up, reason only serves to confuse them.

http://www.enn.com/climate/article/37805


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> You are correct the NSDIC said there is more ice this year than last year. But the whack-0s spin it as "that is because last year was a record loss."
> 
> But it is still an increase!!! :roll:
> 
> * Their minds are made up, reason only serves to confuse them.*


With this quote you may want to look in a mirror. Why would you expect every year to be a new record? Trends are measured over time. Unfortunately, the trends we are seeing are too clear for comfort.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> With this quote you may want to look in a mirror. Why would you expect every year to be a new record? Trends are measured over time. Unfortunately, the trends we are seeing are too clear for comfort.


Try again, the context is not about a trend. They are mitigating the fact that the ice shelf grew this year by pointing out last year was bad. Okay, you win, they are talking about a trend -- a two year trend. :lol:

Play with this for awhile -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> Try again, the context is not about a trend. They are mitigating the fact that the ice shelf grew this year by pointing out last year was bad. Okay, you win, they are talking about a trend -- a two year trend. :lol:
> 
> Play with this for awhile -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAu68OsFggw


Read the other articles on the same site. The increase in ice this year was projected a while ago. The declines are much larger and have been going on for years. Check the article I posted above and the article referenced in the second link.

I love Penn & Teller.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

August 11th 2008 the high temperature was 77 degrees in Broken Arrow…it maybe a record for the lowest high for this date.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> But if you dislike this country so much that you believe Obama is a solution you should find a different country to spread your stuff around.





Joe S. said:


> Sorry, Marvin. I fought for my RIGHT to speak up, and yours as a matter of fact.
> 
> Try and expand the ulta-narrowness of your mind enough to understand that just because someone doesn't believe in your vision of America, it doesn't mean they don't believe in America. It might interest you to consider that the biggest liberals in the history of the country were the Founding Fathers.
> 
> ...


55 years ago this month I was Honorably Discharged from the USAF. I don't go around wearing it on my sleeve as abadge of honor - it was a duty that all patriotic Americans felt an obligation to perform & then say no more. In those days people were conscripted so times were different - I enlisted to get some choice. 

BTW - A Newsweek article is not my idea of fair & balanced - mistakes were made & rectified to some degree, just like any good management team would do. The press has been on Bush since day 1 even though they are routinely proven wrong. 

Don't get me wrong I am not a Bush lover (because of his Reaganesque spending ways) but I look back on the choices we were given & believe I voted for the right person.



Bernie Sanders said:


> Personally, I think Reagan would be disgusted by your remarks.
> 
> (So, if Marvin S thinks the people that want Obama should just leave the country, does that mean that HE is leaving if Obama wins?)


Somewhere in my collection of political pins I have one that says "Jane was Right" which I used to wear regularly to our Republican precinct committee meetings. 

Only once in my voting career (17 Presidential elections) have I voted for someone as the clear choice & that was Barry Goldwater. Look at the mess Johnson created & tell me Obama won't do worse.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Sorry, Marvin. I fought for my RIGHT to speak up, and yours as a matter of fact.
> 
> Joe S.



I served so guys like Joe could have their silly little opinions without getting shot in the face by the man.



who love ya man?!


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Don't get me wrong I am not a Bush lover (because of his Reaganesque spending ways).





Marvin S said:


> Somewhere in my collection of political pins I have one that says "Jane was Right" which I used to wear regularly to our Republican precinct committee meetings.
> 
> Only once in my voting career (17 Presidential elections) have I voted for someone as the clear choice & that was Barry Goldwater.



You know, Marvin S, I think you and I might actually agree on a few things here and there. 

You don't REALLY think I hate America just because I would vote for Obama, do you?


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I served so guys like Joe could have their silly little opinions without getting shot in the face by the man.
> 
> 
> 
> who love ya man?!


...and I served so guys like you and Marvin S. could have your extreme positions without fear of recrimination.

I know you love me, Patrick...but that doesn't mean I want to take warm showers with you! (I loved that line out of Heartbreak Ridge.)

Just Callin' It The Way I See It Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> 55 years ago this month I was Honorably Discharged from the USAF. I don't go around wearing it on my sleeve as a badge of honor - it was a duty that all patriotic Americans felt an obligation to perform & then say no more. In those days people were conscripted so times were different - I enlisted to get some choice.


Odd how things change, huh.

11 years ago in June I was Honorably Discharged from the USAF. When I entered the military there was no obligation to do so. I entered because I felt I owed it to my parents (both of whom served in the Navy during WWII), the brave men and women buried at Arlington and in the National Cemetery system all over the world, those who could not fight for themselves and my country. It was only supposed to be four years...turned into 21. Most of them were pretty good. So, Marvin S., no one conscripted me, I went of my own free will. So then I guess the real question is this: If you weren't conscripted would you have still gone?

Badge of Honor? Perhaps. Had I not served your kind on this board would have been throwing that in my face for being an armchair patriot like our Vice President. He is all for military action as long as it is some else, or some elses kids, doing the fighting.

It must really grate on you that I served, served well and did nasty little jobs in places far away on dark nights in the name of freedom for our country AND can still find the courage to speak up for what I feel is right even though it doesn't conform to your thoughts. It is because I did what I did that I feel the need to speak up. Alberto Gonzalez, WHC, sits in a corner office and writes a memo saying it is OK to torture the enemy once captured without the slightest thought to the far reaching ramifications of his actions. The President, who never saw combat, and the Vice President, who never served a second in uniform, agree that it good policy. Hell yes, I'm speaking up and am shocked that guys like you aren't...but then again, it's odd how things change.

If you were 18 when you enlisted, served four years and were discharged at 22 in 1953, that makes you about 77 or so. I don't know what has happened in your life to make you so very bitter towards those that don't think or act your way, but I wish you well and respect you for your service to America.

Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

I took this away for those ....


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Legacy 6 said:


> The National Snow and Ice Data Center reported today that the Arctic Icecaps have increased over a 1/2 million square miles over the past year...
> 
> I'll post the article link later tonight... interesting article, I just have to find it again!!!
> 
> Have a great night!!



Thats because warm water freezes faster than cold water.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Thats because warm water freezes faster than cold water.


If that don't bring the chef out of hiding- we need to send in the Marines.

Bora alert regards

Bubba


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Bubba said:


> If that don't bring the chef out of hiding- we need to send in the Marines.
> 
> Bora alert regards
> 
> Bubba



I thought their were some skeptics in our midst hehehe


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Badge of Honor? Perhaps. Had I not served your kind on this board would have been throwing that in my face for being an armchair patriot like our Vice President. He is all for military action as long as it is some else, or some elses kids, doing the fighting.


FDR & LBJ come to mind as having the same Qualifications - but they are your brand so that's OK.



Joe S said:


> Hell yes, I'm speaking up and am shocked that guys like you aren't...but then again, it's odd how things change.


I find it odd that your sensibility's are unable to stomach what should be done to these terrorists - I still remember 9-11.



Joe S said:


> I don't know what has happened in your life to make you so very bitter towards those that don't think or act your way, ............


Not from this guy - I am just disappointed that NO candidate is standing up & saying we have the greatest country in the world & I, as your candidate want to make sure that every young individual has the same opportunities I had to receive an EDUCATION & SUCCEED at what they choose to do in life. Cause that don't happen under the Donkeys. 

I am also disappointed that you have to resort to personal comments - I thought you to be more eloquent than that - but guess I got you away from your teleprompter & it's set of talking points. 




backpasture said:


> You know, Marvin S, I think you and I might actually agree on a few things here and there.
> 
> You don't REALLY think I hate America just because I would vote for Obama, do you?


Liberals & Social Conservatives have the most in common - They both want to tell us how to live. Moderates & Fiscal Conservatives probably agree more on what the goals should be, they just disagree on the game plan.

Please see my comments above about opportunity, that's not OBAMA's game plan.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> Odd how things change, huh.
> 
> 11 years ago in June I was Honorably Discharged from the USAF. When I entered the military there was no obligation to do so. I entered because I felt I owed it to my parents (both of whom served in the Navy during WWII), the brave men and women buried at Arlington and in the National Cemetery system all over the world, those who could not fight for themselves and my country. It was only supposed to be four years...turned into 21. Most of them were pretty good. So, Marvin S., no one conscripted me, I went of my own free will. So then I guess the real question is this: If you weren't conscripted would you have still gone?
> 
> ...


Well said!
Thanks for your service Joe


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> FDR & LBJ come to mind as having the same Qualifications - but they are your brand so that's OK.


I never said that.



Marvin S said:


> I find it odd that your sensibility's are unable to stomach what should be done to these terrorists - I still remember 9-11.



As I have posted on this board before, I was one of the first, if not the first one back up I-395 North after the re-opened it to traffic. The Pentagon, a place that I served in as an Emergency Actions NCO in the National Military Command Center, was still smoking and smoldering. I drove through the smoke. The smell is something that I will never forget. So, despite my youth, I still remember 9.11, too.

What I fail to be able to grasp, clearly, is the extreme right's contention that because it was done to us, we are now able/authorized/empowered to do it to them. I thought the Golden Rule was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I never realized it was "Do unto others as they do unto you." I'll look that up and get back to you. If we become that which we are fighting, why are we fighting? I think we are better than that. Apparently you see no difference between the methods of the terrorists and the methods of the United States. So, Marvin S., does that make us terrorists?

Recently there have been several UAV stikes in Pakistan. My only sorrow over those strikes is that I wasn't there to pull the trigger myself. I have NO problem killing for my country in the line of duty. I have a GREAT problem with my country authorizing the tourture of ANYONE. We are supposed to be the great light of freedom.



Marvin S said:


> Not from this guy - I am just disappointed that NO candidate is standing up & saying we have the greatest country in the world & I, as your candidate want to make sure that every young individual has the same opportunities I had to receive an EDUCATION & SUCCEED at what they choose to do in life. Cause that don't happen under the Donkeys.


Well what do you know, we agree. I am just disappointed that NO candidate is standing up & saying we have the greatest country in the world & I, as your candidate want to make sure that every young individual has the same opportunities I had to receive an EDUCATION & SUCCEED at what they choose to do in life. Since no candidate is saying it, it must not happen under the Republican's either, huh? 



Marvin S said:


> I am also disappointed that you have to resort to personal comments - I thought you to be more eloquent than that - but guess I got you away from your teleprompter & it's set of talking points.


Please, Marvin. Go back and review your posts. You come across to me as a tired, bitter person without a nice word or positive comment to had for near anything nor near anyone. I was expressing sincere concern for your life events, mental health and service to our country. After all, you may have been one of the first ones in the Real Air Force and not the Army Air Corps depending on when you went in.

As to the teleprompter and talking points...we both know better than that now don't we. The only thing worse than a cheap shot is a cheap shot that misses the mark. Better luck next time. 



Marvin S said:


> Liberals & Social Conservatives have the most in common - They both want to tell us how to live. Moderates & Fiscal Conservatives probably agree more on what the goals should be, they just disagree on the game plan.


Personally, I don't give a fat rats asshat how you live AS LONG AS you keep your laws off my civil rights. Somewhere a long the line I think some conservatives learned there was the 2nd Amendment and portions of the 1st as long as it suited them...all the others were optional.

The Sun Will Come Out Tomorrow Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Again, WELL SAID!!


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> FDR & LBJ come to mind as having the same Qualifications - but they are your brand so that's OK.


You know, I got to thinking about this and could have sworn I saw a picture some place of LBJ in a Navy uniform. Sure enough...he was a Commander or Lt. Commander for a couple of years in the early part of WWII and was actually awarded the Silver Star but it seems that could have been a little on the hinkey side...

Anyway Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Joe S. said:


> I never said that......*no you didnt, but you misunderstood his point...his point is in comparing your idea that the current VP is armchairing as a patroit...and that is what he recalls LBJ and FDR doing as well...both being from your party*
> 
> As I have posted on this board before, I was one of the first, if not the first one back up I-395 North after the re-opened it to traffic. The Pentagon, a place that I served in as an Emergency Actions NCO in the National Military Command Center, was still smoking and smoldering. I drove through the smoke. The smell is something that I will never forget. So, despite my youth, I still remember 9.11, too.
> 
> ...


*somewhere along the lines i think that people became more concerned with helping, hugging, and holding the hand of others that they FORGOT THAT THE BEST PERSON TO HELP THEM IS THEMSELVES.

this is why I feel that the democratic pholosophy will NEVER work for me....because they want to convince me that i CANT DO IT FOR MYSELF...when i KNOW I CAN.

NCA*


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

No Cal Angler

Amen and Amen


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> *somewhere along the lines i think that people became more concerned with helping, hugging, and holding the hand of others that they FORGOT THAT THE BEST PERSON TO HELP THEM IS THEMSELVES.
> 
> this is why I feel that the democratic pholosophy will NEVER work for me....because they want to convince me that i CANT DO IT FOR MYSELF...when i KNOW I CAN.
> 
> NCA*


Well stated. However, I "disagree" with you on one minor point... The democratic philosophy isn't to convince you that you can do something for yourself... it's to convince you that you *need them *to accomplish everything.

That being said, I think they encourage, dare I say enable, personal irresponsability. It's just my opinion, but I don't think the government (and therefore YOU, through the payment of high taxes) should be held responsible for someone else's choices.

If you smoke, and can't afford health care, and then get cancer, and need surgery or treatment... why should I pay for that?

If you drink and drive, and get into a car crash and need surgery or treatment to repair your body... why should I pay for that?

There are a million examples, some are better than others: mine not being the best or most complete examples. Some would convince you that if you can find one tiny ***** in an example, that should negate the whole idea... but it's not true. Our government was meant to serve the MAJORITY, not the minority. If MOST people can afford health care, why set up a system where the MAJORITY pays for something the minority wants?

There are some programs that make sense that are funded by taxes. My mother doesn't make that much money, and when my sister got dumped by her fiance (also the father of her baby), and moved in with my mother they needed a little more help than the family could provide. My sister took advantage of WIC for a while until she started making money again. So programs CAN help, it's when people take advantage of a situation that programs go bad.

Corruption and afraud, waste and abuse isn't limited to our government officials...


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

legacy please

re-read what you quoted.....there is a "T" after that can...that is exactly what i said....they want me to believe i CANT do for myself......

dont take it the wrong way, i just wanted to point out that i DO know a "tidbit" of what i am talking about....

YOUNG REPUBLICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NCA


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> legacy please
> 
> re-read what you quoted.....there is a "T" after that can...that is exactly what i said....they want me to believe i CANT do for myself......
> 
> ...


Yupo, you're right... I read too fast. That happens sometimes. I never said you didn't know what you're talking about. I added to your argument (I thought I did anyway).

Anyway, sorry.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Legacy 6 said:


> Yupo, you're right... I read too fast.... *so do i, no harm no foul... *That happens sometimes. I never said you didn't know what you're talking about....*nope ya didnt do that either, i kinda felt like throwing that in there for the benifit of others...lol..kinda like a preemptive strike...* I added to your argument (I thought I did anyway)....*right again, you did and i am sure there are more people out there that feel the exact same way they just lack the courage to say they do, because we have been made to feel it is WRONG to think about, what WE want,need,and deserve because it just my offend, bother etc, etc,etc *
> 
> 
> 
> *Anyway, sorry*.


 in my book there isnt any reason to applogize to me...like you said it was a simple mistake, eyes got ahead of them selves...happens to me when i see something i like, usually the oppsite sex walking by, and i end up running into a pole cuz the "EYES GOT THE BETTER OF ME"

NCA


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe S. said:


> What I fail to be able to grasp, clearly, is the extreme right's contention that because it was done to us, we are now able/authorized/empowered to do it to them. I thought the Golden Rule was "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I never realized it was "Do unto others as they do unto you." I'll look that up and get back to you. If we become that which we are fighting, why are we fighting? I think we are better than that. Apparently you see no difference between the methods of the terrorists and the methods of the United States. So, Marvin S., does that make us terrorists?
> 
> Recently there have been several UAV stikes in Pakistan. My only sorrow over those strikes is that I wasn't there to pull the trigger myself. I have NO problem killing for my country in the line of duty. I have a GREAT problem with my country authorizing the tourture of ANYONE. We are supposed to be the great light of freedom.


During the Original Revolution the English soldiers, resplendent in their finery, were unable to understand why the guerilla tactics of their opponents were so effective. You play with the cards you are dealt - if you are unable to, you get your head handed to you.

As for the UAV - Engineers designed those so desk warriors like yourself could have something simple to deal with - find, aim, fire. With the abominable effort by the education system (your fellow liberals) in teaching Math & Science those toys may be non-existent in a few years. 





Joe S said:


> Well what do you know, we agree. I am just disappointed that NO candidate is standing up & saying we have the greatest country in the world & I, as your candidate want to make sure that every young individual has the same opportunities I had to receive an EDUCATION & SUCCEED at what they choose to do in life. Since no candidate is saying it, it must not happen under the Republican's either, huh?


RINDIP's & RINO's - politicians have a tendency to gravitate to the party in favor in their particular area of the country. They fear the power of the Education establishment & their Union bosses, with all their free time to campaign.




Joe S said:


> Please, Marvin. Go back and review your posts. You come across to me as a tired, bitter person without a nice word or positive comment to had for near anything nor near anyone. I was expressing sincere concern for your life events, mental health and service to our country. After all, you may have been one of the first ones in the Real Air Force and not the Army Air Corps depending on when you went in.
> 
> Personally, I don't give a fat rats asshat how you live AS LONG AS you keep your laws off my civil rights. Somewhere a long the line I think some conservatives learned there was the 2nd Amendment and portions of the 1st as long as it suited them...all the others were optional. Joe S.


Actually - both. Underage once, 2nd time for real. Would I have enlisted the 2nd time if the draft board hadn't informed me I was nearly due - probably not, I was sitting on a full ride athletic scholarship. I had 2 uncles that fought in the Battle of the Bulge & 1 who did the Japanese thing - their stories had convinced me not to be a ground pounder.

Joe - I don't need your concern, I'm very comfortable in my own skin. Were you someone who counted in my life that might be acceptable. But other than my immediate family there are few of those remaining. 

I'm not sitting on probably 2 fat retirements with COLA to cover my wants & needs as you probably are or will be. I fully understand reality as my only government employment was my time in the military. As for rights, there are also responsibilities - do you feel any commitment toward that part of the equation? I probably have as good an understanding of those rights as you & also understand how both sides in this ongoing political harangue have abused those rights in order to gain advantage.

In fact, the original topic of this thread is about a subject that is going to cost the taxpayers billions for very negligible results, & is championed by the do-nothings of your side of the aisle.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Check that Marvin, "Todays Global Warming" is "Yesterdays Great Society Program" and it has consumed a "TRILLION $$" so far and still climbing.

Money Grab Regards


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> In fact, the original topic of this thread is about a subject that is going to cost the taxpayers billions for very negligible results.


This thread is about the War in Iraq? I thought it was about Global Climate Change.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Hmmm, did we have cars 5000 years ago? 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26203952/


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

who can say CYCLE????? hmmmmmm anyone????? 

as well who can understand its SIMPLE application to the current situation based upon the above article....

also please do not extrapolate it to some "higher form of reason" it is as simple an understaning as, the CYCLE that says, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, we have morning then we have night, then we have morning again. we see the sun then the moon and then hey guess what the cycle repeats itself.

thanks T. Mac

NCA


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> Hmmm, did we have cars 5000 years ago?
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26203952/


Did you read the article?

"While the Sahara is desert today, a small difference in Earth's orbit once brought seasonal monsoons farther north, wetting the landscape with lakes with lush margins and drawing animals and people."


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

backpasture said:


> Did you read the article?
> 
> "While the Sahara is desert today, a small difference in Earth's orbit once brought seasonal monsoons farther north, wetting the landscape with lakes with lush margins and drawing animals and people."


yes i did, and your quote proves my point, i am glad we see it the same....lol;-);-)

NCA

just in case you cant read between the lines as well as i think you can....i will use little words (i know you like to use really big ones) *your quote and basic math shows that 1) relating to the origional topic, global warming is NOT MAN MADE...simple rotational change in the earths orbit caused a major change and 2) if at one time 10,000 BC it was lush and green and full of life, then desert and then again at 4000 BC it supported life and again back to desert, i would say that is sign of CYCLING, with mind you a 6000 year gap...ohhhhhhh nooooo simple math says we are at that 6000 year mark.... guess were gonna cool off and go back to LUSH AND GREEN AND SUPPORTING LIFE *....and you cant say that MAN CHANGED THE EARTHS ORBIT....well you could but you would be really reaching with that one....


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

NCA, 
You may find many kindred spirits here;

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

they too, argue in circles.

JD


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

JDogger said:


> NCA,
> You may find many kindred spirits here;
> 
> http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
> ...


based upon the fact that you have the link should i, or rather i should, expect to see you there as well. please welcome me when i get there. i hate it when i am the new guy that everyone stares at...lol

argue in circles?????? due tell.


NCA


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> based upon the fact that you have the link should i, or rather i should, expect to see you there as well. please welcome me when i get there. i hate it when i am the new guy that everyone stares at...lol
> 
> argue in circles?????? due tell.
> 
> ...


Actually, I got the link from a previous post on this forum.

You won't be a newbie, do tell.

JD


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> who can say CYCLE????? hmmmmmm anyone?????
> 
> as well who can understand its SIMPLE application to the current situation based upon the above article....
> 
> ...


NCA - understand that those who don't want to believe truth will always be that way. Their tired arguments, their apparent lack of ability to reason & their unwillingness to see a different viewpoint than what someone of their own kind has told them to believe.

Experience has taught me that one has to be very light between the ears to continue to believe the claptrap the liberals believe & preach. Even when you try to present information in terms a normal person would understand.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> yes i did, and your quote proves my point, i am glad we see it the same....lol;-);-)
> 
> NCA
> 
> just in case you cant read between the lines as well as i think you can....i will use little words (i know you like to use really big ones) *your quote and basic math shows that 1) relating to the origional topic, global warming is NOT MAN MADE...simple rotational change in the earths orbit caused a major change and 2) if at one time 10,000 BC it was lush and green and full of life, then desert and then again at 4000 BC it supported life and again back to desert, i would say that is sign of CYCLING, with mind you a 6000 year gap...ohhhhhhh nooooo simple math says we are at that 6000 year mark.... guess were gonna cool off and go back to LUSH AND GREEN AND SUPPORTING LIFE *....and you cant say that MAN CHANGED THE EARTHS ORBIT....well you could but you would be really reaching with that one....


Yes, science has shown that the earth's orbit is responsible for part of the CYCLING (your emphasis) of the earth's climate, particularly shifting of climate zones (deserts are constantly shifting their position on the globe, as is illustrated in this article). You aren't going to get an argument on that. 

Science has also shown that the large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are likely responsible for the accelerated rates of global temperatures that we are currently experiencing.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> NCA - understand that those who don't want to believe truth will always be that way. Their tired arguments, their apparent lack of ability to reason & their unwillingness to see a different viewpoint than what someone of their own kind has told them to believe.


Gee, Marvin S, you took the words right out of my mouth.

Experience has shown me that people will come up with some ridiculous conspiracy theories in order to support the hairbrained theory that lets them feel good about their scientifically unsupportable conclusions.

For reference, see the theories about the global conspiracy that says that Ducks Unlimited, Bob Dole, the National Science Acadamies of most industrialized nations, the majority of the American public, and the majority of the world are all part of a global hoax perpetrated by George Soros, Warren Buffet and Al Gore.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Experience has shown me that people will come up with some ridiculous conspiracy theories in order to support the hairbrained theory that lets them feel good about their scientifically unsupportable conclusions.


It's harebrained as in reckless, which those of your ilk should but won't understand. It's only something that someone without a scientific background would swallow. Only 15% of those who take the SAT & attend an institution of higher learning can qualify to be scientists or engineers. Then we have the grant driven opinions of people who have decided to take the easy route. There is a major weeding out process from those who have the degree & those who actually use what they were taught.



bp said:


> For reference, see the theories about the global conspiracy that says that Ducks Unlimited, Bob Dole, the National Science Acadamies of most industrialized nations, the majority of the American public, and the majority of the world are all part of a global hoax perpetrated by George Soros, Warren Buffet and Al Gore.


I think you misuse "theory" when you should use opinion. As for those you quote you need to provide someone credible. Soros, Buffet & Gore have all made their way from the largesse of big government. DU while doing a lot of good is also very cooperative with the government, Bob Dole needs to confine his activities to hawking Viagra, the National Science Acadamies are too politicized & grant driven & the majority of the general public accepts what they read in the biased press. 

Opinions are only acceptable when they have been proven through the vetting process that normally covers most scientific endeavors. Even Stephen Hawking, who is a lot brighter than you or I doesn't believe he has all the answers regarding the universe which by the way would include the "Global Warming" hoax. There presently is no one with the bully pulpit capable of or willing to articulate that message.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> ...As for those you quote you need to provide someone credible.....
> 
> Even Stephen Hawking, who is a lot brighter than you or I doesn't believe he has all the answers regarding the universe which by the way would include the "Global Warming" hoax. There presently is no one with the bully pulpit capable of or willing to articulate that message.



Here is a quote from someone credible -- Stephen Hawking, who, as you acknowledge, is a lot brighter than you or I.

"The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "

ABC News interview (16 August 2006) 

Is this just one of those "grant driven opinions of people who have decided to take the easy route", as you say?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Here is a quote from someone credible -- Stephen Hawking, who, as you acknowledge, is a lot brighter than you or I.
> 
> "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. The melting of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps reduces the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space, and so increases the temperature further. Climate change may kill off the Amazon and other rain forests, and so eliminate once one of the main ways in which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere. The rise in sea temperature may trigger the release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, trapped as hydrides on the ocean floor. Both these phenomena would increase the greenhouse effect, and so global warming further. We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can. "
> 
> ...


Note the use of the qualifier "may" which also may mean "may not". One opinion, which has credibility beacause of it's source - but it is not "fact". & it has not been vetted through the scientific community. Also one interview on the most liberal network in our talking heads realm. Even Hawking will say his is only one opinion - though I am sure very considered. 

Recognize that some of what you back to nature individuals say would have more credibility had you not shot your wad with all the various acts & regulations that came onto the scene under the guise of environmental protection. Who's the biggest abuser of those regulations - government at all levels.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Note the use of the qualifier "may" which also may mean "may not". One opinion, which has credibility beacause of it's source - but it is not "fact". & it has not been vetted through the scientific community. Also one interview on the most liberal network in our talking heads realm. Even Hawking will say his is only one opinion - though I am sure very considered.


You are correct. Hawking's stance (and mine as well) is that there is no way we can know with 100% certainty that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm. 

But, when you ask: "How likely is it that human emitted greenhouse gases are warming the planet?"
a) Certain
b) Very likely
c) Likely
d) Nobody knows
e) Unlikely
f) Very Unlikely
g) Absolutely not

I suspect that Hawking is going to answer 'b', where as most of the skeptics on this board seem to fall in the 'f' or 'g' category. Hawking's certainly not in the skeptics camp.



Marvin S said:


> Recognize that some of what you back to nature individuals say would have more credibility had you not shot your wad with all the various acts & regulations that came onto the scene under the guise of environmental protection. Who's the biggest abuser of those regulations - government at all levels.


Recognize that when you say that, you are acknowledging that your interpretation of the science is influenced by your view of politics.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> You are correct. Hawking's stance (and mine as well) is that there is no way we can know with 100% certainty that greenhouse gases are causing the planet to warm.
> 
> But, when you ask: "How likely is it that human emitted greenhouse gases are warming the planet?"
> a) Certain
> ...


Most people will fall into the c thru e group which is typical of a bell curve. The zealots will sit at a & g - I would answer "d".




bp said:


> Recognize that when you say that, you are acknowledging that your interpretation of the science is influenced by your view of politics.


As one who appreciates the addition to quality of life that can be brought about by adequate protection of those assets nature bestowed on us, I am only acknowledging what I have seen because have been somewhat active in promoting sensible regulation. In governments desire to gain power & fatten their coffers they generally don't think about the people & what sensible regulation can bring in the way of quality of life.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

JDogger said:


> Actually, I got the link from a previous post on this forum.
> 
> You won't be a newbie, do tell.
> 
> ...


i'll get to that later



Marvin S said:


> NCA - understand that those who don't want to believe truth will always be that way. Their tired arguments, their apparent lack of ability to reason & their unwillingness to see a different viewpoint than what someone of their own kind has told them to believe.
> 
> Experience has taught me that one has to be very light between the ears to continue to believe the claptrap the liberals believe & preach. *Even when you try to present information in terms a normal person would understand*.


K.I.S.S, my life long moto, problem is someone always muddles it up.



backpasture said:


> Yes, science has shown that the earth's orbit is responsible for part of the CYCLING (your emphasis) of the earth's climate, particularly shifting of climate zones (deserts are constantly shifting their position on the globe, as is illustrated in this article). You aren't going to get an argument on that.
> 
> Science has also shown that the large amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are likely responsible for the accelerated rates of global temperatures that we are currently experiencing.


BP...thank you for acknowledging science, i knew you would. 

Again though i must point out a few things...

1) your wrong, "deserts" are NOT constantly shifing their position on the globe...the "EARTH" is constantly shifting its position in relation to its orbit of the sun, and shifting its own axis. if i may, science has proven that it takes MILLIONS of years to shift landmasses not thousands so, this article references "orbits of planets"

2) you shouldnt use words like "LIKELY" it shows that you really dont know...and thus *discredits* your arguement, it takes away from the 99% of what you may have said and makes the 1% the focal point of others.....lol...i just had to....;-);-);-) (your welcome Legacy)

but seriously (can i say that, lol) how can one take the information given over the last (lets say) 30 years as being the absolute truth. it seems to easy to say, now we have the technology to study these "greenhouse" gasses and boy they are a problem...what should and could be said about he industrial revolution of the 1890-1920's or the idustrial boom of the 40-60's we didnt measure those effects so it wasnt a problem, only now it is a problem. 

my understanding of the article in question, and how it relates is that this is NOT an issue of current times, it is an issue that has been on going and a problem not conneted to any current man-made circumstance. i believe that is why the person that posted the link asked the question...."were there cars 4000 years ago." his point was that even then it was OUT OF THE HANDS of our species.

now, getting back to Jdogger

i guess it is time to point out that, if you got that link from a previous post on this board, that you in fact need to pratice what you preach....circles...get new material.

as well, if you had been quick enough to note that i had already made reference to my being a "newbie" your attempt at calling me one would have carried more weight. you see, you needed to be able to see through the fact i wasnt refering to my needing an introduction on that board for fear stage fright, it was to make light on the fact i am "hey, new guy" on this board....oh well, i guess some arent as quick as others.

furthermore, i am quick enough to note your correction of my use of the word "DUE" and agian you just didnt see the light at the end of the tunnel...."sarcasim".....DUE: as used as a NOUN...somethin owed or deserved...as used as an ADJECTIVE:...expected or scheduled, anticipated or looked for, expecting or ready for something as in a normal course of events or sequences.....i used that form of the word "DO" "DUE"....DUE..to the fact that i noted your execptional post about our current situation surrounding the lack of understanding, command, and concern for our english language...again....somthings go over the head of others. sorry...;-);-)
addlepated, confounded regards

NCA


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Most people will fall into the c thru e group which is typical of a bell curve. The zealots will sit at a & g - I would answer "d".


Actually, most people sit at b or c. This is according to numerous surveys. Here is one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Actually, most people sit at b or c. This is according to numerous surveys. Here is one:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf


Please - the BBC makes ABC look like Fox News. 

Let me ask you something - what are your credentials to engage in this discussion. You apparently are good at quoting someone else's garbage. What do you do for the environment &/or Global Cooling - which BTW is what we are having on the other LEFT coast this year? Or do you zealots dismiss it as an anomaly as it doesn't fit your preconceived position. 

Cold weather regards.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> i'll get to that later
> 
> 1) your wrong, "deserts" are NOT constantly shifing their position on the globe...


They are, actually. The whole basis of the article was the the Sahara covered an area that didn't used to be desert. The Sahara is constantly changing in size and location. 



Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> the "EARTH" is constantly shifting its position in relation to its orbit of the sun, and shifting its own axis.


You're actually right about that.



Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> if i may, science has proven that it takes MILLIONS of years to shift landmasses not thousands so, this article references "orbits of planets"


Correct, continential drift takes much longer than the shifting of climate regions. That's not to be confused with shifting climate regions, though.




Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> 2) you shouldnt use words like "LIKELY" it shows that you really dont know...and thus *discredits* your arguement, it takes away from the 99% of what you may have said and makes the 1% the focal point of others.....


This seems to be the cornerstone of the of the global warming skeptic argument. "You can't say with 100%, absolute, entire certainty, so YOU ARE WRONG". See my previous post about Hawking and being "100% certain".



Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> but seriously (can i say that, lol) how can one take the information given over the last (lets say) 30 years as being the absolute truth. it seems to easy to say, now we have the technology to study these "greenhouse" gasses and boy they are a problem...what should and could be said about he industrial revolution of the 1890-1920's or the idustrial boom of the 40-60's we didnt measure those effects so it wasnt a problem, only now it is a problem.


I'm assuming that the scientists who have taken ice samples, core samples, etc know what they are talking about. That data can be used to understand what the climate was like in the 1890's-1920's. 
(Cue the cries of 'Those aren't REAL scientists', and 'They just say that to get rich off of grant money!')



Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> my understanding of the article in question, and how it relates is that this is NOT an issue of current times, it is an issue that has been on going and a problem not conneted to any current man-made circumstance. i believe that is why the person that posted the link asked the question...."were there cars 4000 years ago." his point was that even then it was OUT OF THE HANDS of our species.


The same old skeptic line of 'the climate is always changing. Man has nothing to do with it.' Again, I will state that few dispute the climate is always changing. What the scientific evidence DOES show is that it is VERY likely (yes, I used the word likely), that human emitted greenhouse gases are affecting the global temperature.





Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> furthermore, i am quick enough to note your correction of my use of the word "DUE" and agian you just didnt see the light at the end of the tunnel...."sarcasim".....DUE: as used as a NOUN...somethin owed or deserved...as used as an ADJECTIVE:...expected or scheduled, anticipated or looked for, expecting or ready for something as in a normal course of events or sequences.....i used that form of the word "DO" "DUE"....DUE..to the fact that i noted your execptional post about our current situation surrounding the lack of understanding, command, and concern for our english language...again....somthings go over the head of others. sorry...;-);-)
> addlepated, confounded regards


Who can argue with logic like that!? :???:


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Please - the BBC makes ABC look like Fox News.
> 
> Let me ask you something - what are your credentials to engage in this discussion.


I'm shocked - SHOCKED I say - that Marvin is questioning data that doesn't support his beliefs. Let's see your data Marvin. How are you so certain that public opinion is on your side?

In terms of my credentials - let's see. 
I know how to read. 
I know how to think for myself. 

I'm sure my credentials don't match yours (you have a PhD in Climatology, correct? ;-))

What credentials would sway you, Marvin? What school should I have gone to, and what degree do I need to have for you to believe anything I say? You have no problem discounting anyone whose resume DOES make them an expert on this subject if they don't support your opinion.




Marvin S said:


> You apparently are good at quoting someone else's garbage.


Ya, I do this crazy thing called 'citing references'. I know it is easier (and more fun!) to argue your case if you don't have anything to back up your positions, but I'm kind of a stickler for actually doing some research.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

bp...why do you answer questions with questions???


NCA


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> bp...why do you answer questions with questions???


Is that a rhetorical question? ;-)


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

backpasture said:


> They are, actually. The whole basis of the article was the the Sahara covered an area that didn't used to be desert. The Sahara is constantly changing in size and location.
> 
> *that is how you read that article...your kidding yourself if you think the Sahara is constantly changing in size and LOCATION....define constantly...over the course of hundreds of days,weeks,years,decades,cent..ok you get the point..the article read as such TO ME....the sahara didnt MOVE...the climate changed because the Earth moved....*
> 
> ...


*i guess i left out the part where i show how "DUE" is applied...i am DUE an anwser...lol*


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> I'm shocked - SHOCKED I say - that Marvin is questioning data that doesn't support his beliefs. Let's see your data Marvin. How are you so certain that public opinion is on your side?


What beliefs - I believe I posted I was a (d). 



bp said:


> In terms of my credentials - let's see.
> I know how to read.
> I know how to think for myself.


I read a recent quote (in a publication you would not be familiar with) which stated "The US is the most literate nation in the world, yet we rank very low in the ability to comprehend what we read". Where do you rank in that quote?



bp said:


> I'm sure my credentials don't match yours (you have a PhD in Climatology, correct? ;-))
> 
> What credentials would sway you, Marvin? What school should I have gone to, and what degree do I need to have for you to believe anything I say? You have no problem discounting anyone whose resume DOES make them an expert on this subject if they don't support your opinion.
> 
> Ya, I do this crazy thing called 'citing references'. I know it is easier (and more fun!) to argue your case if you don't have anything to back up your positions, but I'm kind of a stickler for actually doing some research.


What would sway me is for you to actually have training in something requiring reasoning power & have made some use of it. What do you subscribe to besides Mother Earth News & the New Yorker?

As I have previously posted your references have a built in BIAS other than Hawking (who is in the may or may not camp, YOU assigned him as a b). I actually read also & have had some serious training in Physical Geology so fully understand that the world we live on is not a final product. It is moving & changing all the time & you don't have to go very deep to experience some serious loading. Ever seen the results of a "rockburst"?

I am most impressed by those who have PHD's in Engineering, Computer Science, the various Physics disciplines, Mathematics - basically anything calculative which builds on an individuals knowledge pool & is transferable in understandable terms to those with a "need to know". 



Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> bp...why do you answer questions with questions???
> NCA


I guess this would be my question also - by failing to answer someone are you conceding the point to them &/or trying to change the subject?


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> What beliefs - I believe I posted I was a (d).


That is a belief. The belief that 'nobody knows' whether humans affecting climate change is a belief.



Marvin S said:


> I read a recent quote (in a publication you would not be familiar with) which stated "The US is the most literate nation in the world, yet we rank very low in the ability to comprehend what we read".


Try me. I might be familiar with the publication. 



Marvin S said:


> Where do you rank in that quote?


If you must know, I am well read and I rank very high in the ability to comprehend what I read. (Although some of the butchering of the english language in some of the posts around here can challenge anyone's ability to comprehend.)




Marvin S said:


> What do you subscribe to besides Mother Earth News & the New Yorker?


You mean people still subscribe to magazines? ;-)

I subscribe to Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, and of course I get the publications of the conservation organizations I belong to (DU, TU, Ruffed Grouse Society). I pick up the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal once or twice a week. 

What magazines do you subscribe to besides National Review and the Weekly Standard?



Marvin S said:


> As I have previously posted your references have a built in BIAS other than Hawking (who is in the may or may not camp, YOU assigned him as a b).


Well, bias is certainly a matter of opinion, isn't it? Give me some examples of some sources you would consider non-biased. And, if you think that the BBC's data is biased (as you claimed in a previous post) and thus bogus, then show me a source that refutes that data.

I disagree that Hawking's view is 'we may or may not know if global warming exists' camp, and am pretty sure he would disagree as well. 

If he was in the 'we just can't know' camp, it is unlikely he would say " We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."



Marvin S said:


> I guess this would be my question also - by failing to answer someone are you conceding the point to them &/or trying to change the subject?


If you actually look at my posts, I answer the questions asked. I often follow those up with questions as well. If you catch me being evasive, or changing the subject, then call me on it. No, I haven't told you what my educational background is, nor do I intend to. As I stated, my credentials are that I can read, and I can think. As a conservative/free market thinker, I would expect that one's background shouldn't be as important to you as their abilities.

Of course, I understand the tactic of trying to discredit the person (or source) behind the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. It is a game you play well.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Global warming?

I am worried about the next ice age!


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Let me ask you something - what are your credentials to engage in this discussion.
> 
> Cold weather regards.




I am guessing this person has a majored in the Pseudo Intellectual Coffee House Languages with a minor in Cursory Investigative Skills.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I am guessing this person has a majored in the Pseudo Intellectual Coffee House Languages with a minor in Cursory Investigative Skills.


 
Target!!!! Reload Sabot 

dropped 'im with one shot regards

Bubba


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> 1) your wrong, "deserts" are NOT constantly shifing their position on the globe...the "EARTH" is constantly shifting its position in relation to its orbit of the sun, and shifting its own axis. if i may, science has proven that it takes MILLIONS of years to shift landmasses not thousands so, this article references "orbits of planets"


Republican Dude...help me better understand this statement. 

Doesn't the discovery of the 5000 year old cemetery in what is now the Sahara Desert, in an area that has been determined to have been green at one time, seem to indicate that deserts ARE shifting their positions on the globe BECAUSE of the micro-shifts of the earths orbit and on it's axis?

So what we end up, to my mind, is deserts in places we never had them before...they grow in one direction without a corresponding "shrink" from another direction...doesn't this equate to growth?

Really, help me understand what you are getting at.

Open Minded Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

backpasture said:


> If you must know, *I am well read *and I rank very high in the ability to comprehend what I read. (Although some of the butchering of the english language in some of the posts around here can challenge anyone's ability to comprehend.)
> 
> *who reads you....10-4, copy that commander...over and out....*
> 
> ...


LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

good stuff man...BP your great. i am not calling you out as in it is wrong...but man it sure sounds funny....i think i wouldnt have had as much fun with..."I can read quite well,......" 

NCA


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Joe S. said:


> Republican Dude...help me better understand this statement.
> 
> Doesn't the discovery of the 5000 year old cemetery in what is now the Sahara Desert, in an area that has been determined to have been green at one time, seem to indicate that deserts ARE shifting their positions on the globe BECAUSE of the micro-shifts of the earths orbit and on it's axis?
> 
> ...


open minded, joe...1st where did i say i was republican...i have never once in my posts to this thread or another given my political affiliation....................


all the discovery of a cemetery in a desert did is support one of two claims here on this board....either as you seem to believe the desert shifted and changed its size and location..and/or what i believe, that it did not, based upon the assumption that it wasnt the LAND MASS that moved, changed size and location it was the ENTIER PLANET (based upon known factors such as it is a shorter peroid of time for the planet to shift on orbit, than the land mass to shift on earth ie.5000 year change in the area versus 1 million) essentially giving each geographical region a different climate. whos to say 20 years from now we dont find a sun bathing bikini wearing woman from 10000 years ago in the amazon...is that to say the amazon grew,shifted and changed or is it to say the earth shifted and now what was once inhabitated is not any longer.

did that do it for you.

NCA

ps. that is how you anwser a question, with a thought BP, origional to myself not with some here look at this link..., wether it is correct is not the main point to "anwsering a question." the difference is i am not afraid to put my own ideas out there and get slammed by other ohhhh so bright people. that is how you learn...keeping your thoughts to yourself and not offering so much as your pinky to get chopped off, really shows how a lack of commitment to how dedicated you are to your arguement...put your neck out there...thunk up sumthing, on ur own..lol


so was it rehtorical...two letters...n.o.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> open minded, joe...1st where did i say i was republican...i have never once in my posts to this thread or another given my political affiliation....................
> 
> 
> all the discovery of a cemetery in a desert did is support one of two claims here on this board....either as you seem to believe the desert shifted and changed its size and location..and/or what i believe, that it did not, based upon the assumption that it wasnt the LAND MASS that moved, changed size and location it was the ENTIER PLANET (based upon known factors such as it is a shorter peroid of time for the planet to shift on orbit, than the land mass to shift on earth ie.5000 year change in the area versus 1 million) essentially giving each geographical region a different climate. whos to say 20 years from now we dont find a sun bathing bikini wearing woman from 10000 years ago in the amazon...is that to say the amazon grew,shifted and changed or is it to say the earth shifted and now what was once inhabitated is not any longer.
> ...


Hummm...OK...I'm down with the you may or may not be a Republican Dude.

Still not following you on the whole desert thing. It seems to me that if it takes millions of years for continental drift, and we are now finding a desert where 5000 years ago we had green space, the desert is growing...but...I don't have a degree in earth science so I really don't understand it at all. Thanks.

Take Care Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Joe S. said:


> Hummm...OK...I'm down with the you may or may not be a Republican Dude.
> 
> Still not following you on the whole desert thing. It seems to me that if it takes millions of years for continental drift, and we are now finding a desert where 5000 years ago we had green space, the desert is growing...but...I don't have a degree in earth science so I really don't understand it at all. Thanks.
> 
> ...




gotcha....of course im a conservative....lol. (i know you knew ;-))

ok...here is my thought, and like you i am not a "rock-head" but if you think of it like this...if we both agree it takes longer for a land mass to "drift" or shift, or change, or add your own word...then why would it be hard to believe that it would be the shorter time table of CLIMATE CHANGE that made a desert, not a longer time table to allow the land mass to shape a desert...i am presumming that maybe at one time *thousands* of years ago the "now known desert" was maybe further away from the present day equater thus allowing it to not be so hot, and more suited for a civilization that could not cope with what we have now...but if you take the approach of "drift" or land mass forming, over a longer period of time, *millions* of years...why did the same geographical area show green life with only 4000 years of difference in time....you see there was TWO civilizations found there both having green life seperated by 4000 years of desert desert...(according to the article) i think (again IMO) that it supports a theroy of natural climate change rather than a growing desert, in turn supporting the idea that "global warming" is not a 10,30,100 year thing but rather a growning NATURAL event that repeats itself....do we condtibute to it...probally...based upon thousands of factors a few are..density of the population, invention of things previously impossible, a recent technology boom allowing us to NOW take notice...etc,etc. 

we all are kidding ourselves to think that through the thousands of years of man (civilized) there wernt periods of extream temp. change, and guess what they thought "man its hot, but ohh well life goes on" and it did..i just think that now that we have the capicity to take notice, we are working up a frenzy which isnt deserved....guess what life will go on.

Take Care returned,

NCA

ps...brunette, with her hand up to her brow...she is looking for me bro..................love ya man...lol


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

bernie sanders said:


> That is a belief. The belief that 'nobody knows' whether humans affecting climate change is a belief.


Whatever you say -



bernie sanders said:


> Try me. I might be familiar with the publication.
> 
> I subscribe to Outdoor Life, Field & Stream, and of course I get the publications of the conservation organizations I belong to (DU, TU, Ruffed Grouse Society). I pick up the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal once or twice a week.
> 
> What magazines do you subscribe to besides National Review and the Weekly Standard?


OL, F & S as they support the outdoors, certainly not for literary content though I enjoy McManus & Heavey has an occasional moment. You might substitute Investor's Business Daily instead of the WSJ on occasion. The Times = most liberal paper in the nation. I belong to nothing where the Executive Director makes more than $150K per year.

I do NR as they are excellent writers besides having well researched articles, also Scientific American ( which BTW had an excellent article on volcanic action some months back ), Wired which will have an occasional article of interest if you can stand the advertising, Forbes (long time subscriber), Kiplingers ( who also has an excellent weekly newsletter on the state of things ), American Spectator. Just a lot of investing stuff - & they discredit Global Warming just as they do Ethanol. If the money people aren't interested it's probably a hoax.

As for the Weekly Standard & all the books by the Pseudo Conservatives - Hannity, Coulter, O'Reilly, et al - they would be liberals if they could find a following. 

But I do read Thomas Sowell, Michael Barone, George Will & am going to start on some of William Buckley's books. 

While some of these people may not be climatologists they present things in a thoughtful manner. 




bernie sanders said:


> Well, bias is certainly a matter of opinion, isn't it? Give me some examples of some sources you would consider non-biased. And, if you think that the BBC's data is biased (as you claimed in a previous post) and thus bogus, then show me a source that refutes that data.
> 
> 
> If you actually look at my posts, I answer the questions asked. I often follow those up with questions as well. If you catch me being evasive, or changing the subject, then call me on it. No, I haven't told you what my educational background is, nor do I intend to. As I stated, my credentials are that I can read, and I can think. As a conservative/free market thinker, I would expect that one's background shouldn't be as important to you as their abilities.
> ...


Come On - you haven't answered anyone - you just reload for the next salvo. I'm not interested in discrediting you - that has been accomplished by your posts - I'm just trying to understand how we could both live in the same nation & if you are as bright as you claim to be you could reach the conclusions that you reach. Sort of sophomoric.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

For what it's worth, this has been a very mild summer and it's been very pleasant the last 2 weeks.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> I'm just trying to understand how we could both live in the same nation & if you are as bright as you claim to be you could reach the conclusions that you reach. Sort of sophomoric.


Well, I don't understand how you could reach the conclusions you reach, but I do understand how we can live in this nation together. That's what I love about this nation.

And, I never claimed I was bright.

regards


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
> 
> good stuff man...BP your great. i am not calling you out as in it is wrong...but man it sure sounds funny....i think i wouldnt have had as much fun with..."I can read quite well,......"
> 
> NCA


Originally Posted by *JDogger*  
_NCA, _
_You may find many kindred spirits here;_

_http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/_

_they too, argue in circles._

_I stand by my origianal post._

_JD_

_I misspell too. Bummer_
_Did you say due...due?_


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

I did say...do-do.....lol. 

now thats the kind of fun i'm talking about....;-);-) 

what the, wait...no, really i dont mean that....or do-due i????

hysterical regards,

NCA


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

actually, jdogger...i still wonder why you would say i out of all of the poster's on this thread you would pick me out as the 1 that argues in circles....because this "FLAT" spot on my head that i place my beer on, just cant seem to "wrap my mind around" your reason...lol

round regards,

NCA


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Come On - you haven't answered anyone - you just reload for the next salvo.


BTW, Marvin. I'm still waiting for you to cite any actual data that refutes the supposedly 'biased' data that I use to support my positions. Let's start with the BBC data that you dismissed. 

You should actually answer some questions posed to you before accusing me of being non responsive. 

Re: NY Times - there are plenty of papers much more liberal than that. When you are so far to the right that you're about to fall off, then everything left of National Review is 'the liberal media', though, I'm sure. And those of us who are moderates are 'liberals'.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Bernie S said:


> And, I never claimed I was bright.





Bernie S said:


> . If you must know, I am well read and I rank very high in the ability to comprehend what I read.


Those statements would say that you did make that claim -



Bernie S said:


> BTW, Marvin. I'm still waiting for you to cite any actual data that refutes the supposedly 'biased' data that I use to support my positions. Let's start with the BBC data that you dismissed.
> 
> And those of us who are moderates are 'liberals'.


Anytime you advocate taking something away from those who earned it to give to those who didn't &/or promote a permissive position it's LIBERAL. But find the Scientific American article on Volcanic activity - though I'm sure you wouldn't want to read something by someone in the know.



Bernie S said:


> Actually, most people sit at b or c. This is according to numerous surveys. Here is one:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/25_09_07climatepoll.pdf


Please - this is a POLL - I don't care about the opinion of someone on the street - present something that is fact driven & done by someone knowledgeable without an axe to grind.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Please - this is a POLL - I don't care about the opinion of someone on the street - present something that is fact driven & done by someone knowledgeable without an axe to grind.


Right, it IS a poll, and it was presented as data to refute YOUR assertion that the most people will fall in the middle of a 'bell curve' when asked about what they thought about global warming.

It is data that supports my position, and refutes yours. I have yet to see you present ANY data to support your position.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> It is data that supports my position, and refutes yours. I have yet to see you present ANY data to support your position.


Here is some info (and scientific data) for you to ponder. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html

I was going to stay out of the lunacy, but when you turn an impending hurricane thread into a debate on global warming I changed my mind.

By the way, we have had tropical weather systems down here at least since the time history began being recorded.

Perhaps you would like to buy some carbon credits from Big Al, he is now selling them for Mars too since its polar icecaps have been receding for the same length of time that this ours has


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> Here is some info (and scientific data) for you to ponder. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/fallacies_about_global_warming.html


The Science and Public Policy Group was founded with a mission to dispute global warming, and receives their funding from ExxonMobil (one of many climate change skeptic groups ExxonMobil has funded). The 'group' is actually one guy, who uses some of the more vocal members of the small group of skeptics as his 'advisors'.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Mr Nobel winner and captain hypocrisy have a new tool in his arsenal to help spread the news about global warming. In addition to a fleet of limos and multiple big ass houses Big Al can cruise to the party cove and broadcast his message to the masses. If they run low on beer a secret service agent can always zip off to the quickie mart on the Sea-Doo. The best thing about it is that it runs on Bio diesel so that really does count towards adding to his carbon foot print.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> The Science and Public Policy Group was founded with a mission to dispute global warming, and receives their funding from ExxonMobil (one of many climate change skeptic groups ExxonMobil has funded). The 'group' is actually one guy, who uses some of the more vocal members of the small group of skeptics as his 'advisors'.


What difference does it make where they get their funding as long as they present the evidence to back up their claims?

And if there are many groups of skeptics does it not mean that the WHOLE scientific community is not onboard with man made global warming?

Man made Global warming is a yet to be proven THEORY, and there are many who stand to profit in one way or another from its acceptance.

Disproof of the THEORY will allow the people of free market societies to not be burdened by increased costs and taxation that the politicians of many counties will try to burden us with to try and control Greenhouse Emissions. Therefore there are many skeptics who will will not accept what is being hailed as a concensus in the scientific community.

Since when was scientific fact defined by a vote instead of proof? 

Mike


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I forgot the abbreviation for Al's new boat are BS one.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> What difference does it make where they get their funding as long as they present the evidence to back up their claims?


To me, where they get their money isn't as important as the fact that they come to 'science' with a pre-determined agenda. They are a lot like the flat earth folks, who have decided what they believe, and try to find data to support their claims. Real science evaluates data before reaching conclusions.

However, the fact that they ARE funded by ExxonMobil (who has every reason to want to paint climate change as a hoax) is a serious blow to their credibility.



Captain Mike D said:


> And if there are many groups of skeptics does it not mean that the WHOLE scientific community is not onboard with man made global warming?


That is correct.As I have stated bfore, it is clear that there are skeptics out there. It is also clear they make up a small minority of the 'scientific community'.



Captain Mike D said:


> Man made Global warming is a yet to be proven THEORY, and there are many who stand to profit in one way or another from its acceptance.


You are right, it is a theory, which likely cannot be proven beyond doubt in our time. However, the vast majority of the scientific community believes the theory is likely true. Skeptics seem to cling to the little bit of doubt, and say "If it can't be proven with 100% certainty, then it doesn't exist".

And, there are many who stand to profit from denying it (ExxonMobil is 'Exhibit A'). 'Follow the money' cuts both ways.



Captain Mike D said:


> Disproof of the THEORY will allow the people of free market societies to not be burdened by increased costs and taxation that the politicians of many counties will try to burden us with to try and control Greenhouse Emissions. Therefore there are many skeptics who will will not accept what is being hailed as a concensus in the scientific community.


Are you arguing with me or against me? I couldn't have presented a more compelling hypothesis of what motivates the skeptics. I think you are correct that skeptics often don't WANT it to be true because they fear the actions that need to be taken to address it. They are inconvenient, and they cost money. What you have argued above is why skeptics exists. What you have not argued is why their views are correct.

I don't WANT it to be true, either, because it sucks, but my wishful thinking loses out to science.

And, even if you DON'T think it is true, there is still a compelling national security interest in getting off foreign oil as fast as we can.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> And, even if you DON'T think it is true, there is still a compelling national security interest in getting off foreign oil as fast as we can.


While we will disagree on the proportion of scientific data to support either claim, I will agree with you on this fact. I'm pretty certain our methods for completing energy independence will differ.

For me it is drill anywhere and drill now WHILE developing alternatives.

I started a poll here a few months ago regarding this very issue and lo and behold 92% of RTFers (a couple of hundred responded ) agreed.

Sorry, but my blueridge mountain hillbilly mom's words still ring in my ears---"Don't cut off your nose to spite your face".

Much but not all of the economic downturn we face now is due to the price of oil for fuel and practically all goods that are produced. Couple that with the rush to produce ethonol from the food we produce for animals and people and there is extreme inflation.

Allow someone add more tax (CARBON TAX) to all businesses that produce goods using oil and pretty soon we will see a greater depression than the "GREAT DEPRESSION" with the government and world body(UN) deciding which group of people deserves to have money given to them to help them survive( Socialist State). The reality is that the producers will not pay the tax, it will be you and me.

Sorry but this isn't what my forefathers fought and died for when breathing life into this country.

Mike


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> That is correct.As I have stated bfore, it is clear that there are skeptics out there. It is also clear they make up a *small minority of the 'scientific community'.*


I just wonder where you've gotten your information on the subject? Link? 




backpasture said:


> You are right, it is a theory, which likely cannot be proven beyond doubt in our time. However, the vast majority of the scientific community believes the theory is likely true.


again, where have you gotten this information? Link? 

Does that "large" majority you speak of believe without a doubt that it is man made? There are a LOT of very well respected scientist that know a whole lot more than me on this subject that say it isn't man made but is instead a cyclical thing. 

You keep telling folks that if they believe differently than you then they must be part of the "flat earth group" but I would say those that blindly sit back and listen to NBC or Newsweek without question would fit a lot better on that flat surface that you speak of.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

backpasture said:


> The Science and Public Policy Group was founded with a mission to dispute global warming, and receives their funding from ExxonMobil (one of many climate change skeptic groups ExxonMobil has funded). The 'group' is actually one guy, who uses some of the more vocal members of the small group of skeptics as his 'advisors'.


Just checkin' to see if I have this straight....earlier in this very thread you got the vapors (figuratively, of course  ) that someone would apparently question the DU scientists' motivations/integrity, but 15 thread pages later you do the same thing to the other side?!? 



> Right, the old 'everybody else is doing it' defense. When I learned about ethics in Sunday school, they taught us that they were absolute.


LOL. Is that your final answer?


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Hew said:


> Just checkin' to see if I have this straight....earlier in this very thread you got the vapors (figuratively, of course  ) that someone would apparently question the DU scientists' motivations/integrity, but 15 thread pages later you do the same thing to the other side?!?
> 
> 
> 
> > Hew wins the thread for completing the circle!!


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> And, even if you DON'T think it is true, there is still a compelling national security interest in getting off foreign oil as fast as we can.


So you're in agreement that we need to drill ANWAR, offshore, shale, etc. while we wait for technology to come up with a SUITABLE alternative to oil? Excellent.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Hew said:


> So you're in agreement that we need to drill ANWAR, offshore, shale, etc. while we wait for technology to come up with a SUITABLE alternative to oil? Excellent.


Hey !!!! Thats Paris Hiltons Plan !


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

told you....(in another thread);-);-)

we all see it regards

NCA


----------



## wheelhorse (Nov 13, 2005)

What I don't understand is how we can not think, even a little bit, that with 6 BILLION people living on this planet that our actions with regards to the environment won't have a corresponding REaction. Whether it be climate change or whatever "they" want to call it.

You can point to all the science one way or the other, but the fact of the matter is, we are all part of this environment. Our actions influence it.

Kathleen


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Hew said:


> So you're in agreement that we need to drill ANWAR, offshore, shale, etc. while we wait for technology to come up with a SUITABLE alternative to oil? Excellent.


Well, hold on there a minute Hurricane Man...my whole "concern" about all the drilling isn't that we don't need to, it is by making new sources available we are going to "kick the can" down the road and the pressure for R&D on new technology will wane.

It seems to me we are, in general, asking the oil companies to put themselves out of their primary business...or at least take a serious hit on their bottom line...but when you are making > $10 billion every three months, maybe the bottom line could take a little hit. 

Now volleyball is on and I REALLY got to go...

Batten Down Your Hatches Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> I just wonder where you've gotten your information on the subject? Link?
> 
> 
> again, where have you gotten this information? Link?
> ...


I've posted before, but here it is again -- organizations that publicly support the theory of human affected climate change. This is just some of them:

Here are a few of the scientific organizations that believe the theory of climate change is real, and have publicly stated so:
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- National Science Academy of Brazil
- National Science Academy of Canada
- National Science Academy of China
- National Science Academy of France
- National Science Academy of Germany
- National Science Academy of Italy
- National Science Academy of India
- National Science Academy of Japan
- National Science Academy of Mexico
- National Science Academy of Russia
- National Science Academy of South Africa
- National Science Academy of the United Kingdom
- National Science Academy of the United States.
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Network of African Science Academies
- National Research Council 
- European Science Foundation
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- Federation of American Scientists
- World Meteorological Organization
- American Meteorological Society
- Royal Meteorological Society
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- American Quaternary Association
- Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- International Union of Geological Sciences
- European Geosciences Union
- Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
- Geological Society of America
- American Geophysical Union
- American Astronomical Society
- American Institute of Physics
- American Physical Society
- American Chemical Society
- Engineers Australia 
- Federal Climate Change Science Program
- American Statistical Association

Hunting/Fishing Organizations that have publicly supported the theory (and are part of http://www.seasonsend.org)
- American Sportfishing Association
- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
- BASS/ESPN
- Coastal Conservation Association
- Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
- Isaac Walton League of America
- Pheasants Forever
- Trout Unlimited 
- Wildlife Management Institute
- Delta Waterfowl


The most optimistic estimate I have seen about the number of 'skeptics' in the scientific community is 500 individuals. That would constitute a small minority. I am not aware of any actual scientific organizations that are on record as being 'skeptics' as this point. (as opposed to groups like Science and Public Policy Group, which is a one man operation set up to counter global climate change theory). There are probably at least a few out there, though.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> Just checkin' to see if I have this straight....earlier in this very thread you got the vapors (figuratively, of course  ) that someone would apparently question the DU scientists' motivations/integrity, but 15 thread pages later you do the same thing to the other side?!?


Hmmm, let's see which has more credibility on climate change theory:

- A 70 year old conservation organizations, whose mission is to protect wildlife habitat, and whose membership is made up primarily of hunters.
- A one man 'think tank' whose sole purpose is to attempt to refute climate change theory, and is funded by a company with a vested interest in keeping this country hooked on oil.

I will stand by my previous comments.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> So you're in agreement that we need to drill ANWAR, offshore, shale, etc. while we wait for technology to come up with a SUITABLE alternative to oil? Excellent.


I've said before I support offshore. Don't have much of a problem with the others.

What we are going to get out of those is a drop in the bucket, though. They don't come CLOSE to getting us off foreign oil. It would be a great thing if this country could get to the point where it consumes only as much oil as it can produce.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Hmmm, let's see which has more credibility on climate change theory:
> 
> - A 70 year old conservation organizations, whose mission is to protect wildlife habitat, and whose membership is made up primarily of hunters.
> - A one man 'think tank' whose sole purpose is to attempt to refute climate change theory, and is funded by a company with a vested interest in keeping this country hooked on oil.
> ...


My response to you trying to justify your anti-ethical (according to your Sunday school, anyway) double standard was going to be: "hey, whatever helps you sleep at night." But then I noticed that you posted that a little after 5 in the morning. Was your conscience bothering you last night?


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Well, hold on there a minute Hurricane Man...my whole "concern" about all the drilling isn't that we don't need to, it is by making new sources available we are going to "kick the can" down the road and the pressure for R&D on new technology will wane.
> 
> It seems to me we are, in general, asking the oil companies to put themselves out of their primary business...or at least take a serious hit on their bottom line...but when you are making > $10 billion every three months, maybe the bottom line could take a little hit.


Ah, Giuseppe, therein lies our fundamental disagreement. It would seem you'd like the govt. to take the lead in alternative fuels (using money taken from Big Oil, which in turn will be taken from consumers). I would posit that if you want a prime example of government deeply involved with the nuts and bolts of energy production and promotion of alternative fuel then look no further than the absolute BOONDOGGLE of ethanol. The govt. pimping/mandates on ethanol are so stupid that it may do what even the Nazis couldn't do...unite uber-liberals and uber-conservatives (and everybody in between) in opposition to it. 

The answer (as it is to many questions) is to let the market decide. I guarantee you that the market isn't kicking the R&D can down the road. Well before gas shot to $4 people were producing hybrid cars, solar panels that convert more efficiently, batteries that store more electricity, etc. With demand for those types of products increasing at fever pitch you can bet there are thousands of companies looking to build a better mousetrap and get rich. And the govt. didn't even have to tell them to. What's selling better now; Hummers or Prius? And it didn't take a taxpayer-funded mandate to make that happen.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

If I remember correctly, the rate at which we are supposed to warm up is rapid, it will all happen in the next 25 years. I'm just saying the answer to the riddle will be soon enough. Either New York City will be under water or it won't.

It is a fact that anyone who is a global warming follower is following blindly to a degree(admit it), and anyone who isn't a follower is being a skeptic.

It is obvious there is a global warming bandwagon forming. It is a bandwagon. What else would you call it?

I imagine some people think some sort of environmental band wagon is a good thing no matter what, and others don't. To me, it is just a bandwagon that would involve banging someone's head against a wall, and it is obviously people are going to make money off of it. Like I said, if global warming is true, New York City will be under water in 25 years. The bandgwagon is not going to stop that. Personally, I don't believe in global warming. I do believe that man affects the environment, and every is trying to make a buck, and ones who aren't can't stop the ones who are from trying. Human nature can be, and is a petty thing most of the time. Those who fight against it often create it.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped nearly a full degree in the last year. World temperatures, according to the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, are trending downward according the chart that is exhibited there. It is a huge drop. 

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snow cover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously," a degree in one year, ladies and gentlemen. And, you know what? Scientists such as Drew Thornley, he's a policy analyst at the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Center for Economic Freedom and the Center for Natural Resources. 


"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." Simon & Garfunkel (_The Boxer_)

Evan


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> My response to you trying to justify your anti-ethical (according to your Sunday school, anyway) double standard was going to be: "hey, whatever helps you sleep at night." But then I noticed that you posted that a little after 5 in the morning. Was your conscience bothering you last night?



Right. A double standard would mean they are held to different standards. 

Hate to break it to you, but defending the integrity of a respected organization like DU doesn't compel me to defend any and all organizations' integrity (particularly one with such an obvious agenda as the Science and Public Policy Group). 

You might need to do some studying on the subject of ethics so you actually understand what the word means before accusing me of ethical lapses. Join the braintrust proclaiming me ignorant, unpatriotic, elitist, and now unethical:


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Evan said:


> This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website. All four major global temperature tracking outlets -- Hadley, NASA's GISS, the UAH, and the RSS -- have data showing that global temperatures have dropped nearly a full degree in the last year. World temperatures, according to the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction, are trending downward according the chart that is exhibited there. It is a huge drop.


Using one year's data to determine long term trends is about as reliable as the standard response of "It sure is cold here today! Looks like global warming is a hoax".

Skeptics like to trot out graphs like this one:









Which make you think, "Holy cow, the earth IS getting cooler!"

Until you actually put it into perspective:









There is a reason that NASA calculates average temps over 5 year periods rather than taking one year's worth of data and declaring a trend. (That doesn't stop Michael Asher, the climate change skeptic who writes all climate the articles for DailyTech.com, from claiming one year is a trend, though.)


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

So now add "moran" to the list of names you've called people that don't agree with you.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> So now add "moran" to the list of names you've called people that don't agree with you.


Ya.  I was actually presenting that as Hew's argument. The moran guy is the leader of the brain trust that Hew is part of.

Seems to be that when some folks on this thread can't find any actual facts to back them up, they attack me personally (I'm ignorant, unethical, hypocritical, etc). When that happens, I will fire back without apology.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> You might need to do some studying on the subject of ethics so you actually understand what the word means before accusing me of ethical lapses. Join the braintrust proclaiming me ignorant, unpatriotic, elitist, and now unethical:


My, but you're quite the study in contrasts: 

You dispute others' facts but provide erroneous facts yourself (eg. DU not accepting govt. money or having a financial stake in global warming).

You get torqued if someone questions the motivations of your scientists but turn right around and question the motivations of scientists that you don't agree with. 

You respond to a previous statement of mine by questioning my ethics ("Right, the old 'everybody else is doing it' defense. When I learned about ethics in Sunday school, they taught us that they were absolute. Maybe I missed something.") but get your panties in a bunch when I applied your own quote to you.

You're right, though, that I should always study the meaning of words. Two words that I'm pretty familiar with, and know them when I see them, are "hypocrisy" and "chutzpah."


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Just to review:


Hew said:


> You dispute others' facts but provide erroneous facts yourself (eg. DU not accepting govt. money or having a financial stake in global warming).


When I made that claim, I said, 'I could be wrong, please correct me if I am'. I was corrected, and I said 'Thanks for the correction'. I'm not ALWAYS right -- just most of the time. ;-)

(AmiableLabs actually provided the correction: "You are mostly wrong, but not entirely. Both organizations [referring to both DU and TU] receive grant money from the government for projects. Not for the organization.")



Hew said:


> You get torqued if someone questions the motivations of your scientists but turn right around and question the motivations of scientists that you don't agree with.


If you are calling DU's scientists 'mine', then yes. I will defend their motivations. And, I don't have a problem with questioning the motivations an obviously political organization like the Science and Public Policy Group.



Hew said:


> You respond to a previous statement of mine by questioning my ethics ("Right, the old 'everybody else is doing it' defense. When I learned about ethics in Sunday school, they taught us that they were absolute. Maybe I missed something.") but get your panties in a bunch when I applied your own quote to you.


Not true. I NEVER questioned your ethics, and you would have been correct to call me on it if I had, given what little I know about you. My response you have quoted was to YOUR charge of ethical lapses by DU employed scientists. You said " The fact is that there is a magnitude more money available to scientists who happen to believe in global warming than those who don't. While I won't contend that DU scientists are shills, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe DU's snout isn't suckling up to global warming money." 

See the posts:
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=28819&page=10

My point being that if you think that those scientists are reaching the conclusions they reach for the money, then you are accusing them of questionable (ie - relative) ethics.



Hew said:


> You're right, though, that I should always study the meaning of words. Two words that I'm pretty familiar with, and know them when I see them, are "hypocrisy" and "chutzpah."


Thanks. Since you want to make the debate about me instead of the topic at hand, I will wear those charges as a badge of honor.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I'm just trying to figure out another question I can ask you in 10 seconds or less that would keep you busy on google for a couple more hours.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> You're right, though, that I should always study the meaning of words. Two words that I'm pretty familiar with, and know them when I see them, are "hypocrisy" and "chutzpah."


BTW - Given your understanding of what constitutes 'hyprocisy', I am guessing you agree with me in questioning the motivations of the Science and Public Policy Group, in the same way you question the motivations of the good people at DU.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> I'm just trying to figure out another question I can ask you in 10 seconds or less that would keep you busy on google for a couple more hours.


Ya, it's pretty crazy the way I actually do some research.

Are you here to add to the conversation, or are you just another member of the peanut gallery?


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Not true. I NEVER questioned your ethics, and you would have been correct to call me on it if I had, given what little I know about you. My response you have quoted was to YOUR charge of ethical lapses by DU employed scientists. You said " The fact is that there is a magnitude more money available to scientists who happen to believe in global warming than those who don't. While I won't contend that DU scientists are shills, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe DU's snout isn't suckling up to global warming money."


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Here's the _entirety_ of my statement that prompted your condescending ethics primer:



> *I for one won't lose sleep over what he wrote as environmentalists seem to have zero qualms about attacking the integrity of scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming as shills of Big Oil or whomever.* The fact is that there is a magnitude more money available to scientists who happen to believe in global warming than those who don't. While I won't contend that DU scientists are shills, you're kidding yourself if you don't believe DU's snout isn't suckling up to global warming money. They've even assigned a scientist to attend to the teat:


I took the liberty of highlighting the part that you quite-conveniently left out in your most recent Bart Simpson "I didn't do it" post. Any person with two brain cells to rub together would come to the conclusion that your Sunday School ethics lesson about "everybody else is doing it" was directed to the bold part of my quote. As for why I didn't "call you on it" at the time, I figured we're both big boys/girl (sorry, I honestly don't know your gender) and that you could take it as well as you dish it out. From as tightly as your panties got wedged I see that I was wrong...the first and only time on this thread where that has happened.  

Sorry to intrude on the rest of the debate. I will resume to read-only mode.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> BTW - Given your understanding of what constitutes 'hyprocisy', I am guessing you agree with me in questioning the motivations of the Science and Public Policy Group, in the same way you question the motivations of the good people at DU.


Sure I do. I question everybodys motivations...particularly when their paycheck is tied to their opinion.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
> 
> Here's the _entirety_ of my statement that prompted your condescending ethics primer:
> 
> ...



Sorry, I beg to differ. I didn't include that first sentence because that wasn't what I was originally responding to. Your opinion isn't a basis for a charge of anti-ethical behavior, which is why I would not/did not level the charge at you. Ethics can only be breached with actions. You were clearly questioning the ethics of the DU scientists, and that is what I was responding to. If you took it as an insult, then I apologize. That was not my intent.

Personally, I take charges of unethical behavior seriously. For me, it's a good reason to get my 'panties in a wedge'. 



> I question everybodys motivations...particularly when their paycheck is tied to their opinion.


Personally, I prefer 'trust, but verify'. I don't think that the scientists at DU get paid any more to state their support for the theory of human affected climate change than they would get paid otherwise (as noted previously -- DU doesn't appear to get any government funding to pay their scientists). 

If someone has some information that shows where a scientist at DU actually received more money for supporting the theory of global warming, then I stand corrected, and I will post my own GDG thread to publicly acknowledge my mistake (and cancel my DU membership).


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Are you here to add to the conversation, or are you just another member of the peanut gallery?


Man, you really don't have a clue who you are talking to do you. I am the king of the peanut gallery.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> Man, you really don't have a clue who you are talking to do you. I am the king of the peanut gallery.



I don't know. I think lots of folks would like to lay claim to that crown. :-D:-D


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

backpasture said:


>


Perhaps the problem that you are seeing is in the interpretation. I believe that most scientists believe that global warming is in fact underway. BUT many (most) do not believe that it is totally man made or perceptably impacted by man's actions. Yes man may add to the ingredients that cause global warming, but that there is little that man can/will do to prevent it. 

Using your above data, we can see that global warming was well under way in the mid-late 1800's. Note that at this time there were NO automoblies, very few internal combustion engines, very little electricty generation, etc. World population (1850) was about 1.2B, animals provided the bulk of the transportation. 

Further following your data, we note that there was a cooling trend occuring in the 1880's. This corresponds nicely with the eruption of Krakatoa in 1883. Krakatoa had the power of a 200 megaton bomb and blasted thousands tons of rock dust and ash as high as 50 miles. Also liberated were massive amounts of sulpher, the combined affect being the drop in global temperature by over 1.2 celsius the following year and of "chaotic" weather patterns for several years. 

Thus the perception is that if global warming is caused by man, the cure would be not only the reduction of gloabal warming components to below their 1850 levels, as well as the removal of those components created between 1850 and now. The big question is how do you do this when the world population has increased over 4 fold, and today's population has been brought up on the technology, and transportation systems of today? Do you ban all IC engines world wide? All power plants? Won't coal and oil used for lighting and heat also add to the green house gasses? And how the heck does the selling of carbon credits do anything to reduce the amounts of greenhouse gases currently in the air?


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> BUT many (most) do not believe that it is totally man made or perceptably impacted by man's actions.


That's where you are wrong, though. Again, here are some of the organizations that have publicly stated that they believe that humans are warming the earth:
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
- National Science Academy of Brazil
- National Science Academy of Canada
- National Science Academy of China
- National Science Academy of France
- National Science Academy of Germany
- National Science Academy of Italy
- National Science Academy of India
- National Science Academy of Japan
- National Science Academy of Mexico
- National Science Academy of Russia
- National Science Academy of South Africa
- National Science Academy of the United Kingdom
- National Science Academy of the United States.
- International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
- European Academy of Sciences and Arts
- Network of African Science Academies
- National Research Council 
- European Science Foundation
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
- Federation of American Scientists
- World Meteorological Organization
- American Meteorological Society
- Royal Meteorological Society
- Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
- Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
- International Union for Quaternary Research
- American Quaternary Association
- Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
- International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
- International Union of Geological Sciences
- European Geosciences Union
- Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
- Geological Society of America
- American Geophysical Union
- American Astronomical Society
- American Institute of Physics
- American Physical Society
- American Chemical Society
- Engineers Australia 
- Federal Climate Change Science Program
- American Statistical Association

Hunting/Fishing Organizations that have publicly supported the theory (and are part of http://www.seasonsend.org)
- American Sportfishing Association
- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
- BASS/ESPN
- Coastal Conservation Association
- Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
- Isaac Walton League of America
- Pheasants Forever
- Trout Unlimited 
- Wildlife Management Institute
- Delta Waterfowl

I welcome some data that can tell me there are more than 400-500 scientists worldwide in the 'skeptics' camp, but I just haven't seen it. The organizations on the record that I have been able to find that say that global warming is NOT affected by humans are all operations that have been started in the past few years to refute that theory, or are self styled 'conservative think tanks'. In other words, organizations founded with an end in mind - to refute the theory. 

There have been lots of posts attempting to refute this, but none can do more than point to some one-off organizations that are on the record as skeptics. The biggest thing that skeptics have to hang their hats on is the report that was signed onto by 400 scientists (which also includes a disclaimer that not all them dispute everything about human affected climate change).

I would love to see the list of the 'skeptics', and see how it stacks up against the list of organizations I listed above. Anyone interested in compiling that?

In terms of the volcano theory, here's one URL that has some good info on that. There are others out there as well: http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/climate411/2007/05/21/volcanoes/

You may be right. It may be too late to do anything. We may just be screwed. But, shouldn't we try?


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

OK whoever you are from the Back Pasture in the Green Mountain State...let's end the stinking rhetoric and put your money where your mouth is. If Algore has the answer you seem to think he has, get on board bigtime. Send him your $100,000 certified check, so we know you are serious about wanting all us taxpayers to spend our money on this pathetic pipe dream.

C'mon BP of GM...be the first to be scammed in a way we can all then realize you are a true believer, and willing to fall on the sword for your mighty icon. Other than that, why should we place any belief in what you have to say, regardless of how many references you drum up. Hellsbells, anyone can find quotable references to bolster their view...especially from those that are developing them for their own financial benefit.

We've gone well past the point of your proving your loyalty to Algore and his merry batch of Green bilkers, so now as a final gesture, why not a serious stamp of approval with a worthwhile contribution? Otherwise, just give it a rest, because you aren't convincing anyone of how erudite you want us to see you as; no, you have fallen over the cliff into ignoranusville.

UB


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

I don't post the Political GDG, I just respond, UB. Keep posting. I'll keep responding.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

backpasture said:


> That's where you are wrong, though. Again, here are some of the organizations that have publicly stated that they believe that humans are warming the earth


Ok, let's assume that humans are warming the earth. Using your data this warming was well underway by 1850. (And according to many who believe global warming is a natural event this actual warming trend began 10-15,000 years ago.) So based on your data, the human impetus for global warming must have been in effect since the early 1800's or earlier! The world population in 1800 was ~1B growing to 1.2Bin 1850. Technology was limited; no electricity, no internal combustion engine, no steam engines, no telephone, no natural gas pipelines, etc. The question remains how do you revert to the emmisions of the low tech 1800's world and still have the technological epectations of today with a population that is 4-6x greater than it was in 1800-1850 and expected to grow to 8B by 2030!

Also from your reply it would appear that you think global warming will end life on earth as we know it. This is not true. Remember that the green house gases being liberated by the consumption of oil, gas and coal existed on earth previously in an organic (animal/plant) state. There will probably be some major climate shifts. And these will undoubtedly lead to some major population migrations, but both these events have happend before. I don't think I'm going to worry about that, rather I'll worry how we are going to find the water, food, power, etc for the additional 1.4B people this planet will have in less than 25 years.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I think this weekends trip to go work on my duck blind sums up nicely the algore followers. While waiting in line to board the fairy to cross the Mississippi river (2nd in line) about 50 bicyclist on some sort of ride or tour showed up to cross as well. About 20 right off the bat went to the front of the line. The when the fairy showed up the captain says over the PA system for the riders safety they will board last and on the right side of the boat. 10 or so started to get on anyway and almost got run over by the truck in front of me. The Captain then has to repeat his orders of which the 5 or so either were to dumb or maybe did not think they had to wait proceeded on still. At that time the captain raised the front of the barge so nobody could board. He repeated his orders for the 3rd time and added that if they are not going to abide by the safety rules than he would not allow any bikes on. Eventually they figured it out and we all made it on without further disruption. We finally were on our way and 5 minutes in they were bitching about having to pay 3 dollars (cars and trucks 8) and some woman was screaming at the pilot that he was going the long way and should cut between the island which we would have run aground. Then after telling a guy 3 times to quit leaning on my truck. I finally asked him if he was making the payments or that it was public property . These were not the stinky hippies they looked to be upper class folks that had spent way to much money on a bicycle and could use some style tips about spandex or maybe a mirror. Then the final straw was a bunch of them were railing on about how much fuel the barge was using and the size of the carbon footprint it had. These folks were using the Fairy for pleasure not to go see algores new boat or save a stranded whale but to go on a ride so they could e-mail the pictures to each other showing how big their ass looks in those bicycle shorts standing on a barge. Thank God they did not know I had a gun in the truck or I was going to work on the duck blind.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

T. Mac said:


> Ok, let's assume that humans are warming the earth. Using your data this warming was well underway by 1850. (And according to many who believe global warming is a natural event this actual warming trend began 10-15,000 years ago.) So based on your data, the human impetus for global warming must have been in effect since the early 1800's or earlier! The world population in 1800 was ~1B growing to 1.2Bin 1850. Technology was limited; no electricity, no internal combustion engine, no steam engines, no telephone, no natural gas pipelines, etc. The question remains how do you revert to the emmisions of the low tech 1800's world and still have the technological epectations of today with a population that is 4-6x greater than it was in 1800-1850 and expected to grow to 8B by 2030!
> 
> Also from your reply it would appear that you think global warming will end life on earth as we know it. This is not true. Remember that the green house gases being liberated by the consumption of oil, gas and coal existed on earth previously in an organic (animal/plant) state. There will probably be some major climate shifts. And these will undoubtedly lead to some major population migrations, but both these events have happend before. I don't think I'm going to worry about that, rather I'll worry how we are going to find the water, food, power, etc for the additional 1.4B people this planet will have in less than 25 years.


The data actually shows stable world temperatures until about 1850. Starting then, there is very small rise in temperature. Around 1980, it started rising very quickly. The temp levels correspond with the volume of green house gases trapped in the atmosphere.

And no, I don't think warming will end life on earth as we know it, but it IS going to change things. And, those of us who are hunters and fisherman will see the effects. DU already attributes the declines in scaup numbers to the effects of climate change, for example. TU warns of no more wild trout in areas like the Smoky Mountains. These aren't left wing organizations, and contrary to what some claim on this list, the scientists employed by those organizations aren't lining their pockets as a result of voicing their support for the theory.

And, I'm with you that the underlying problem for ALL of this is that we are living in a world overpopulated by humans. Reducing population growth is one of the ways to help solve the problem. It's one of many steps that need to be taken. Conservation and investment in renewables is another. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away -- it will make it worse.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> The data actually shows stable world temperatures until about 1850. Starting then, there is very small rise in temperature. Around 1980, it started rising very quickly. The temp levels correspond with the volume of green house gases trapped in the atmosphere.


 
Well I guess you can add "Inability to interpolate data" to your resume. The slope of the 5 year average graph is clearly steeper in the time period from about 1910 to 1940 than it is 1980 to present.

From 1940 to 1950 the slope is negative even though this includes the post WWII industrial revolution where they were burning coal to make steel in the rustbelt like it was going out of style. Not to mention all the fuel being burned by the worlds war machines without catalytic converters or particulate traps.

Stick to the AlGore talking points you trip over yourself every time you try to adlib.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Reducing population growth is one of the ways to help solve the problem.


I suppose that after you have contributed your back pasture and all your funds to A.G, you will be one of the first to step up and contribute yourself and your family to cure this root evil for our planet. (Somehow I doubt it)


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> Well I guess you can add "Inability to interpolate data" to your resume. The slope of the 5 year average graph is clearly steeper in the time period from about 1910 to 1940 than it is 1980 to present.
> 
> From 1940 to 1950 the slope is negative even though this includes the post WWII industrial revolution where they were burning coal to make steel in the rustbelt like it was going out of style. Not to mention all the fuel being burned by the worlds war machines without catalytic converters or particulate traps.
> 
> Stick to the AlGore talking points you trip over yourself every time you try to adlib.



You know that trends don't usually move in a straight line, right? That there is variation? Glad you know how to look at a graph. Look at the long term trend, though. Your argument is disingneous, and you know it.

Still waiting for your data to refute this. Maybe you want to take it upon yourself to compile the list of skeptics, as I suggested:



backpasture said:


> I would love to see the list of the 'skeptics', and see how it stacks up against the list of organizations I listed above. Anyone interested in compiling that?


I know its easier to snipe away and keep your head in the sand, but let's see you actually do some research and show something to back up your assertions.

Better yet, why don't you respond to this challenge, since it was spurred by your theory of the DU scientists lining their pockets on global warming money:



backpasture said:


> If someone has some information that shows where a scientist at DU actually received more money for supporting the theory of global warming, then I stand corrected, and I will post my own GDG thread to publicly acknowledge my mistake (and cancel my DU membership).


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> I suppose that after you have contributed your back pasture and all your funds to A.G, you will be one of the first to step up and contribute yourself and your family to cure this root evil for our planet. (Somehow I doubt it)


Stay classy, Captain Mike D.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

T. Mac said:


> ....... Using your data this warming was well underway by 1850.........


Let's see, I don't think it was his data it some of THE BEST AVAILABLE data.

Want more data and studies, take a look at the references, data, and graphs at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html.
This data as they state also strongly suggests:


> * Dramatic warming has occurred since the 19th century.
> *The recent record warm temperatures in the last 15 years are indeed the warmest temperatures the Earth has seen in at least the last 1000 years, and possibly in the last 2000 years.


All kinds of great data and summaries about climate available at:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/monitoring.html

If you want information about weather go to www.weather.com.

Now let's take a look at the atmospheric CO2 data at:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html
or for more greenhouse gasses:http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/.

I know it is all a coincidence that burning fossil fuels (by definition the conversion of billions of tons of stored hydrocarbons to atmospheric hydrocarbons), lines up with a warming climate and unprecedented historic increases in CO2 levels and humans of course have nothing to do with this. What are those crazy global warming scientists thinking. The paleo CO2 record shows a long term steady increase in atmospheric CO2 but there is a large change in slope in the 20th century. I know its just some volcanoes or solar flares or something else and it can't be us.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Has anyone considered the tilt of the earth
The north star is optically getting closer to the big flock (big dipper I think)
Many conclude the sothern hemisphere is cooling off

I say who cares
20 years ago it was the cows fault,,,,then it was the termites fault,,, this decade its our fault

Oh well blame it on me
Pass the beans please

Pete


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Will someone please give BP a clue!


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

What BackPasture doesn't really want to see:


In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released by NASA shows that the 4 warmest years ever recorded occurred in the 1930's, with the warmest year on record being 1934 (not 1998). Lets see if Al Gore revises his road show. Update - Global Warming is actually a Y2K bug!

Data discovered on NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) website revises recorded temperatures for the United States. It is expected that similar revisions will also be made for global temperature recordings. This information was discovered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit on Wednesday (8/8/2007). No NASA press release, no James Hansen (head of GISS) announcement, nothing. Could it be because they don't want anyone to see it? The data is certainly devastating for the Al Gore camp which has based much of their Carbon Credits sales pitch on recent temperatures (e.g. claiming that 1998 was the warmest on record).

Other aspects of the data are just as stunning. 


Only 4 of the top 10 warmest years occurred in the past 10 years (1998, 1999, 2006)
Out of the top 10 warmest years half occurred before 1940
The years 2000, 2002, 2003 and 2004 were cooler than the year 1900
1996, just two years before what Al Gore called the hottest year in the history of the planet, was actually cooler than average.
1921 was the third warmest year in recorded history (behind 1934 and 1998).

We're almost back to the 1970's theory of global cooling! The data clearly changes things. 

Had we been living in 1934 we would have heard the same claims of global warming, this is the evidence that we would have heard at the time:


8 of the past 10 years had been above average.
1934 was the warmest year ever recorded. The warmest in over 54 years!

Shift that to 1944 and you would have seen that 17 of the past 21 years had been warmer than average. It is obvious that in just the past 125 years there have been other periods just as warm, or warmer, than what we are now experiencing. If we could look at the past 1,000 years with the accuracy of the past 100 years we would most likely find that this is not unusual at all.

*Update:* Turns out this NASA data was revised because of a Y2K bug in the algorithm used to adjust measurement station raw data. Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data. NASA's James Hansen has refused to release his algorithms but they were reverse engineered by Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and NASA has since updated their data (so you know he Steve got it right). What this author finds truly disturbing (and disgusting) is that NASA would keep these algorithms secret. This is *public* information. Steve really should file a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request to obtain this and what ever else he needs. NASA would be very hard pressed to justify withholding that information. These events seriously call in to question anything James Hansen has touched, supervised, or managed. Not just because he got the math wrong but because he also hides his methods. He is apparently attempting to establish a new religion by requiring people to have _faith_ in his data.

References: 

Newsbusters.org
NASA GISS Data
Climate Audit - Steve McIntyre's site that started it all


----------



## JDogger (Feb 2, 2003)

I lifted this off another board some time back. It might apply.

JD


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

IBD,

Since you like data so much you might be interested in this stuff.

Yeah, that NASA stuff is great.
See: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/csci/
And http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ 
And all the great graphs at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

Oh and Hansen did release those codes see your great unbiased source at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-finally-releases-climate-data-computer-codes.

Also, check out this if you are a skeptic: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/bbc-contrarian-top-10/
Or the discussions at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/category/communicating-climate/skeptics/

Or finally, here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/ and check out the links listed down that page that provide the science to debunk arguments made by skeptics.
That real climate site has a neat subtitle: _Climate science from climate scientists_. Heck, click on "people" and the first contributor is a NASA climate modeler. Imagine that. It is so unfortunate that so many legitimate scientists have bought into this conspiracy.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> In a stunning turn of events data (quietly) released, blah, blah, blah.....


If you're going to copy and paste a web page, at least cite the source. It's only common courtesy to give the author credit:
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24

It's a great piece to the 'conspiracy' puzzle, but has a pretty basic logic flaw:

This guy is disputing NASA's data because of a y2K bug. The problem is that NASA is one of only a few organizations worldwide that are measuring global temps, and all the other data shows the same thing that NASA's does.

Not to mention that after he made these claims, NASA released their source code for review, and nobody seems to be able to find any actual problems with it, including Steve McIntyre, the blogger/skeptic who found the 'bug'. You would probably find his blog interesting: 
http://www.climateaudit.org/


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Is this a sign of the upcoming “little ice age”

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10527882

This scientist believes we are entering an ice age.

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milenio.com%2Fmexico%2Fmilenio%2Fnota.asp%3Fid%3D651680&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=es&tl=en


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> If you're going to copy and paste a web page, at least cite the source. It's only common courtesy to give the author credit:
> http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.24


 
You're right, I copied the text and meant to go back and copy the link and forgot. Hay, at least you were right about one thing on this thread.

Here is another list of Scientists who have actually reversed their opinion on Man Made Global Warming

http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress....lief-in-man-made-global-warming-now-skeptics/

I'm sure you are way too busy writing your check to AlGore to read it though.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

IBD,

Nice list of 11 scientists and 1 economist.

Several of those scientists are debunked by the scientists at Climate Science and elsewhere. I will let you search for those yourself.

The IPCC report was signed by over 1,000 climate scientists. If you want a more complete list of thousands more, check out: http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Henry V said:


> IBD,
> 
> Nice list of 11 scientists and 1 economist.
> 
> ...


 
All those scientists yet no proof whatsoever, only a "consensus"? The same scientists that had a "consensus" in the 70s that we would all be under water in 20 years? I did not take a boat to work today. How much have you sent to AlGore this week? P.T. Barnum had it right...


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> All those scientists yet no proof whatsoever, only a "consensus"?


Back to this? (Can't be proven with 100% certainty, so therefore it is certainly not true.) Brilliant logic!

And, there's 'only a consensus' in the scientific community? Well, I guess at least you've finally realized that there IS a consensus.



IowaBayDog said:


> The same scientists that had a "consensus" in the 70s that we would all be under water in 20 years?


I don't recall there being thousands of scientists in the 70s making that claim. Maybe its the same scientists that are now at DU getting rich off of global warming? Or, maybe another character from one of the elaborate conspiracy theories you've created? Where DO you actually get your information?

Still waiting for your response to either of the following:



backpasture said:


> I would love to see the list of the 'skeptics', and see how it stacks up against the list of organizations I listed above. Anyone interested in compiling that?


or



backpasture said:


> If someone has some information that shows where a scientist at DU actually received more money for supporting the theory of global warming, then I stand corrected, and I will post my own GDG thread to publicly acknowledge my mistake (and cancel my DU membership).


Feel free to address either one (although the second would probably be the most appropriate since you are the one with the theory about DU scientists getting rich by lying about their position on climate change).


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Back when the food pyramid first came out and I was trying to save money, I used to eat spaghetti for lunch everyday because it is cheap and that was what the bulk of what your diet was supposed to be. That is a recipe for gaining weight right there. I don't gain weight easy but that will do it to you.

I see the scientists and organizations being quoted as beaurocrats. Its just a snowball that rolls and grows. Nobody is making any critical analysises. A scientist is some college professor that gets up in front of people and comes up with 50 minutes of stuff to run their mouth about. That is their bread and butter.

As far as theories go, I like the paleolithic diet theory about eating like a caveman. That wouldn't look good on the back of a box of Cherrios however.

Why didn't the government come out and say Y2K was a lie? Everybody must have been thinking that was someone else's job.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

backpasture said:


> I don't recall there being thousands of scientists in the 70s making that claim. Maybe its the same scientists that are now at DU getting rich off of global warming? Or, maybe another character from one of the elaborate conspiracy theories you've created? Where DO you actually get your information?
> 
> .


 
I guess we finally got to the root of your problem, those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. During the 60s, 70s, and 80s, these same "scientists" put out the blather that Florida and La. would be under water long ago, some even had the next coming of the Ice Age. "Scientists" have been spewing this crap for as long as Gov't grants have existed.

I never said DU's scientist would get personal wealth from GW propaganda, but it certainly is in their best interest to play along with the beaurocrats if they ever want to see any Gov't money and/or land grants which they receive extensive amounts of it.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

IowaBayDog said:


> All those scientists yet no proof whatsoever, only a "consensus"? The same scientists that had a "consensus" in the 70s that we would all be under water in 20 years?
> I did not take a boat to work today.


What you don't seem to understand is that it is a monumental statement that all these scientists could come to a consensus on this at all. Scientists by their very nature are skeptics that are trained to question data and results. They have come to consensus on this issue. That's unprecedented on any issue.



IowaBayDog said:


> How much have you sent to Al Gore this week? P.T. Barnum had it right...


As far as I know Al is not looking for money. He also is rarely if ever mentioned on any of the websites I referenced. He is not a climate scientist. This is not about Al Gore, he is just one of many messengers, but some here sure seem to have a fixation on him.
You know though, I might send some money to McCain since he is a global warming believer (search "mccain global warming" lots of great stuff). I suppose I could also send Joe Lieberman some cash too. He is one of the strongest supporters of Mr. McCain and maybe he could pass some money along to his former running mate if he needs it.

Here is what McCain says on his website:


> Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Not only does our dependence on foreign oil bring about sizable national security risks but the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.


Sounds like you ought to be worried about McCain more than Al Gore.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> During the 60s, 70s, and 80s, these same "scientists" put out the blather that Florida and La. would be under water long ago, some even had the next coming of the Ice Age.


Really? The 1100 scientists on the list that Henry V posted made that claim? 
Or, the organizations that I listed previously (which support the theory of global warming) made that claim?

The answer to both of those questions is, of course, 'NO'. I am sure you can dig up a crackpot or two who made that claim, but to try to tie them to the current consensus on climate change is pretty weak stuff to hang your hat on. I'd like to see you try, though. So, why don't you connect the dots for us?

Again, I have to ask: Where DO you get your information? Do just make this stuff up? Is it something you heard second hand? Or, do you actually have a source for this BS.



IowaBayDogs said:


> I never said DU's scientist would get personal wealth from GW propaganda, but it certainly is in their best interest to play along with the beaurocrats if they ever want to see any Gov't money and/or land grants which they receive extensive amounts of it.


Oh, ok. So your position is that the good folks at DU are lying just to get more money for the ducks? (Since AmiableLabs has confirmed that DU doesn't actually get money from the government for operations - ie scientists' salaries). So, if I 'follow the money', as you suggest, it leads to ---- ducks? Even more remarkable is that, in order to believe that, you would also have to believe that there isn't one person at DU is ethical enough to stand up and expose DU for being part of the conspiracy.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Henry V said:


> This is not about Al Gore, he is just one of many messengers, but some here sure seem to have a fixation on him.


Of course they do. They have learned from Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, et al that it is always easier to attack the messenger than the ideas. And, it's easier to rally the troops if you have an enemy to demonize. (Don't worry, though Hannity, Rush and company are clean. There is no reason to question their motivations, because they don't have a stake in this. It's not like they make money selling books or advertising or anything like that by making outrageous claims.)

Oh, jeez. They've gotten to McCain, too! He's out to grab some of that global warming cash!

And, of course Bob Dole, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich... 

And this guy, surrounded by the global warming money funneled through Ducks Unlimited:


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Of course they do. They have learned from Hannity, Rush, O'Reilly, Savage, Coulter, et al that it is always easier to attack the messenger than the ideas.













Evan


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Originally Posted by *backpasture* _If someone has some information that shows where a scientist at DU actually received more money for supporting the theory of global warming, then I stand corrected, and I will post my own GDG thread to publicly acknowledge my mistake (and cancel my DU membership)._


I ignored this the first time you wrote it as I had wanted to extract myself from this ******* of a thread. But if you're going to keep throwing the gauntlet down...

From a previous link _you_ provided, Dawn Browne, one of the DU scientists, is tasked with "the development of additional lines of new business for Ducks Unlimited related to future marketing opportunities of ecological goods and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality credit trading." http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/ConservationExperts/1218/ConservationExpertsContacts.html
Now thinking logically, do you think if Dawn is successful in her job will she make more money than she would if she was an abject failure? Would she even have a job? 

Apparently Ms. Browne must be pretty good as DU got the govt. to kick in some coin (also debunking another myth you believed...re: DU and govt. funding):


> Ducks Unlimited is the recipient of a Department of Energy grant to lead the Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Field Validation Tests for Phase II of the project. http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/EcoAssets/2530/PCORPartnership.html


So unless you're going to try to make an obtuse argument that the grant only goes to the scientists' pencils, calculators, shovels, etc. how could you not help but to agree that yes, the DU researchers' salaries are paid (whether all or in-part doesn't matter) by govt. money?

Beyond DU marketing their ecological services, they also appeal for public and private grant money. Here's DU pimping the standard global warming fare in a white paper report to the "progressive" Hewlett Foundation...who provided over $80 something million in grants last year. $5.5 million went to Trout Unlimited. You think DU was trying to get some of that money, too ? http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation/Climate%20Change/_documents/White%20Paper_Final%20Graphics.pdf 

We've already established that DU, and by extension, the scientists who work for them, do indeed earn money from their position on global warming (they wouldn't have a position if they didn't). That doesn't mean they don't believe what they claim or make them bad people, bad scientists, immoral, unethical, etc....but well-contrary to your claims, it does indeed mean they have a seriously vested interest in global warming. If you still doubt that, you're incredibly naive.

As for the bigger picture....since DU makes money off its position on global warming, how likely do you think it is they would hire a scientist that believes otherwise? Zero, right? Now the money DU makes off global warming is CHUMP change compared to what universities make from global warming research grants. How many universities do you think there are that want to risk the research grant golden goose by hiring a non-believer? So do you not see how it would be easy to be "scientific consensus" when anybody who might not disagree is scared to say so? How many communist Americans in the '50s were screaming, "oh, oooh, I'm a commie, I'm a commie!"? Do you really think there's only 3 conservatives in Hollywood or could it be that they would rather put food on their kids plates than be a martyr? I sit on the fence when it comes to the existence/effects of man-made global warming and I try to keep an open mind and look at both sides with skepticism. I do know, however, that there were once majorities of scientists who believed in leeches, a flat earth, eugenics and a whole host of things we now laugh at or scorn. 

If you stuck it out to the end, thx for reading my manifesto. BTW, I won't hold you to your lost bet, so there's no need to quit DU. They do a lot of great work and I support them, too.


----------



## Hew (Jan 7, 2003)

> Oh, jeez. They've gotten to McCain, too! He's out to grab some of that global warming cash!
> 
> And, of course Bob Dole, Pat Robertson, Newt Gingrich...


Funny you mention Bob Dole...



> "DU Participates in the Sportsman's Advisory Group on Climate Change"
> http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/ClimateChange/3591/ClimateChangeWaterfowlandWetlands.html


That sportman's advisory group belongs to The Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank established and overseen by former Senators Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell. All four have been corn-based ethanol shills. All four have taken gobs from ADM. At least two of them have served on the BOD of fuel-blending firms. Two of them are from two of our biggest corn producing states. DU has partnered up with the same folks who are advocating plowing wetlands under to plant with corn? Boy, the global warming movement sure makes for strange bedfellows.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

IBD,

You must have overlooked some of the references in those websites I cited.

Want to learn about the consensus on this, check out:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/a-statistical-analysis-of-the-consensus/
and http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...vs-the-consensus-of-the-scientific-community/
(this one has a great discussion) and
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/just-what-is-this-consensus-anyway/

If folks are interested in the benefits of wetland restoration including their role in carbon sequestration check out:http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/1745/.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> I ignored this the first time you wrote it as I had wanted to extract myself from this ******* of a thread. But if you're going to keep throwing the gauntlet down...


Damn, Hew! I'm glad to see there is someone here who is digging into this, doing some research, and presenting some valid arguments.



Hew said:


> From a previous link _you_ provided, Dawn Browne, one of the DU scientists, is tasked with "the development of additional lines of new business for Ducks Unlimited related to future marketing opportunities of ecological goods and services such as carbon sequestration and water quality credit trading." http://www.ducks.org/Conservation/ConservationExperts/1218/ConservationExpertsContacts.html
> Now thinking logically, do you think if Dawn is successful in her job will she make more money than she would if she was an abject failure?


You've got me there. Obviously she is tasked with bringing in money. Given that this is one of the many parts of her job (according to the description), I suspect she would have a job whether or not she had this task assigned to her. I think that is a question well worth asking, though. 



Hew said:


> Beyond DU marketing their ecological services, they also appeal for public and private grant money. Here's DU pimping the standard global warming fare in a white paper report to the "progressive" Hewlett Foundation...who provided over $80 something million in grants last year. $5.5 million went to Trout Unlimited. You think DU was trying to get some of that money, too ? http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation/Climate%20Change/_documents/White%20Paper_Final%20Graphics.pdf


That doc is the same one I referenced in conjunction with the 'Season's End' website. It wasn't prepared to grab money, but is the result of the Season's End project. And yes, that project received funding from the Hewlett Foundation (along with National Wildlife Federation, and others).



Hew said:


> We've already established that DU, and by extension, the scientists who work for them, do indeed earn money from their position on global warming (they wouldn't have a position if they didn't).


I don't agree that the scientists earn money from their position, but you have certainly made a more compelling case for that possibiliy than IBD.



Hew said:


> That doesn't mean they don't believe what they claim or make them bad people, bad scientists, immoral, unethical, etc....but well-contrary to your claims, it does indeed mean they have a seriously vested interest in global warming. If you still doubt that, you're incredibly naive.


I'm glad that we agree on that. 



Hew said:


> ....but well-contrary to your claims, it does indeed mean they have a seriously vested interest in global warming. If you still doubt that, you're incredibly naive.


Yes, as do I. And as do you. 



Hew said:


> As for the bigger picture....since DU makes money off its position on global warming, how likely do you think it is they would hire a scientist that believes otherwise?


I think they would have a hard time FINDING a scientist who believes otherwise.



Hew said:


> Zero, right? Now the money DU makes off global warming is CHUMP change compared to what universities make from global warming research grants. How many universities do you think there are that want to risk the research grant golden goose by hiring a non-believer? So do you not see how it would be easy to be "scientific consensus" when anybody who might not disagree is scared to say so?


I can see where you can make the case. I don't agree that consenus exists out of fear. I tend to believe that good scientists are constantly questioning and challenging assumptions. I also know that scientists don't get rich in the field of climatology. When I look at the sides and see who has the most to gain monetarily, it is clearly the oil companies (who fund the vast majority of the 'skeptics' research.) It is also telling with Petroleum scientists, who get their money from the oil industry, don't refute the theory. There is a clear instance where it is against their financial interests to do so.



Hew said:


> How many communist Americans in the '50s were screaming, "oh, oooh, I'm a commie, I'm a commie!"? Do you really think there's only 3 conservatives in Hollywood or could it be that they would rather put food on their kids plates than be a martyr?


Communism was an ideology, not a science. It's much easier to falsely refute ideology than science. 



Hew said:


> I sit on the fence when it comes to the existence/effects of man-made global warming and I try to keep an open mind and look at both sides with skepticism. I do know, however, that there were once majorities of scientists who believed in leeches, a flat earth, eugenics and a whole host of things we now laugh at or scorn.


True, but science has advanced tremendously since those days (although the flat earth thing was rejected by most scientists long before the days of Columbus).



Hew said:


> If you stuck it out to the end, thx for reading my manifesto. BTW, I won't hold you to your lost bet, so there's no need to quit DU. They do a lot of great work and I support them, too.


I stuck all the way through, and I have to commend you. I'm glad that someone articulated the skeptics' argument so well. You have shown that there is a financial interest for global warming adherents. I will maintain that the incentives for skeptics are greater, though. I will also argue that you can't discount the science by assuming that all scientists (or most scientists even) are just saying what they have to say in order to get a paycheck. I really think that most of them live by a code of ethics that holds them to a higher standard.

To the question "Do scientists support the theory of global warming because it is financially rewarding?", I would answer 'No'.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Hew said:


> Funny you mention Bob Dole...
> 
> 
> That sportman's advisory group belongs to The Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank established and overseen by former Senators Howard Baker, Tom Daschle, Bob Dole and George Mitchell. All four have been corn-based ethanol shills. All four have taken gobs from ADM. At least two of them have served on the BOD of fuel-blending firms. Two of them are from two of our biggest corn producing states. DU has partnered up with the same folks who are advocating plowing wetlands under to plant with corn? Boy, the global warming movement sure makes for strange bedfellows.


Unfortunately, you can tie almost any current or former politician to ADM, as they contribute money to virtually every campaign out there. Glad to hear that you share my disdain for them, and for using crops for fuel. ADM is the worst of the worst in terms of using their money to influence politicians to pass crappy laws that benefit them and screw the rest of us. (Biofuel, sugar tariffs to protect their high fructose corn syrup biz, etc, etc.)

I've always felt ADM's influence would be substantially reduced if it weren't for the fact that every politician with ambition felt they had to suck up to Iowa corn farmers so they can get their votes every four years when the presidential elections kick off in that state. That's MY crackpot theory (we all have to have a few :-D).


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture;323520 To the question "Do scientists support the theory of global warming because it is financially rewarding?" said:


> Would depend on who is getting the grants you "square headed boy".
> 
> Not a belittlement, just an endearing terminology from one of my wife's most endearing autistic patients.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

backpasture said:


> To the question "Do scientists support the theory of global warming because it is financially rewarding?", I would answer 'No'.


 
WRONG. THEY/WE ARE WHORES WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY. 

Nobody in the infectious disease profession truly believed or believes that bird flu will become a pandemic, but everyone of them jumped on the grant money train. How has that played out? Where is the pandemic? Is Asia over run with it yet? Has all that $$$ prevented the problem? 
Let’s see how about West Nile Virus. As stated before, I got on that train to some extent. Did I or anybody in my organization think WNV was a serious threat? Hell no it was obvious from the start, but we all took grant money, it keeps the lab doors open and pays for nice conferences. Remind me again how many people die each year from WNV…. What have we done to eradicate or even treat WNV form all the money that was thrown at it?
Let’s go back even a bit further maybe you recall the swine flu scare during the Carter years. Yet another money grab.
I am not saying that any of the research done in any of these cases was a bad thing or that some good did not come from all of them. What I am saying is that science is no longer driven by the desire to discover, but rather by funding. . The hot topic of the day brings in the money. Nobody keeps a lab open researching something that nobody cares about or that there is no market for. Science cost money and the best way to get it is to sensationalize the flavor of the day. Top story brings top dollars to the lab.
I don’t know if you have ever worked in a lab, but I can assure you if you are not of the same beliefs as those running and funding it, you will not be a part of it. Gotta keep that money flowing and you sure don’t want someone working for you derailing the train.
I love the way you toss around the word skeptic like it is a bad thing. The single best trait a scientist can have is to be a skeptic.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> WRONG. THEY/WE ARE WHORES WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY.


Wow, badbullgator, that's a pretty strong statement coming from someone who is a scientist themselves. I'm gonna guess that you don't speak for the scientific community at large when you proclaim yourself a whore. ;-)

It's going to be hard to convince me that anyone and everyone will throw out their principles for a little money. Guess it's just my upbringing.

It does beg the question... Why aren't you buying into the 'hoax' so you can cash in too?


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> Would depend on who is getting the grants


Meaning? 

(If they support your view, NO, if they don't then YES? ;-))


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Meaning?
> 
> (If they support your view, NO, if they don't then YES? ;-))


 
Are you searching for enlightenment Grasshopper? 
Answer--All sides seek to grab the money.
Question is --What is real, Neo?

One cataclysmic event in our lifetime regards,

Mike


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

backpasture said:


> Wow, badbullgator, that's a pretty strong statement coming from someone who is a scientist themselves. I'm gonna guess that you don't speak for the scientific community at large when you proclaim yourself a whore. ;-)
> 
> It's going to be hard to convince me that anyone and everyone will throw out their principles for a little money. Guess it's just my upbringing.
> 
> It does beg the question... *Why aren't you buying into the 'hoax' so you can cash in too?*


It is not my field. I suppose we could come up with some sort of sham study to determine the effects of “global warming” on my specialty , but for right now I am more than content to watch this play out, but fear not we have our own work to keep us busy and it too plays on fear and the fact that there is a lot of money in it. 
Just remember…always follow the money


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

backpasture said:


> ...overpopulated by humans. Reducing population growth is one of the ways to help solve the problem.





I have a suggestion how we can reduce the population 


BP…don’t confuse goggling, dog piling and asking jeeves on the internet with scientific research. 



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yO4C2fr8xE


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

> Originally Posted by *backpasture*
> _...overpopulated by humans. Reducing population growth is one of the ways to help solve the problem._


See what a whore I am. Doing my best to over populate the world becasue there is a lot of money in it


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Originally Posted by *backpasture* 
_I would love to see the list of the 'skeptics', and see how it stacks up against the list of organizations I listed above. Anyone interested in compiling that?_


_*Here you go 31,000 scientist, 9,000 PhDs have signed this petition:*_
_www.oism.org/pproject _

_But I'm sure the Oregon institute of Science and Medicine is some Exxon/Mobil funded attack group._


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

IBD
wasting your fingers.....he aint going to stop. He is right and any other opinion is wrong. Remember the title of this thread is are you a global warming follower? In this case it is cult like....blind faith and seeing what you want to believe.
BP, just wondering, how old are you?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> IBD
> wasting your fingers.....he aint going to stop. He is right and any other opinion is wrong. Remember the title of this thread is are you a global warming follower? In this case it is cult like....blind faith and seeing what you want to believe.
> BP, just wondering, how old are you?


I'll admit, that describes pretty much my view of those who dismiss global warming as some form of conspiracy or fantasy.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I have a suggestion how we can reduce the population
> 
> 
> BP…don’t confuse goggling, dog piling and asking jeeves on the internet with scientific research.
> ...


Goggling? Do you mean beer goggling? Those days are long behind me.

BTW - Brad Paisley is one hell of a guitar player. One of the few 'new country' artists I actually like.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

IowaBayDog said:


> Originally Posted by *backpasture*
> _I would love to see the list of the 'skeptics', and see how it stacks up against the list of organizations I listed above. Anyone interested in compiling that?_
> _*Here you go 31,000 scientist, 9,000 PhDs have signed this petition:*_
> _www.oism.org/pproject _
> ...


IBD, here is what the scientists at Climate Science say about this petition:


> Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
> Filed under:
> 
> * Climate Science
> ...


If you want to see these climate bloggers tear the rest of their stuff up please visit:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/oregon-institute-of-science-and-malarkey/

Didn't you say something earlier about a critical review of science???? 

Fair and balanced regards.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

IowaBayDog said:


> _*Here you go 31,000 scientist, 9,000 PhDs have signed this petition:*_
> _www.oism.org/pproject _
> 
> _But I'm sure the Oregon institute of Science and Medicine is some Exxon/Mobil funded attack group._


Well, there actually IS some Exxon/Mobil money involved in that petition.

And, the Oregon institute of Science and Medicine is another 'science' organization founded by one man with an agenda, the one man being Arthur B. Robinson. Look him up. He's an interesting character.

BONUS: He's also skeptical of the theory of evolution. 

From The Guardian newpaper (which you will certainly dismiss as 'too liberal' but which does have the facts straight).

"_The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.
...
Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the "review" that followed Seitz's letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. *It was co-published by Robinson's organisation - the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. *The other authors were Robinson's 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz."_

'Follow the money', as bbg likes to say.

And some info on the petition itself, from the magazine Scientific American:

"_Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition—one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers&dash;a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community._ "


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> BP, just wondering, how old are you?


And that is relevant because....?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> And that is relevant because....?


Years equate into experience - experiences thoughtfully gained hopefully turns into a level of wisdom. So far what we are seeing is a debate where your side quotes prostituted experts & the other side shows a semblance of experience.

Government only knows how to do 2 things well - the 1st being NOTHING & the 2nd being OVER REACT. Why would anyone trust them to get global warming/cooling right?

The Liberals of the world are known for their supposedly well intentioned programs that when put into practice become regulatory & fiscal nightmares. Of course, always done with someone elses hard earned assets & never ending.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Years equate into experience - experiences thoughtfully gained hopefully turns into a level of wisdom. So far what we are seeing is a debate where your side quotes prostituted experts & the other side shows a semblance of experience.
> 
> *Government only knows how to do 2 things well - the 1st being NOTHING & the 2nd being OVER REACT. Why would anyone trust them to get global warming/cooling right?
> 
> The Liberals of the world are known for their supposedly well intentioned programs that when put into practice become regulatory & fiscal nightmares. Of course, always done with someone elses hard earned assets & never ending*.


i could not agree more...especially the third paragraph.

NCA


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Marvin S said:


> Years equate into experience - experiences thoughtfully gained hopefully turns into a level of wisdom. So far what we are seeing is a debate where your side quotes prostituted experts & the other side shows a semblance of experience.


I have not laughed so hard in a long time. Thanks.

Using your logic, you are saying that all these climatologists that believe in climate change are young/inexperienced and the non-believers are old/experienced. Please provide some data to back this up.

According to your logic it also then follows that if the believers are not "experienced" then they must all be on the take and thus the only ones not on the take are the skeptics. 

The data does not support your hypothesis.

Those that believe in global warming and that humans play a role provide many different references to scientists and all their research and review papers (national academies, NOAA, NASA, etc, etc, etc). You call them prostitutes.

The GW skeptics here continue to cite a couple of sources that are clearly tied to the oil industry and somehow you maintain that they are experienced and not the "prostituted experts".

Thanks for letting us know your thought process. I now see how you can conclude that GW is a hoax and conspiracy.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

Why would something that comes out of my lungs be a greenhouse gas. So, it leaves my lungs and is lighter than the rest of the elements and floats up to the top and traps in the heat. Over billions of years all the carbon dioxide that has been coming out of the lungs of animals has been collecting in the upper altitudes. I always thought it floated over to the house plants. The reason smoke rises is because it hot, but it doesn't stay hot. The heat dissipates. They must not teach that sort of thing in high school anymore.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Henry V said:


> . Those that believe in global warming and that humans play a role provide many different references to scientists and all their research and review papers (national academies, NOAA, NASA, etc, etc, etc). You call them prostitutes.


Henry - I'll give you a story to ponder. 

A guy is sitting in a bar having a drink & an attractive female sits on the bar stool next to him. They strike up a conversation & find themselves to be compatible. At some point in the conversation the guy asks the female if she would be interested in sacking out with him for a price. The female returns with - depends on the price. He says how about 10K, she says fine - he comes back with $500 as the price - her answer - what do you think I am - his response - that has been established, I'm now trying to negotiate a price.

Any time your lifestyle changes for views you are paid in any manner to establish, you have prostituted yourself. Rarely does the hard*** with strong sensible views get ahead in a permissive atmosphere.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Marvin, 

Nice story. I guess what you are trying to say is that the overwhelming majority of scientists that have looked at the data and believe in GW are low priced prostitutes and the small minority of scientists that do not believe in GW are high priced prostitutes.


> Any time your lifestyle changes for views you are paid in any manner to establish, you have prostituted yourself.


Thanks for this insight too. I can only conclude that you think all scientists are prostitutes. 

Please keep providing your experienced opinions with no data to support them.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> The Liberals of the world are known for their supposedly well intentioned programs that when put into practice become regulatory & fiscal nightmares. Of course, always done with someone elses hard earned assets & never ending.


Marvin, you know that the Repubs are every bit as fiscally irresponsible as the Dems. I agree that true Conservatives, which you are, believe in fiscal responsibility, but those aren't the folks running the Republican party. 

And, I think it is telling that badbullgator and others have a position of essentially saying "Of course people compromise their principals for money, because I do." That just confirms the belief that a lot of people have about Repubs -- that they will do anything for a dollar. It is wrong to assume everybody else chooses money over principles just because you do.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Marvin, you know that the Repubs are every bit as fiscally irresponsible as the Dems. I agree that true Conservatives, which you are, believe in fiscal responsibility, but those aren't the folks running the Republican party.


There are 3 wings in the Republican party - the Rockefeller Repubs who rank below a moderate D on most scales - There are the Reagan Repubs - who are not fiscally bright but give a lot of credit to Ronnie for bringing them out of the vast wilderness. Ronnie was a D for many years before he got his gig on the ?? hour to espouse conservative principles. 

& there are the AUH2O R's who are generally fiscally responsible, partially libertarian & have an understanding of life in general. I'd like to believe I fit in that group. 

We also have the RINDIP's & RINO's who are not Repubs but chose to run under that banner as that was what was getting elected in their area. 

Because politics has become such a time consuming in your face battle, many will not even seek to serve their fellow citizen, which is truly unfortunate. Guys like Ross Perot come to mind - many good ideas but they had to originate with him & hugely egocentric, but smart.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

BP,

Before you give up all the things that have made your life easier and push for all others to do the same, perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the big picture


"RECENT" GLOBAL WARMING









CLIMATE OF THE LAST 2,400 YEARS








CLIMATE OF THE LAST 12,000 YEARS









CLIMATE OF THE LAST 100,000 YEARS









CLIMATE OF LAST 420,000 YEARS










ClIMATE OF LAST 3,000,000 YEARS











You can find the link here----http://www.muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html

Short of a worldwide complete nuclear meltdown I don't think mankind will have much to do with the natural fluctuations of GLOBAL temperatures.

I did find it interesting that the temperature peaks were rapid spikes as opposed to the long valleys of colder temperatures in the 420,00 year graph.

These determinations were not obtained using computer models, rather they are the hard evidence of core sampling.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> BP,
> Before you give up all the things that have made your life easier and push for all others to do the same, perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the big picture
> 
> You can find the link here----http://www.muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
> ...


Thanks. That's some great stuff, from Richard Muller, whose 'Physics for Future Presidents' should be required reading for both candidates (and everybody else). He's a smart guy. Unfortunately, he reaches a very different conclusion than you do:

From Physics for Future Presidents:
http://www.muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html

"_The temperature of the Earth (averaged over the last decade) is now the warmest that it has been in 400 years. Figure 10.1 below shows the change since 1850 was almost 2°F (about 1oC). That doesn’t seem like a lot, and in some sense it isn’t. The reason some many people worry is that they fear that this is just a portent of what is to come. A substantial part of this rise is very likely a result of human activity, particularly by the burning of fossil fuels. If that is truly the cause, then we expect the temperature to keep rising. Although cheap oil is getting scarce, at $100 per barrel or higher there seems to be lots available. (I’ll show the numbers later in the chapter.) And the countries that need lots of energy appear to have huge amounts of coal. Burn a fossil fuel, and you dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that’s the problem. Carbon dioxide is very likely to cause significant warming, and as we burn more fossil fuels, the temperature is very likely to continue to go up. In the next 50 years, the best estimates are that the additional increase will be between 3°F and 10°F. That is a lot. Already, warming in Alaska from 1900 to the present has been enough to cause significant portions of the permafrost to melt. A 10°F rise would be enough to make fertile regions in the United States arid and trigger large-scale economic disruption around the world. There is also good reason to believe that the warming will be more intense in the polar regions._ "


I would encourage everyone to read the climate section of Physics for Presidents. It is one of the most level headed assesments out there.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Thanks. That's some great stuff, from Richard Muller, whose 'Physics for Future Presidents' should be required reading for both candidates (and everybody else). He's a smart guy. Unfortunately, he reaches a very different conclusion than you do:
> 
> From Physics for Future Presidents:
> http://www.muller.lbl.gov/teaching/Physics10/PffP.html
> ...


Sorry Charlie but what I posted was from a book he and his COAUTHOR Gordon MacDonald had published back in 2000

The book to which you refer is a much more recent book that contains A CHAPTER on global warming and is the textbook REQUIRED for the Physics 10 course at Berkeley which he teaches.

What do you suppose changed his views? Could it be the money students are required to pay for the book or could it be Grant Money recieved to research and hopefully further a stance?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Captain Mike D said:


> Sorry Charlie but what I posted was from a book he and his COAUTHOR Gordon MacDonald had published back in 2000
> 
> The book to which you refer is a much more recent book that contains A CHAPTER on global warming and is the textbook REQUIRED for the Physics 10 course at Berkeley which he teaches.
> 
> What do you suppose changed his views? Could it be the money students are required to pay for the book or could it be Grant Money recieved to research and hopefully further a stance?



nice


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> Sorry Charlie but what I posted was from a book he and his COAUTHOR Gordon MacDonald had published back in 2000
> 
> The book to which you refer is a much more recent book that contains A CHAPTER on global warming and is the textbook REQUIRED for the Physics 10 course at Berkeley which he teaches.
> 
> What do you suppose changed his views? Could it be the money students are required to pay for the book or could it be Grant Money recieved to research and hopefully further a stance?



Oh, okay. Let's look at the book you referenced then....

"Some scientists argue that global warming is not human caused, but is simply a natural return to the normal temperature of the previous 8,000 years. In fact, no one knows for sure if this is right or not. But the foundation for thinking that human effects will cause warming is substantial. Even if the recent rise in temperature is natural, human caused effects have a high probability of dominating in the near future, and within our lifetimes the temperature of the Earth could go higher than has ever seen previously by **** sapiens. "

That is from the link you posted. Did you actually read it, or did you just look at the pictures?

As I said, he's a pretty level-headed guy. He acknowledges that nobody can say with 100% certainty at this point. He also makes some very good points about global warming hysteria. It doesn't appear that he has 'changed his view'. It DOES appear that he has become more confident over time that the data points towards human affected global warming, as more data has become available. If you want to read some more about how he has become more confident in the theory, you should read Physics for Future Presidents, because he actually talks about that.

I enjoy hearing your rationlizations, though.. ("If I think he supports my theory, I will hold it up as good science. If not, he is corrupted by money.")


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

backpasture said:


> "_The temperature of the Earth (averaged over the last decade) is now the warmest that it has been in 400 years. Figure 10.1 below shows the change since 1850 was almost 2°F (about 1oC). That doesn’t seem like a lot, and in some sense it isn’t. The reason some many people worry is that they fear that this is just a portent of what is to come. A substantial part of this rise is very likely a result of human activity, particularly by the burning of fossil fuels. If that is truly the cause, then we expect the temperature to keep rising. Although cheap oil is getting scarce, at $100 per barrel or higher there seems to be lots available. (I’ll show the numbers later in the chapter.) And the countries that need lots of energy appear to have huge amounts of coal. Burn a fossil fuel, and you dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and that’s the problem. Carbon dioxide is very likely to cause significant warming, and as we burn more fossil fuels, the temperature is very likely to continue to go up. In the next 50 years, the best estimates are that the additional increase will be between 3°F and 10°F. That is a lot. Already, warming in Alaska from 1900 to the present has been enough to cause significant portions of the permafrost to melt. A 10°F rise would be enough to make fertile regions in the United States arid and trigger large-scale economic disruption around the world. There is also good reason to believe that the warming will be more intense in the polar regions._ "


?? Please check the records. The mid 1920's was the warmer than it is now. And the period 1250-1850 was known as the little ice age. During the early portion of this period, the artic ice shelf actually grew in size and glaciers were expanding in the mid 1500's. So you could say that this century is the warmest in the last 2 millinium, but in earth history that is like measuring sand by the grain. The earth is not a steady state system. It is always changing. And when comparing a temperate climate to a ice age climate, it is easy to say that the world is growing warmer. 

Looking at all the current era temperature graphs you can see what some would call wild swings. But look at the scale being represented. We are looking at a scale of a tenth of a degree! Most common thermometers can't even read a tenth of a degree accurately, so could those variations be artifacts of averaging and rounding? These swings are dampened when looking at the graphs with a scale of 1 degree and a timeline more realistic with earth history. And it should be noted that the temperatures in these graphs are extrapolations based on scientific observation and not actual measurement.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Captain Mike D said:


> BP,
> 
> Before you give up all the things that have made your life easier and push for all others to do the same, perhaps it would be a good idea to look at the big picture


I agree. I read the text that accompanied the graphs that you tried to use to prove your point. The article that you cite has these great statements. Perhaps you overlooked them. I bolded a couple to highlight them. It sure seems like this scientist believes the earth is warming and that humans could play a role.


> Some scientists argue that global warming is not human caused, but is simply a natural return to the normal temperature of the previous 8,000 years. In fact, no one knows for sure if this is right or not. *But the foundation for thinking that human effects will cause warming is substantial. Even if the recent rise in temperature is natural, human caused effects have a high probability of dominating in the near future, and within our lifetimes the temperature of the Earth could go higher than has ever seen previously by **** sapiens.*


and


> Recent global warming appears negligible on this plot. However, if predictions of climate modelers are correct, global warming temperature changes will be comparable those during the ice age.


and


> From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years (420 kyr) was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand to perhaps twenty thousand years.
> 
> These data should frighten you. All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don’t necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable.
> 
> The real reason to be frightened is that we really don’t understand what causes the pattern. We don’t know why the ice ages are broken by the short interglacials. We do know something – that the driving force is astronomical. We’ll describe how we know that in Chapter 2. We have models that relate the astronomical mechanisms to changes in climate, but we don’t know which of our models are right, or if any of them are. We will discuss these models in some detail in this book. Much of the work of understanding lies in the future. It is a great field for a young student to enter.


So, now you want me to believe that one of the "return of the ice age" scientists at Berkley is credible here? I thought that all you naysayers said these liberal scientists were discredited. Maybe you all misunderstood what those scientists were trying to say.



Captain Mike D said:


> These determinations were not obtained using computer models, rather they are the hard evidence of core sampling.


 The data has much uncertainty as the author indicates in the text. No doubt it is the best available data, but you do know that this same data is used for the climate models. Climate models that consistently suggest that the climate will warm as C02 increases and no one is disputing that CO2 is increasing at an accelerating rate are they?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> As I said, he's a pretty level-headed guy. He acknowledges that *nobody* can say with 100% certainty at this point.


Whoa Whoa WHOA!!! So what have you been arguing about for the last 34 pages????

Peanut gallery regards,


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Oh, okay. Let's look at the book you referenced then....
> 
> "Some scientists argue that global warming is not human caused, but is simply a natural return to the normal temperature of the previous 8,000 years. In fact, no one knows for sure if this is right or not. But the foundation for thinking that human effects will cause warming is substantial. Even if the recent rise in temperature is natural, human caused effects have a high probability of dominating in the near future, and within our lifetimes the temperature of the Earth could go higher than has ever seen previously by **** sapiens. "
> 
> ...


Text is highlighted above to show his thoughts which would be a Theory.

Truth is he DOESN'T KNOW-- neither do you or I.

He does state as referenced by Henry that the DRIVING FORCES ARE ASTRONOMICAL,as the data and charts that he presented by core sampling would indicate.

I highlighted the potion referring to **** Sapiens because there are documented times through the age of the dinosaurs in which temperatures were also above any that have been seen by **** Sapiens.

I did not say he HAS formed his hypothosis for money, but merely asked if YOU could state that he has not!

I need to know before I sell my truck and boats, give up my job and return to the age of the Neaderthal (since it requires the use of carbon so that I can produce something green called money which I then use to by goods and services from others, who also use carbon for their products to be produced!!)


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> Whoa Whoa WHOA!!! So what have you been arguing about for the last 34 pages????
> 
> Peanut gallery regards,


Not sure if you have been reading the posts, but the answer is 'no'. 

I agree with the scientific consensus that is very likely the case, but nobody can claim 100% certainty.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Not sure if you have been reading the posts, but the answer is 'no'.
> 
> I agree with the scientific consensus that is very likely the case, but nobody can claim 100% certainty.


Hmmm, so "we" don't know for certain but if someone disagrees with you then they are a conspirist or member of flat Earth...go tit.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

Captain Mike D said:


> Text is highlighted above to show his thoughts which would be a Theory.
> 
> Truth is he DOESN'T KNOW-- neither do you or I.
> 
> ...


Yep. You are correct. He doesn't know with 100% certainty. 

So, let's recap our positions:

- I agree with Muller that we cannot know with 100% certainty that humans are causing the planet to warm. However, I also agree with Muller that it is very likely that it is the case. Therefore, I think it is prudent we take some action.
- You agree with Muller that we cannot know with 100% certainty that humans are causing the planet to warm. However, even though it is likely, you want to ignore the problem because it can't be proven beyond any doubt.

(I might add that you seemed pretty comfortable with his data when you thought it supported your point of view.)

And, of course I can't prove a negative (that his position is NOT influenced by money). I like how you employ that trick of asking a question about whether his position is influenced by money, and then step away from that assertion, though. Does that mean you agree with me that the assertion is ridiculous? Or, do you want to stand behind it?

I understand you want to hang your hat on:
- The very small possibility that this is all just a natural occurence.
- The assumption that scientists are just making their claims for money because you can't prove they aren't.

If that is all you require for burden on proof, you can be made to believe just about anything.


----------



## backpasture (May 20, 2008)

achiro said:


> Hmmm, so "we" don't know for certain but if someone disagrees with you then they are a conspirist or member of flat Earth...go tit.


Not what I said, either. 

As I said in the previous post, though, based upon some of the logic used to back up the claims of skeptics ("we can't know with 100% certainty, so it is certainly NOT true"), you could make a case for believing just about anything.

I have accused some of being conspiracy theorists -- mostly the folks who have put forth conspiracy theories about the 'global warming hoax'.

Personally I need a little more than just a sliver of doubt as a basis for my beliefs.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Therefore, I think it is prudent we take some action.


What SENSIBLE action do you propose be taken? No theories, please. Just actions that normal people are capable of taking.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

backpasture said:


> Yep. You are correct. He doesn't know with 100% certainty.
> 
> So, let's recap our positions:
> 
> ...


No BP,
You are 180 degrees out, but that may change over time since at any location Magnetic North is changing by a few degrees each year. (Natural forces in action because of Astronomical forces).

I hang my hat on the coat rack when I walk in my front door. I won't throw my life or the lives of my fellow countrymen or even the poor folks in South America or Africa under the bus based on a Theory. I will wait until there is PROOF. 

Why don't you go ahead and show evidence based on hard fact what the percentages are that it is in fact a natural occurance vs anything manmade that have caused global temps to rise. No Theory, Just Pure Hard Fact.

Product of Government schools in the 50's/60's regards,

Mike


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

backpasture said:


> Not what I said, either.
> 
> As I said in the previous post, though, based upon some of the logic used to back up the claims of skeptics ("we can't know with 100% certainty, so it is certainly NOT true"), you could make a case for believing just about anything.
> 
> ...


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Captain Mike D said:


> No BP,
> 
> 
> Why don't you go ahead and show evidence based on hard fact what the percentages are that it is in fact a natural occurance vs anything manmade that have caused global temps to rise. No Theory, Just Pure Hard Fact.
> ...


The nature of all science is uncertainty. Well reasoned skepticism (as distinct from that shown in this thread) combined with on-going testing help to improve the degree of certainty over time but do not equate to "proof". In the consensus report on global warming referenced many pages earlier in this thread, the language used was that it was _highly likely_ that global warming was primarily the product of human activity. It was further stated that _highly likely_ denoted a probability greater than 95%. I suspect our evolutionary successors may be willing to be more certain.

I am continuously amazed at how aggressively most argue for the right to undertake activities that fundamentally affect the composition of our water, our air, or our food with no regulation unless there is absolute proof that these activities are harmful. I would think we would be more likely to heed the physician's oath of "above all else, do no harm."

For years, shore communities in the northeast dumped their sewage and waste off-shore. They complained bitterly when ordered to dump their waste further from the shore because of the garbage that kept washing up on the beaches. They then acted surprised when on-going dumping created a massive dead area off shore. Even then many Long Island communities argued that killing the ocean was insufficient cause for forcing them to incur greater taxpayer expense to reduce their impact on the environment. Continuous regulation over the last 30 years is finally paying off in cleaner waters. In fact, it's reached the point that you can now probably consume fish taken from large parts of the Delaware, near where I live, without killing yourself or deforming your unborn children as long as you don't do it too often. What kind of insanity makes us think we can dump our waste haphazardly without ultimately destroying the world that sustains us?

When talking about the impact of money on positions, it is important to remember that the greatest financial incentives rest with those who want nothing to disturb what they are doing now to make money. When the first studies began to be published that linked smoking with cancer and heart disease, the tobacco industry created the American Tobacco Institute for the purpose of funding research designed solely to confuse the issue and delay regulation. A friend of my parents was actually hired as one of their "research" scientists and earned dramatically more than he could anywhere else as long as he focused all of his efforts on sowing confusion concerning negative health effects that *they knew* existed. He continued to work there for years because of the money and finally quit as he watched his own children growing up and wanting to smoke.

The same is happening today. There are and will remain many questions about how atmospheric changes associated with human activity are affecting our weather systems. There are and will continue to be even more questions about how best to mitigate some of those effects. However, it is clear that solutions begin with efforts to reduce the amount of garbage we put into the atmosphere both through aggressive conservation and through aggressive development of alternative sources of energy that hopefully create less garbage than those they replace.

Doing this will definitely have a negative short term effect on those in the business of manufacturing the garbage we spew. It will have positive effects on other parts of out economy. For some, the adjustments will be painful. They will not be catastrophic. The same cannot be said about the cost of continuing on our current course.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Eventually All the 'consensus theorists' will be believed by the 'followers', and then it will be time to pony up the $$$ so more 'scientists' and politicians can slurp at the trough.

Algore is a modern day Rachael Carlson, albeit far more hypocritical. She actually believed in what she wrote and caused to happen. Algore is just another political hack full of himself, and thinks he knows what he's talking about. Anybody with a modicum of intelligence that buys into his views on anything, would be prime for electing another empty suit like Obama.

It's funny how these "birds of a feather" can always be found on the same side of the arguement. And it never matters if they never produce what they tell everyone they intend to do...they think their minions will be happy with their intentions alone.

Sadly, for the Rachael believers, one of the most deathly pandemics was released on many 3rd world nations. Her 'faulted' views about DDT, that got some 'scientists' to chime in with her, not to mention the environmental flakes, is directly responsible for many millions of malaria deaths. And for what?

20/20 hindsight is always valuable. Read it and weep.

http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

Try Googleing 'malaria' if you want to be further alarmed. 

I also have serious suspicions about replacing all our refridgerants, A/C coolants, and the latest idiotic move by the environmentalist loonies...the curly light bulbs. And you libs wonder why some of us question your motives? Sorry! Your stupidity in wanting us sane folks to follow your lead is asinine. And leading that list is the current Algore scam.

UB


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> The nature of all science is uncertainty. Well reasoned skepticism (as distinct from that shown in this thread) combined with on-going testing help to improve the degree of certainty over time but do not equate to "proof". In the consensus report on global warming referenced many pages earlier in this thread, the language used was that it was _highly likely_ that global warming was primarily the product of human activity. It was further stated that _highly likely_ denoted a probability greater than 95%. I suspect our evolutionary successors may be willing to be more certain.
> 
> I am continuously amazed at how aggressively most argue for the right to undertake activities that fundamentally affect the composition of our water, our air, or our food with no regulation unless there is absolute proof that these activities are harmful. I would think we would be more likely to heed the physician's oath of "above all else, do no harm."
> 
> ...


Given where you live Jeff I can understand your feelings.

Let me share with you a few of my feelings.

I was amazed at the times I had the honor of being up your way on business and was able to see so many exceptionable Whitetail bucks and Canada Geese living in so close a proximity to your subdivisions and houses.

I have been amazed at how the cancer capitol of the U.S -Jacksonville Fl has worked to bring the level of carcinogens down in the St. Johns River to make Jacksonville one of the cleanest cities in the U.S.

I was amazed to see the few hundred Bluewing Teal migrating southward today along the coast where I live, while buffetting into the south winds of TS Fay.

I am amazed to see the 30 or 40 Oceola turkeys I pass almost every morning on my way to put my boat in the water since a few years ago there was talk of them going extinct.

I have been amazed to see the strong west wind that we have had here almost all summer deter the the migration of big tarpon along our coast due to cold water upwelling..Average beachwater temp has been about 74 instead of 84.

Ain't it amazing that there have been sightings of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker over towards LA when they have supposedly been extinct for quite a few years?

How about the amazing fact that that a whole new colony of lowland gorillas was recently found in Africa better than doubling the population.

I have also been amazed that while traveling I discovered that most of the globe is arid (desert) at 30 degrees N. lattitude.

Also was amazed that Puerto Rico is an island of desert on the Southside and Tropics on the north . Mountains do wierd stuff to weather patterns. 

Am amazed that Red Snapper populations have come back so strong after the industy went belly up in 1980 due to overfishing for fish being sent to NY

Life forms and natural patterns are tenacious on this globe where we live.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh 

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is http://www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity. 
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot. 
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously. 
All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over. 
There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770. 
It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years. 
This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers. 
It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon. 
The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. 
Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots. 
That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern. 
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850. 
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. 
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases. 
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet. 
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years. 
The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years. 
The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027. 
By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining. 
Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time. 
If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale. 
For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun. 
We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits. 
We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades. 
The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible. 
All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead. 
It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake. 
In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." 
Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut. 
http://www.theaustralian.news....0.htm 
Abridged version: The Sun has fewer and less frequent sun-spots now which cools the Sun and therefore cools the earth.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Oops! Nets Wrong On Warming; Arctic Ice Still There*
September 18, 2008 - 08:36 ET

Wrong again! It must stink being a network global warming alarmist. They just can't seem to get their stories straight.

*It's only been a couple months when the networks were screaming about Arctic ice disappearing this summer. And, no surprise, they were entirely wrong. By 1.74 million square miles.*

As Maxwell Smart used to say: "Missed it by that much."

Less than three months ago, NBC's Anne Thompson was warning ominously of ice loss. "But this summer, some scientists say that ice could retreat so dramatically that open water covers the North Pole, so much so that you could sail across it."

Or not. According to a September 16 National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) report, such predictions were off. Way off.

NSIDC reported ice loss was less than in 2007. "On September 12, 2008, sea ice extent dropped to 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles). This appears to have been the lowest point of the year, as sea has now begun its annual cycle of growth in response to autumn cooling," according to the organization.

Two days after Thompson's report, on July 30, ABC weatherman Sam Champion told the "Good Morning America" audience that Arctic ice loss was on a record pace. "Every summer we're on a record pace for losing it last summer and this summer we're at the exact same pace."

The NSIDC assessment makes it clear that claim was also wrong, calling it "above the record minimum set on September 16, 2007." "The Arctic sea ice cover appears to have reached its minimum extent for the year, the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. "

Earlier in the summer, media outlets warned ominously that the ice could melt away. "Today" host Lester Holt described the story as "surprising and, frankly, alarming news from the scientific community, a new report that says the North Pole could soon be ice-free."

This fits an ongoing pattern of media hype about climate change where networks no longer report the issue with any sense of objectivity. A study published by the Business & Media Institute earlier this year showed how rarely dissenting voices were included in the climate debate. The study found that global warming proponents overwhelmingly outnumbered those with dissenting opinions. On average for every skeptic there were nearly 13 proponents featured. ABC did a slightly better job with a 7-to-1 ratio, while CBS's ratio was abysmal at nearly 38-to-1.

LINK to original article.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

You know global warming is a fact…. if you just don’t count the volcano’s on the floor of the Artic ocean (as well as the greenhouse gas production of all the volcano’s around the world), the sun spots, the record low loss of ice caps, the fact that this summer had some of the lowest temperatures in decades…………… Oh wait if you don’t count all the evidence against it you are only left with some made up bunch of crap fed to us by algore, the media and “all the scientist” in the world (the scientist remark is of course in jest)

AN INCONVENIANT TRUTH INDEED, BUT FOR WHOM……….. Algore because it was inconvenient for him/them to come to this conclusion because they had to discard so much…????


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

I can see the new movie, out this winter:

CHICKEN LITTLE... Starring Algor!!!

Help, the sky is falling.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Yeah, those newbusters really got one there.

Did any of you dig just a little tiny bit deeper and take a look at the article or the graph that this article is based on? Apparently not. 

Here below is the graph and here's the link. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png

You are using this as proof that we are being misled about the loss of arctic ice.? Amazing. I do agree with one thing ""Missed it by that much." The record, that is..................


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Henry V said:


> Yeah, those newbusters really got one there.
> 
> Did any of you dig just a little tiny bit deeper and take a look at the article or the graph that this article is based on? Apparently not.
> 
> ...


 
Henry
It seems you, as so many other GW followers like to do, have only “dug a bit deeper” to find information that fits you theory and discount things like the sea ice in March of 2008 was just about dead on the median for 1972 -2000. You also neglect to use the formation of first year ice and survival of FYI in your argument. FYI is at its highest since 1985 and survival of FYI is about the same as it has been since 1985. Very convenient to only look at those fact and figures that lean toward your argument. 
I believe the point of the above post about sea ice is that low and behold less melted this year than last. That does not fit the model of “global warming” very well. If this year is cooler than last, how exactly can you have a warming planet? I mean really, if it is warming it should continue to warm rather than vary as it has since the beginning of time.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> Henry
> I believe the point of the above post about sea ice is that low and behold less melted this year than last. That does not fit the model of “global warming” very well. If this year is cooler than last, how exactly can you have a warming planet? I mean really, if it is warming it should continue to warm rather than vary as it has since the beginning of time.


Yeah, I'm the one misreading all the science along with all the other scientists, sure. Glad to see that you at least took the time to read the science that that the "news" article was based on. That news article was just another way to blame the media and spread uncertainty about science.

You apparently do not understand "global warming" very well. Based on your statement you must think the planet must get warmer each year in order to "fit" the model of global warming . As you said:


> I mean really, if it is warming it should continue to warm rather than vary as it has since the beginning of time.


With this statement, I now see why there is no such thing as GW in your world. This is about long term climate change not annual weather patterns.

Oh, and nice to see you think that the 2008 sea ice starting out in size at 123,552,500 acres less than the longer term average is no big deal even though it continues an overall trend. I know, I know its all a scam.... I'll now let you all talk amongst yourselves again.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Buy heavy coats Henry, the next ice age is coming


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

If the argument had merit, these tactics wouldn't be needed...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...te-change-programme-biased-sided-polemic.html


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Yep!

BTW- I burned up almost 100 gals of gas last night in the boat and will probably do almost that much tomorrow. Trying my best to make up for all those carbon credits algore sells regards


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, you mean carbon credits he "steals" from third world countries using money. The act of using those credits by him means some third world country can't use them and the people of those nations are forced to live in the stone age.

Carbon Credits...what a joke.

BTW, does anyone actually believe that a nation that sold its carbon credits and thus wasn't alloted any more, would abide by the contractual nature of the credit?

I have bridges I am selling...

Carbon Credits...what a scam

Enjoy the boating!!


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Found a really interesting article that should make anyone in the west sit up and take notice! Now would be the time to buy stock in Arrowhead and other bottled water companies!!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12313268

T. Mac


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Who cares if last year was warmer or cooler than this year... Ask yourself, what is the perfect temperature for Detroit Lakes, MN in December 2008?? Don't know?

That's because NO ONE KNOWS! If you look at the models many of your GW scientists use to predict the future, they can predict, very accurately the temperatures for years in advance... but they don't work for going backwards... so if your models don't work to "predict" the past, how can they work for the future?

There is LOTS of scientists who say GW is real... well of course it is! GW is a normal cycle of the Earth. It's proven. Time and Time, Age and Age, again and again. There isn't a concensus in this, and heck, there isn't even a majority of scientists to prove that it is Man-Made.

The number one source of Carbon and Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere isn't people. It's VOLCANOES! Next to Volcanoes, people account for under 5% of the amount of CO2 in the air.

This doesn't mean that I think we shouldn't persue more efficient technologies in the auto, power, etc industries... We should. We should be as efficient as possible. But CO2 doesn't cause GW, GW causes increased CO2 levels. Check it out.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

To add to Tmac's post. It is interesting that if you dig in my backyard you will find seashells. Interesting that I am many miles form the coast. This area was not shoreline in the recent past (100's of years) so it seems that at some time the gulf/ocean levels must have been higher....I guess all those campfires the Calusa Indians use to have must have lead to an increase in CO2 and temp, thus raising the sea level...........


----------



## cshive (Dec 29, 2007)

There is no such thing in global warming. It is just how the earth operates. 

The desert used to be an ocean, and the antartic used to be a desert. All you have to do is study the rocks to see what was there millions of years ago.

Its the cycle we go through.

Too many treehuggers!!


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

cshive said:


> There is no such thing in global warming. It is just how the earth operates.
> 
> The desert used to be an ocean, and the antartic used to be a desert. All you have to do is study the rocks to see what was there millions of years ago.
> 
> ...


Isn’t if funny about people who claim to be pure Evolutionist when it comes to man kind but refuse evolution when it comes to the planet. 

Don’t understand the flawed an inconsistent logic regards


----------

