- This topic has 1,060 replies, 36 voices, and was last updated 14 years ago by
patb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 21, 2010 at 3:51 PM #622480October 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM #621419
UCGal
ParticipantI just wanted to point out something most parents of kids in public school already know.
Religion is discussed/taught in school. Just not in science class.
– My 4th grader has been learning about the Spanish Missions that were set up by the Catholic church here in CA. Obviously, they discussed that it was religious people doing this in the name of religion.
– Every winter “holiday” season they learn about Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza (sp?), etc. In a social studies point of view.
This is in grade school.
In high school I would imagine history, geography, and social studies will discuss regions of the world, dominant religions in those regions, etc.The key – these are not discussed as science or single out a single religion as “the one truth”. They are taught in the context of social/cultural studies. They do not promote one religion over another or ask a student to follow a religion or believe its tenets.
October 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM #621502ParticipantI just wanted to point out something most parents of kids in public school already know.
Religion is discussed/taught in school. Just not in science class.
– My 4th grader has been learning about the Spanish Missions that were set up by the Catholic church here in CA. Obviously, they discussed that it was religious people doing this in the name of religion.
– Every winter “holiday” season they learn about Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza (sp?), etc. In a social studies point of view.
This is in grade school.
In high school I would imagine history, geography, and social studies will discuss regions of the world, dominant religions in those regions, etc.The key – these are not discussed as science or single out a single religion as “the one truth”. They are taught in the context of social/cultural studies. They do not promote one religion over another or ask a student to follow a religion or believe its tenets.
October 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM #622063ParticipantI just wanted to point out something most parents of kids in public school already know.
Religion is discussed/taught in school. Just not in science class.
– My 4th grader has been learning about the Spanish Missions that were set up by the Catholic church here in CA. Obviously, they discussed that it was religious people doing this in the name of religion.
– Every winter “holiday” season they learn about Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza (sp?), etc. In a social studies point of view.
This is in grade school.
In high school I would imagine history, geography, and social studies will discuss regions of the world, dominant religions in those regions, etc.The key – these are not discussed as science or single out a single religion as “the one truth”. They are taught in the context of social/cultural studies. They do not promote one religion over another or ask a student to follow a religion or believe its tenets.
October 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM #622185ParticipantI just wanted to point out something most parents of kids in public school already know.
Religion is discussed/taught in school. Just not in science class.
– My 4th grader has been learning about the Spanish Missions that were set up by the Catholic church here in CA. Obviously, they discussed that it was religious people doing this in the name of religion.
– Every winter “holiday” season they learn about Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza (sp?), etc. In a social studies point of view.
This is in grade school.
In high school I would imagine history, geography, and social studies will discuss regions of the world, dominant religions in those regions, etc.The key – these are not discussed as science or single out a single religion as “the one truth”. They are taught in the context of social/cultural studies. They do not promote one religion over another or ask a student to follow a religion or believe its tenets.
October 21, 2010 at 7:24 PM #622503ParticipantI just wanted to point out something most parents of kids in public school already know.
Religion is discussed/taught in school. Just not in science class.
– My 4th grader has been learning about the Spanish Missions that were set up by the Catholic church here in CA. Obviously, they discussed that it was religious people doing this in the name of religion.
– Every winter “holiday” season they learn about Christmas, Chanukah, Kwanza (sp?), etc. In a social studies point of view.
This is in grade school.
In high school I would imagine history, geography, and social studies will discuss regions of the world, dominant religions in those regions, etc.The key – these are not discussed as science or single out a single religion as “the one truth”. They are taught in the context of social/cultural studies. They do not promote one religion over another or ask a student to follow a religion or believe its tenets.
October 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM #621504eavesdropper
Participant[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes.
BTW: It also recently snowed in Florida and Texas. When was the last time that occurred?As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]ucodegen, given your mention of English wine, I’m sending these along for your consideration:
http://www.biddendenvineyards.com/wines.shtml
http://www.championwine.co.uk/SparklingWine.htm
http://www.bookersvineyard.co.uk/Our_Wines/our_wines.html
http://www.breakybottom.co.uk/winelist.aspx
http://www.broadfieldcourt.co.uk/wines.php
http://www.cornwallwines.co.uk/the-cellar.html
http://www.camelvalley.com/wines-and-shop
http://www.carr-taylor.co.uk/wines/wines.aspx
http://www.cartersvineyards.co.uk/our_wines.html
http://www.chilternvalley.co.uk/winery.html
http://www.chilfordhall.co.uk/cgi-bin/ch/index.html
http://www.coddingtonvineyard.com/page3.htmIt may interest you to know that these are all active British vineyards that both grow their own grapes, and produce and sell (retail) wine made from them. Note that these are only the vineyards from A thru C.
Am I forwarding these to you because I have, or believe that you have, an interest in British wine? No. It’s because I really hate the spread of misinformation, and your post here is chock full of it. I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote=ucodegen] England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]Because so many Piggs are from California, I’m assuming that you are a resident, also (my sincere apologies if this is not the case). There are over 400,000 acres that are dedicated to the growing of grapes for wine in CA. The area considered as the Napa Valley covers roughly 100,000 acres (and much of that acreage is NOT used for growing anything). California has expanded its wine industry significantly over the past 30 years, and there are many regions, including the coast, that contribute.
There are a large number of states that have thriving wine industries, albeit not on a level near that of California. The temperature ranges of these states varies widely, and some differ significantly from California. There are even some in New England.
As for England itself, hopefully I’ve made my point.
[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
[/quote]Are you serious about this? Do you truly believe that members of the IPCC were embarrassed that it snowed in London in October 2008? More than that, do you honestly believe that this single not-terribly-exciting weather event has even the tiniest amount of statistical significance?
Allow me to say that if your answer to that is “yes”, you need to stop discussing the subject of global warming/climate change. Just. Stop. Now, preferably. Plain and simple, you are not even remotely equipped to engage in a discussion of this topic.
Before you assume that I am jumping to conclusions, allow me to point out that you included a link to Anthony Watts’ highly regarded (NOT) website, “Watts Up With That” that details his “scientific” findings “disproving” climate change. Anyone that reads this and believes that it qualifies as evidence against the findings of the scientists and researchers of the IPCC and other institutions is so far off the beam that I don’t think it’s possible to reduce the discussion to a level they will understand. But more on that later.
Watts is a former TV weatherman. That means that he read the weather on the newscasts before they fired guys like him to bring in busty blond gals who didn’t read quite as well but got bigger ratings for the stations. He calls himself a “former television meteorologist” but has no training in this field, formal or otherwise; he has made allusions to an education in electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University, but does not claim it on his website, nor will he answer inquiries regarding his education.
I’ve read Watts’s “science”; I’ve reviewed the material he’s released regarding his projects. There is nothing of value there. To say that his scientific methodology is faulty is a vast understatement, and if he ever attended Purdue, he somehow managed to elude a number of basic science, mathematics, and statistics courses. I’m sorry, but his websites have more of a middle-school science fair look to them than that of scientific research.
[quote=ucodegen] This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes….[/quote]
The “change” you mention was to the labeling only, in a misguided attempt to “explain” the phenomenon in layman’s terms. Seriously, with people like Anthony Watts and his legions of pathologically loyal followers, I don’t know why they bother. As for asking a meteorologist about climate change, I wouldn’t ask “any” meteorologist. I’d make sure that I asked one who not only was well-educated in the science of his/her subject, but one who was open-minded and who continued to study long after leaving the halls of academia.
[quote=ucodegen] As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. [/quote]
Okay, I admit to being curious. You won’t believe hundreds of scientists (who are scientists in the true sense of the world), some of whom have many decades of experience behind them, many of who have multiple doctoral degrees from places like MIT and Oxford and CalTech, and all of whom have published records of the work that they have done with research results that can be reproduced. But you have no problem with putting your faith in the accuracy of “Chinese records” providing data from 1470.
As for the quote about the records, I cannot understand what you are trying to say:
1. A decade is ten (10) years. A century is one hundred (100) years. 5 decades would have been fifty (50) years ago.
2. Are you referring to the Northwest Passage or to the Northern Sea Route?
3. And I still don’t understand what you’re trying to establish with this piece of information. Perhaps you could post a link to the exact place where you found the info?And finally we have……
[quote=ucodegen] Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]
Are you a grape grower, by any chance?
Look, ucodegen, I’m not trying to be an intellectual snob, or trying to say that people who don’t believe in global warming are stupid. In fact, I have my own disagreements with some of what’s being posited by some of the scientists. But that’s just it. If a topic comes up for discusson about which I know diddly, I stay out of it, or I ask questions. If I decide to participate in the discussion, I try to find out something about the topic first. That does not mean that I go to my favorite reactionary, knee-jerk political website, and get their take on it. And I don’t search until I find a site that agrees with my take on it, and then use that as “evidence”. No, I take the time to check a number of sources, primarily ones that DON’T align with my views (I already know what I believe, so why do I need to find more people who agree with me when I want to research/learn something).
Your post here was relatively brief. But it was full of half-truths, mistruths, and declarations that had no basis in fact. And they were declarations, not components of a discussion. That’s the problem today: people shooting off their mouths and creating widespread divisiveness – and much of it’s based on stuff that isn’t even true. In fact, it’s the topic of this thread
I stated earlier that you were in no way equipped to engage in a discussion on the topic of climate change. That opinion hasn’t changed: I honestly believe that an adult who is not aware that 5 decades does not equal 500 years has no business declaring that a well-respected scientist with an MIT degree and 40 years experience in climate science doesn’t know what he’s talking about in his scientific publications.
I’m not being a snob. I don’t think that academia is a sacred place to which the common man cannot gain admittance, nor do I believe that it impossible for an individual with who may be a high school dropout to understand advanced science and history and literature. But people don’t learn in a vacuum. It doesn’t just happen. They need to work at it. And they need to really want it. And you won’t get it from your political party leaders, either. When you’re getting your science or your history or your economics in a politically-wrapped package, it’s an empty box.
You won’t hear me say this often, but Glenn Beck is right about one thing: there are a lot of books out there and people can use them to educate themselves. But unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t believe in “cherry-picking” and looking only for books and other sources of learning that are 100% aligned with what I think. That is NOT learning. It’s the exact opposite.
So I don’t expect it to happen, but I’ll say it anyway: People need to shut the fuck up when they don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. And if they limit their sources of information to those who they know to be in agreement with them, and use this as “evidence” in discussions with others while remaining completely close-minded to anyone else, they aren’t doing anything but deepening the divide. The people doing this the most declare that they are proud patriots. In reality, they are tearing this nation apart, and for selfish and ignorant reasons.
Miss O’Donnell is one of these. She has done nothing of substance in her 40 years here on earth. And she has been singularly unimpressive in her exhibitions (or lack thereof) of knowledge in subject matter necessary to serve effectively as a United States Senator. She loudly declares that the President and his administration (and pretty much the entire Democratic slate of legislators) have repeatedly violated the Constitution, and then publicly demonstrates ignorance of the content of that document while claiming to interpret it correctly.
Yet this is compounded by her followers, who support her unreservedly, and continue to defend her ignorance, usually by repeating lies about her opposition.
October 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM #621587Participant[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes.
BTW: It also recently snowed in Florida and Texas. When was the last time that occurred?As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]ucodegen, given your mention of English wine, I’m sending these along for your consideration:
http://www.biddendenvineyards.com/wines.shtml
http://www.championwine.co.uk/SparklingWine.htm
http://www.bookersvineyard.co.uk/Our_Wines/our_wines.html
http://www.breakybottom.co.uk/winelist.aspx
http://www.broadfieldcourt.co.uk/wines.php
http://www.cornwallwines.co.uk/the-cellar.html
http://www.camelvalley.com/wines-and-shop
http://www.carr-taylor.co.uk/wines/wines.aspx
http://www.cartersvineyards.co.uk/our_wines.html
http://www.chilternvalley.co.uk/winery.html
http://www.chilfordhall.co.uk/cgi-bin/ch/index.html
http://www.coddingtonvineyard.com/page3.htmIt may interest you to know that these are all active British vineyards that both grow their own grapes, and produce and sell (retail) wine made from them. Note that these are only the vineyards from A thru C.
Am I forwarding these to you because I have, or believe that you have, an interest in British wine? No. It’s because I really hate the spread of misinformation, and your post here is chock full of it. I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote=ucodegen] England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]Because so many Piggs are from California, I’m assuming that you are a resident, also (my sincere apologies if this is not the case). There are over 400,000 acres that are dedicated to the growing of grapes for wine in CA. The area considered as the Napa Valley covers roughly 100,000 acres (and much of that acreage is NOT used for growing anything). California has expanded its wine industry significantly over the past 30 years, and there are many regions, including the coast, that contribute.
There are a large number of states that have thriving wine industries, albeit not on a level near that of California. The temperature ranges of these states varies widely, and some differ significantly from California. There are even some in New England.
As for England itself, hopefully I’ve made my point.
[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
[/quote]Are you serious about this? Do you truly believe that members of the IPCC were embarrassed that it snowed in London in October 2008? More than that, do you honestly believe that this single not-terribly-exciting weather event has even the tiniest amount of statistical significance?
Allow me to say that if your answer to that is “yes”, you need to stop discussing the subject of global warming/climate change. Just. Stop. Now, preferably. Plain and simple, you are not even remotely equipped to engage in a discussion of this topic.
Before you assume that I am jumping to conclusions, allow me to point out that you included a link to Anthony Watts’ highly regarded (NOT) website, “Watts Up With That” that details his “scientific” findings “disproving” climate change. Anyone that reads this and believes that it qualifies as evidence against the findings of the scientists and researchers of the IPCC and other institutions is so far off the beam that I don’t think it’s possible to reduce the discussion to a level they will understand. But more on that later.
Watts is a former TV weatherman. That means that he read the weather on the newscasts before they fired guys like him to bring in busty blond gals who didn’t read quite as well but got bigger ratings for the stations. He calls himself a “former television meteorologist” but has no training in this field, formal or otherwise; he has made allusions to an education in electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University, but does not claim it on his website, nor will he answer inquiries regarding his education.
I’ve read Watts’s “science”; I’ve reviewed the material he’s released regarding his projects. There is nothing of value there. To say that his scientific methodology is faulty is a vast understatement, and if he ever attended Purdue, he somehow managed to elude a number of basic science, mathematics, and statistics courses. I’m sorry, but his websites have more of a middle-school science fair look to them than that of scientific research.
[quote=ucodegen] This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes….[/quote]
The “change” you mention was to the labeling only, in a misguided attempt to “explain” the phenomenon in layman’s terms. Seriously, with people like Anthony Watts and his legions of pathologically loyal followers, I don’t know why they bother. As for asking a meteorologist about climate change, I wouldn’t ask “any” meteorologist. I’d make sure that I asked one who not only was well-educated in the science of his/her subject, but one who was open-minded and who continued to study long after leaving the halls of academia.
[quote=ucodegen] As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. [/quote]
Okay, I admit to being curious. You won’t believe hundreds of scientists (who are scientists in the true sense of the world), some of whom have many decades of experience behind them, many of who have multiple doctoral degrees from places like MIT and Oxford and CalTech, and all of whom have published records of the work that they have done with research results that can be reproduced. But you have no problem with putting your faith in the accuracy of “Chinese records” providing data from 1470.
As for the quote about the records, I cannot understand what you are trying to say:
1. A decade is ten (10) years. A century is one hundred (100) years. 5 decades would have been fifty (50) years ago.
2. Are you referring to the Northwest Passage or to the Northern Sea Route?
3. And I still don’t understand what you’re trying to establish with this piece of information. Perhaps you could post a link to the exact place where you found the info?And finally we have……
[quote=ucodegen] Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]
Are you a grape grower, by any chance?
Look, ucodegen, I’m not trying to be an intellectual snob, or trying to say that people who don’t believe in global warming are stupid. In fact, I have my own disagreements with some of what’s being posited by some of the scientists. But that’s just it. If a topic comes up for discusson about which I know diddly, I stay out of it, or I ask questions. If I decide to participate in the discussion, I try to find out something about the topic first. That does not mean that I go to my favorite reactionary, knee-jerk political website, and get their take on it. And I don’t search until I find a site that agrees with my take on it, and then use that as “evidence”. No, I take the time to check a number of sources, primarily ones that DON’T align with my views (I already know what I believe, so why do I need to find more people who agree with me when I want to research/learn something).
Your post here was relatively brief. But it was full of half-truths, mistruths, and declarations that had no basis in fact. And they were declarations, not components of a discussion. That’s the problem today: people shooting off their mouths and creating widespread divisiveness – and much of it’s based on stuff that isn’t even true. In fact, it’s the topic of this thread
I stated earlier that you were in no way equipped to engage in a discussion on the topic of climate change. That opinion hasn’t changed: I honestly believe that an adult who is not aware that 5 decades does not equal 500 years has no business declaring that a well-respected scientist with an MIT degree and 40 years experience in climate science doesn’t know what he’s talking about in his scientific publications.
I’m not being a snob. I don’t think that academia is a sacred place to which the common man cannot gain admittance, nor do I believe that it impossible for an individual with who may be a high school dropout to understand advanced science and history and literature. But people don’t learn in a vacuum. It doesn’t just happen. They need to work at it. And they need to really want it. And you won’t get it from your political party leaders, either. When you’re getting your science or your history or your economics in a politically-wrapped package, it’s an empty box.
You won’t hear me say this often, but Glenn Beck is right about one thing: there are a lot of books out there and people can use them to educate themselves. But unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t believe in “cherry-picking” and looking only for books and other sources of learning that are 100% aligned with what I think. That is NOT learning. It’s the exact opposite.
So I don’t expect it to happen, but I’ll say it anyway: People need to shut the fuck up when they don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. And if they limit their sources of information to those who they know to be in agreement with them, and use this as “evidence” in discussions with others while remaining completely close-minded to anyone else, they aren’t doing anything but deepening the divide. The people doing this the most declare that they are proud patriots. In reality, they are tearing this nation apart, and for selfish and ignorant reasons.
Miss O’Donnell is one of these. She has done nothing of substance in her 40 years here on earth. And she has been singularly unimpressive in her exhibitions (or lack thereof) of knowledge in subject matter necessary to serve effectively as a United States Senator. She loudly declares that the President and his administration (and pretty much the entire Democratic slate of legislators) have repeatedly violated the Constitution, and then publicly demonstrates ignorance of the content of that document while claiming to interpret it correctly.
Yet this is compounded by her followers, who support her unreservedly, and continue to defend her ignorance, usually by repeating lies about her opposition.
October 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM #622148Participant[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes.
BTW: It also recently snowed in Florida and Texas. When was the last time that occurred?As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]ucodegen, given your mention of English wine, I’m sending these along for your consideration:
http://www.biddendenvineyards.com/wines.shtml
http://www.championwine.co.uk/SparklingWine.htm
http://www.bookersvineyard.co.uk/Our_Wines/our_wines.html
http://www.breakybottom.co.uk/winelist.aspx
http://www.broadfieldcourt.co.uk/wines.php
http://www.cornwallwines.co.uk/the-cellar.html
http://www.camelvalley.com/wines-and-shop
http://www.carr-taylor.co.uk/wines/wines.aspx
http://www.cartersvineyards.co.uk/our_wines.html
http://www.chilternvalley.co.uk/winery.html
http://www.chilfordhall.co.uk/cgi-bin/ch/index.html
http://www.coddingtonvineyard.com/page3.htmIt may interest you to know that these are all active British vineyards that both grow their own grapes, and produce and sell (retail) wine made from them. Note that these are only the vineyards from A thru C.
Am I forwarding these to you because I have, or believe that you have, an interest in British wine? No. It’s because I really hate the spread of misinformation, and your post here is chock full of it. I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote=ucodegen] England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]Because so many Piggs are from California, I’m assuming that you are a resident, also (my sincere apologies if this is not the case). There are over 400,000 acres that are dedicated to the growing of grapes for wine in CA. The area considered as the Napa Valley covers roughly 100,000 acres (and much of that acreage is NOT used for growing anything). California has expanded its wine industry significantly over the past 30 years, and there are many regions, including the coast, that contribute.
There are a large number of states that have thriving wine industries, albeit not on a level near that of California. The temperature ranges of these states varies widely, and some differ significantly from California. There are even some in New England.
As for England itself, hopefully I’ve made my point.
[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
[/quote]Are you serious about this? Do you truly believe that members of the IPCC were embarrassed that it snowed in London in October 2008? More than that, do you honestly believe that this single not-terribly-exciting weather event has even the tiniest amount of statistical significance?
Allow me to say that if your answer to that is “yes”, you need to stop discussing the subject of global warming/climate change. Just. Stop. Now, preferably. Plain and simple, you are not even remotely equipped to engage in a discussion of this topic.
Before you assume that I am jumping to conclusions, allow me to point out that you included a link to Anthony Watts’ highly regarded (NOT) website, “Watts Up With That” that details his “scientific” findings “disproving” climate change. Anyone that reads this and believes that it qualifies as evidence against the findings of the scientists and researchers of the IPCC and other institutions is so far off the beam that I don’t think it’s possible to reduce the discussion to a level they will understand. But more on that later.
Watts is a former TV weatherman. That means that he read the weather on the newscasts before they fired guys like him to bring in busty blond gals who didn’t read quite as well but got bigger ratings for the stations. He calls himself a “former television meteorologist” but has no training in this field, formal or otherwise; he has made allusions to an education in electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University, but does not claim it on his website, nor will he answer inquiries regarding his education.
I’ve read Watts’s “science”; I’ve reviewed the material he’s released regarding his projects. There is nothing of value there. To say that his scientific methodology is faulty is a vast understatement, and if he ever attended Purdue, he somehow managed to elude a number of basic science, mathematics, and statistics courses. I’m sorry, but his websites have more of a middle-school science fair look to them than that of scientific research.
[quote=ucodegen] This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes….[/quote]
The “change” you mention was to the labeling only, in a misguided attempt to “explain” the phenomenon in layman’s terms. Seriously, with people like Anthony Watts and his legions of pathologically loyal followers, I don’t know why they bother. As for asking a meteorologist about climate change, I wouldn’t ask “any” meteorologist. I’d make sure that I asked one who not only was well-educated in the science of his/her subject, but one who was open-minded and who continued to study long after leaving the halls of academia.
[quote=ucodegen] As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. [/quote]
Okay, I admit to being curious. You won’t believe hundreds of scientists (who are scientists in the true sense of the world), some of whom have many decades of experience behind them, many of who have multiple doctoral degrees from places like MIT and Oxford and CalTech, and all of whom have published records of the work that they have done with research results that can be reproduced. But you have no problem with putting your faith in the accuracy of “Chinese records” providing data from 1470.
As for the quote about the records, I cannot understand what you are trying to say:
1. A decade is ten (10) years. A century is one hundred (100) years. 5 decades would have been fifty (50) years ago.
2. Are you referring to the Northwest Passage or to the Northern Sea Route?
3. And I still don’t understand what you’re trying to establish with this piece of information. Perhaps you could post a link to the exact place where you found the info?And finally we have……
[quote=ucodegen] Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]
Are you a grape grower, by any chance?
Look, ucodegen, I’m not trying to be an intellectual snob, or trying to say that people who don’t believe in global warming are stupid. In fact, I have my own disagreements with some of what’s being posited by some of the scientists. But that’s just it. If a topic comes up for discusson about which I know diddly, I stay out of it, or I ask questions. If I decide to participate in the discussion, I try to find out something about the topic first. That does not mean that I go to my favorite reactionary, knee-jerk political website, and get their take on it. And I don’t search until I find a site that agrees with my take on it, and then use that as “evidence”. No, I take the time to check a number of sources, primarily ones that DON’T align with my views (I already know what I believe, so why do I need to find more people who agree with me when I want to research/learn something).
Your post here was relatively brief. But it was full of half-truths, mistruths, and declarations that had no basis in fact. And they were declarations, not components of a discussion. That’s the problem today: people shooting off their mouths and creating widespread divisiveness – and much of it’s based on stuff that isn’t even true. In fact, it’s the topic of this thread
I stated earlier that you were in no way equipped to engage in a discussion on the topic of climate change. That opinion hasn’t changed: I honestly believe that an adult who is not aware that 5 decades does not equal 500 years has no business declaring that a well-respected scientist with an MIT degree and 40 years experience in climate science doesn’t know what he’s talking about in his scientific publications.
I’m not being a snob. I don’t think that academia is a sacred place to which the common man cannot gain admittance, nor do I believe that it impossible for an individual with who may be a high school dropout to understand advanced science and history and literature. But people don’t learn in a vacuum. It doesn’t just happen. They need to work at it. And they need to really want it. And you won’t get it from your political party leaders, either. When you’re getting your science or your history or your economics in a politically-wrapped package, it’s an empty box.
You won’t hear me say this often, but Glenn Beck is right about one thing: there are a lot of books out there and people can use them to educate themselves. But unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t believe in “cherry-picking” and looking only for books and other sources of learning that are 100% aligned with what I think. That is NOT learning. It’s the exact opposite.
So I don’t expect it to happen, but I’ll say it anyway: People need to shut the fuck up when they don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. And if they limit their sources of information to those who they know to be in agreement with them, and use this as “evidence” in discussions with others while remaining completely close-minded to anyone else, they aren’t doing anything but deepening the divide. The people doing this the most declare that they are proud patriots. In reality, they are tearing this nation apart, and for selfish and ignorant reasons.
Miss O’Donnell is one of these. She has done nothing of substance in her 40 years here on earth. And she has been singularly unimpressive in her exhibitions (or lack thereof) of knowledge in subject matter necessary to serve effectively as a United States Senator. She loudly declares that the President and his administration (and pretty much the entire Democratic slate of legislators) have repeatedly violated the Constitution, and then publicly demonstrates ignorance of the content of that document while claiming to interpret it correctly.
Yet this is compounded by her followers, who support her unreservedly, and continue to defend her ignorance, usually by repeating lies about her opposition.
October 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM #622269Participant[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes.
BTW: It also recently snowed in Florida and Texas. When was the last time that occurred?As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]ucodegen, given your mention of English wine, I’m sending these along for your consideration:
http://www.biddendenvineyards.com/wines.shtml
http://www.championwine.co.uk/SparklingWine.htm
http://www.bookersvineyard.co.uk/Our_Wines/our_wines.html
http://www.breakybottom.co.uk/winelist.aspx
http://www.broadfieldcourt.co.uk/wines.php
http://www.cornwallwines.co.uk/the-cellar.html
http://www.camelvalley.com/wines-and-shop
http://www.carr-taylor.co.uk/wines/wines.aspx
http://www.cartersvineyards.co.uk/our_wines.html
http://www.chilternvalley.co.uk/winery.html
http://www.chilfordhall.co.uk/cgi-bin/ch/index.html
http://www.coddingtonvineyard.com/page3.htmIt may interest you to know that these are all active British vineyards that both grow their own grapes, and produce and sell (retail) wine made from them. Note that these are only the vineyards from A thru C.
Am I forwarding these to you because I have, or believe that you have, an interest in British wine? No. It’s because I really hate the spread of misinformation, and your post here is chock full of it. I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote=ucodegen] England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]Because so many Piggs are from California, I’m assuming that you are a resident, also (my sincere apologies if this is not the case). There are over 400,000 acres that are dedicated to the growing of grapes for wine in CA. The area considered as the Napa Valley covers roughly 100,000 acres (and much of that acreage is NOT used for growing anything). California has expanded its wine industry significantly over the past 30 years, and there are many regions, including the coast, that contribute.
There are a large number of states that have thriving wine industries, albeit not on a level near that of California. The temperature ranges of these states varies widely, and some differ significantly from California. There are even some in New England.
As for England itself, hopefully I’ve made my point.
[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
[/quote]Are you serious about this? Do you truly believe that members of the IPCC were embarrassed that it snowed in London in October 2008? More than that, do you honestly believe that this single not-terribly-exciting weather event has even the tiniest amount of statistical significance?
Allow me to say that if your answer to that is “yes”, you need to stop discussing the subject of global warming/climate change. Just. Stop. Now, preferably. Plain and simple, you are not even remotely equipped to engage in a discussion of this topic.
Before you assume that I am jumping to conclusions, allow me to point out that you included a link to Anthony Watts’ highly regarded (NOT) website, “Watts Up With That” that details his “scientific” findings “disproving” climate change. Anyone that reads this and believes that it qualifies as evidence against the findings of the scientists and researchers of the IPCC and other institutions is so far off the beam that I don’t think it’s possible to reduce the discussion to a level they will understand. But more on that later.
Watts is a former TV weatherman. That means that he read the weather on the newscasts before they fired guys like him to bring in busty blond gals who didn’t read quite as well but got bigger ratings for the stations. He calls himself a “former television meteorologist” but has no training in this field, formal or otherwise; he has made allusions to an education in electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University, but does not claim it on his website, nor will he answer inquiries regarding his education.
I’ve read Watts’s “science”; I’ve reviewed the material he’s released regarding his projects. There is nothing of value there. To say that his scientific methodology is faulty is a vast understatement, and if he ever attended Purdue, he somehow managed to elude a number of basic science, mathematics, and statistics courses. I’m sorry, but his websites have more of a middle-school science fair look to them than that of scientific research.
[quote=ucodegen] This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes….[/quote]
The “change” you mention was to the labeling only, in a misguided attempt to “explain” the phenomenon in layman’s terms. Seriously, with people like Anthony Watts and his legions of pathologically loyal followers, I don’t know why they bother. As for asking a meteorologist about climate change, I wouldn’t ask “any” meteorologist. I’d make sure that I asked one who not only was well-educated in the science of his/her subject, but one who was open-minded and who continued to study long after leaving the halls of academia.
[quote=ucodegen] As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. [/quote]
Okay, I admit to being curious. You won’t believe hundreds of scientists (who are scientists in the true sense of the world), some of whom have many decades of experience behind them, many of who have multiple doctoral degrees from places like MIT and Oxford and CalTech, and all of whom have published records of the work that they have done with research results that can be reproduced. But you have no problem with putting your faith in the accuracy of “Chinese records” providing data from 1470.
As for the quote about the records, I cannot understand what you are trying to say:
1. A decade is ten (10) years. A century is one hundred (100) years. 5 decades would have been fifty (50) years ago.
2. Are you referring to the Northwest Passage or to the Northern Sea Route?
3. And I still don’t understand what you’re trying to establish with this piece of information. Perhaps you could post a link to the exact place where you found the info?And finally we have……
[quote=ucodegen] Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]
Are you a grape grower, by any chance?
Look, ucodegen, I’m not trying to be an intellectual snob, or trying to say that people who don’t believe in global warming are stupid. In fact, I have my own disagreements with some of what’s being posited by some of the scientists. But that’s just it. If a topic comes up for discusson about which I know diddly, I stay out of it, or I ask questions. If I decide to participate in the discussion, I try to find out something about the topic first. That does not mean that I go to my favorite reactionary, knee-jerk political website, and get their take on it. And I don’t search until I find a site that agrees with my take on it, and then use that as “evidence”. No, I take the time to check a number of sources, primarily ones that DON’T align with my views (I already know what I believe, so why do I need to find more people who agree with me when I want to research/learn something).
Your post here was relatively brief. But it was full of half-truths, mistruths, and declarations that had no basis in fact. And they were declarations, not components of a discussion. That’s the problem today: people shooting off their mouths and creating widespread divisiveness – and much of it’s based on stuff that isn’t even true. In fact, it’s the topic of this thread
I stated earlier that you were in no way equipped to engage in a discussion on the topic of climate change. That opinion hasn’t changed: I honestly believe that an adult who is not aware that 5 decades does not equal 500 years has no business declaring that a well-respected scientist with an MIT degree and 40 years experience in climate science doesn’t know what he’s talking about in his scientific publications.
I’m not being a snob. I don’t think that academia is a sacred place to which the common man cannot gain admittance, nor do I believe that it impossible for an individual with who may be a high school dropout to understand advanced science and history and literature. But people don’t learn in a vacuum. It doesn’t just happen. They need to work at it. And they need to really want it. And you won’t get it from your political party leaders, either. When you’re getting your science or your history or your economics in a politically-wrapped package, it’s an empty box.
You won’t hear me say this often, but Glenn Beck is right about one thing: there are a lot of books out there and people can use them to educate themselves. But unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t believe in “cherry-picking” and looking only for books and other sources of learning that are 100% aligned with what I think. That is NOT learning. It’s the exact opposite.
So I don’t expect it to happen, but I’ll say it anyway: People need to shut the fuck up when they don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. And if they limit their sources of information to those who they know to be in agreement with them, and use this as “evidence” in discussions with others while remaining completely close-minded to anyone else, they aren’t doing anything but deepening the divide. The people doing this the most declare that they are proud patriots. In reality, they are tearing this nation apart, and for selfish and ignorant reasons.
Miss O’Donnell is one of these. She has done nothing of substance in her 40 years here on earth. And she has been singularly unimpressive in her exhibitions (or lack thereof) of knowledge in subject matter necessary to serve effectively as a United States Senator. She loudly declares that the President and his administration (and pretty much the entire Democratic slate of legislators) have repeatedly violated the Constitution, and then publicly demonstrates ignorance of the content of that document while claiming to interpret it correctly.
Yet this is compounded by her followers, who support her unreservedly, and continue to defend her ignorance, usually by repeating lies about her opposition.
October 22, 2010 at 12:56 AM #622588Participant[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes.
BTW: It also recently snowed in Florida and Texas. When was the last time that occurred?As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]ucodegen, given your mention of English wine, I’m sending these along for your consideration:
http://www.biddendenvineyards.com/wines.shtml
http://www.championwine.co.uk/SparklingWine.htm
http://www.bookersvineyard.co.uk/Our_Wines/our_wines.html
http://www.breakybottom.co.uk/winelist.aspx
http://www.broadfieldcourt.co.uk/wines.php
http://www.cornwallwines.co.uk/the-cellar.html
http://www.camelvalley.com/wines-and-shop
http://www.carr-taylor.co.uk/wines/wines.aspx
http://www.cartersvineyards.co.uk/our_wines.html
http://www.chilternvalley.co.uk/winery.html
http://www.chilfordhall.co.uk/cgi-bin/ch/index.html
http://www.coddingtonvineyard.com/page3.htmIt may interest you to know that these are all active British vineyards that both grow their own grapes, and produce and sell (retail) wine made from them. Note that these are only the vineyards from A thru C.
Am I forwarding these to you because I have, or believe that you have, an interest in British wine? No. It’s because I really hate the spread of misinformation, and your post here is chock full of it. I don’t even know where to begin.
[quote=ucodegen] England also used to grow grapes/make wine. Now it is only done on the individual scale.
http://www.english-wine.com/history.html
Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]Because so many Piggs are from California, I’m assuming that you are a resident, also (my sincere apologies if this is not the case). There are over 400,000 acres that are dedicated to the growing of grapes for wine in CA. The area considered as the Napa Valley covers roughly 100,000 acres (and much of that acreage is NOT used for growing anything). California has expanded its wine industry significantly over the past 30 years, and there are many regions, including the coast, that contribute.
There are a large number of states that have thriving wine industries, albeit not on a level near that of California. The temperature ranges of these states varies widely, and some differ significantly from California. There are even some in New England.
As for England itself, hopefully I’ve made my point.
[quote=ucodegen] Again, topic for another thread, but AGW is not proven.
The IPCC was even put in an embarrassing position in 2008. It had snowed in London. London has not had snow for more than 70 years.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579420-arctic-blast-brings-london-earliest-snow-for-70-years.do
[/quote]Are you serious about this? Do you truly believe that members of the IPCC were embarrassed that it snowed in London in October 2008? More than that, do you honestly believe that this single not-terribly-exciting weather event has even the tiniest amount of statistical significance?
Allow me to say that if your answer to that is “yes”, you need to stop discussing the subject of global warming/climate change. Just. Stop. Now, preferably. Plain and simple, you are not even remotely equipped to engage in a discussion of this topic.
Before you assume that I am jumping to conclusions, allow me to point out that you included a link to Anthony Watts’ highly regarded (NOT) website, “Watts Up With That” that details his “scientific” findings “disproving” climate change. Anyone that reads this and believes that it qualifies as evidence against the findings of the scientists and researchers of the IPCC and other institutions is so far off the beam that I don’t think it’s possible to reduce the discussion to a level they will understand. But more on that later.
Watts is a former TV weatherman. That means that he read the weather on the newscasts before they fired guys like him to bring in busty blond gals who didn’t read quite as well but got bigger ratings for the stations. He calls himself a “former television meteorologist” but has no training in this field, formal or otherwise; he has made allusions to an education in electrical engineering and meteorology at Purdue University, but does not claim it on his website, nor will he answer inquiries regarding his education.
I’ve read Watts’s “science”; I’ve reviewed the material he’s released regarding his projects. There is nothing of value there. To say that his scientific methodology is faulty is a vast understatement, and if he ever attended Purdue, he somehow managed to elude a number of basic science, mathematics, and statistics courses. I’m sorry, but his websites have more of a middle-school science fair look to them than that of scientific research.
[quote=ucodegen] This is also why the subject has changed from ‘global warming’ to ‘global climate change’. Talk to any meteorologist, and they will tell you – the climate always changes….[/quote]
The “change” you mention was to the labeling only, in a misguided attempt to “explain” the phenomenon in layman’s terms. Seriously, with people like Anthony Watts and his legions of pathologically loyal followers, I don’t know why they bother. As for asking a meteorologist about climate change, I wouldn’t ask “any” meteorologist. I’d make sure that I asked one who not only was well-educated in the science of his/her subject, but one who was open-minded and who continued to study long after leaving the halls of academia.
[quote=ucodegen] As for warmer over past 5 decades(500 years), that is blatantly false. Chinese records show the northern passage open/free of ice around 1470. [/quote]
Okay, I admit to being curious. You won’t believe hundreds of scientists (who are scientists in the true sense of the world), some of whom have many decades of experience behind them, many of who have multiple doctoral degrees from places like MIT and Oxford and CalTech, and all of whom have published records of the work that they have done with research results that can be reproduced. But you have no problem with putting your faith in the accuracy of “Chinese records” providing data from 1470.
As for the quote about the records, I cannot understand what you are trying to say:
1. A decade is ten (10) years. A century is one hundred (100) years. 5 decades would have been fifty (50) years ago.
2. Are you referring to the Northwest Passage or to the Northern Sea Route?
3. And I still don’t understand what you’re trying to establish with this piece of information. Perhaps you could post a link to the exact place where you found the info?And finally we have……
[quote=ucodegen] Growing grapes requires higher temperatures. That is why they are grown in the NAPA valley and not along the coast in California.[/quote]
Are you a grape grower, by any chance?
Look, ucodegen, I’m not trying to be an intellectual snob, or trying to say that people who don’t believe in global warming are stupid. In fact, I have my own disagreements with some of what’s being posited by some of the scientists. But that’s just it. If a topic comes up for discusson about which I know diddly, I stay out of it, or I ask questions. If I decide to participate in the discussion, I try to find out something about the topic first. That does not mean that I go to my favorite reactionary, knee-jerk political website, and get their take on it. And I don’t search until I find a site that agrees with my take on it, and then use that as “evidence”. No, I take the time to check a number of sources, primarily ones that DON’T align with my views (I already know what I believe, so why do I need to find more people who agree with me when I want to research/learn something).
Your post here was relatively brief. But it was full of half-truths, mistruths, and declarations that had no basis in fact. And they were declarations, not components of a discussion. That’s the problem today: people shooting off their mouths and creating widespread divisiveness – and much of it’s based on stuff that isn’t even true. In fact, it’s the topic of this thread
I stated earlier that you were in no way equipped to engage in a discussion on the topic of climate change. That opinion hasn’t changed: I honestly believe that an adult who is not aware that 5 decades does not equal 500 years has no business declaring that a well-respected scientist with an MIT degree and 40 years experience in climate science doesn’t know what he’s talking about in his scientific publications.
I’m not being a snob. I don’t think that academia is a sacred place to which the common man cannot gain admittance, nor do I believe that it impossible for an individual with who may be a high school dropout to understand advanced science and history and literature. But people don’t learn in a vacuum. It doesn’t just happen. They need to work at it. And they need to really want it. And you won’t get it from your political party leaders, either. When you’re getting your science or your history or your economics in a politically-wrapped package, it’s an empty box.
You won’t hear me say this often, but Glenn Beck is right about one thing: there are a lot of books out there and people can use them to educate themselves. But unlike Glenn Beck, I don’t believe in “cherry-picking” and looking only for books and other sources of learning that are 100% aligned with what I think. That is NOT learning. It’s the exact opposite.
So I don’t expect it to happen, but I’ll say it anyway: People need to shut the fuck up when they don’t have the faintest idea what they’re talking about. And if they limit their sources of information to those who they know to be in agreement with them, and use this as “evidence” in discussions with others while remaining completely close-minded to anyone else, they aren’t doing anything but deepening the divide. The people doing this the most declare that they are proud patriots. In reality, they are tearing this nation apart, and for selfish and ignorant reasons.
Miss O’Donnell is one of these. She has done nothing of substance in her 40 years here on earth. And she has been singularly unimpressive in her exhibitions (or lack thereof) of knowledge in subject matter necessary to serve effectively as a United States Senator. She loudly declares that the President and his administration (and pretty much the entire Democratic slate of legislators) have repeatedly violated the Constitution, and then publicly demonstrates ignorance of the content of that document while claiming to interpret it correctly.
Yet this is compounded by her followers, who support her unreservedly, and continue to defend her ignorance, usually by repeating lies about her opposition.
October 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM #621509Arraya
ParticipantAGW as been established since the late 80s – after 30 years of debate within academia. Now it’s just the details and models being debated. It’s not doctrine, its the most accepted theory with thousands of peer reviewed papers backing it up and a half century of research, which any scientist can try to falsify.
What started out as a typical corporate systemic funded denial program by the oil industry(think tobacco science), morphed into a self-propagating industry itself. During the late 90s the oil industry was offered cap and trade as compensation and they backed off. Now, mostly the denial comes from economic think tanks coaxing non-related scientists to sign petitions at trade shows for some type of funding.
At this point, it’s just a political tool and/or a money making scheme. I wouldn’t worry about any legislation “hurting” the economy – it’s own inherent flaws sow the seeds of it’s own destruction.
In the meantime, just sit back and watch the political freak show emerging. It’s sure to get worse.
October 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM #621592ParticipantAGW as been established since the late 80s – after 30 years of debate within academia. Now it’s just the details and models being debated. It’s not doctrine, its the most accepted theory with thousands of peer reviewed papers backing it up and a half century of research, which any scientist can try to falsify.
What started out as a typical corporate systemic funded denial program by the oil industry(think tobacco science), morphed into a self-propagating industry itself. During the late 90s the oil industry was offered cap and trade as compensation and they backed off. Now, mostly the denial comes from economic think tanks coaxing non-related scientists to sign petitions at trade shows for some type of funding.
At this point, it’s just a political tool and/or a money making scheme. I wouldn’t worry about any legislation “hurting” the economy – it’s own inherent flaws sow the seeds of it’s own destruction.
In the meantime, just sit back and watch the political freak show emerging. It’s sure to get worse.
October 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM #622153ParticipantAGW as been established since the late 80s – after 30 years of debate within academia. Now it’s just the details and models being debated. It’s not doctrine, its the most accepted theory with thousands of peer reviewed papers backing it up and a half century of research, which any scientist can try to falsify.
What started out as a typical corporate systemic funded denial program by the oil industry(think tobacco science), morphed into a self-propagating industry itself. During the late 90s the oil industry was offered cap and trade as compensation and they backed off. Now, mostly the denial comes from economic think tanks coaxing non-related scientists to sign petitions at trade shows for some type of funding.
At this point, it’s just a political tool and/or a money making scheme. I wouldn’t worry about any legislation “hurting” the economy – it’s own inherent flaws sow the seeds of it’s own destruction.
In the meantime, just sit back and watch the political freak show emerging. It’s sure to get worse.
October 22, 2010 at 6:19 AM #622275ParticipantAGW as been established since the late 80s – after 30 years of debate within academia. Now it’s just the details and models being debated. It’s not doctrine, its the most accepted theory with thousands of peer reviewed papers backing it up and a half century of research, which any scientist can try to falsify.
What started out as a typical corporate systemic funded denial program by the oil industry(think tobacco science), morphed into a self-propagating industry itself. During the late 90s the oil industry was offered cap and trade as compensation and they backed off. Now, mostly the denial comes from economic think tanks coaxing non-related scientists to sign petitions at trade shows for some type of funding.
At this point, it’s just a political tool and/or a money making scheme. I wouldn’t worry about any legislation “hurting” the economy – it’s own inherent flaws sow the seeds of it’s own destruction.
In the meantime, just sit back and watch the political freak show emerging. It’s sure to get worse.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.