Greenpeace activists arrested for banner on Mount Rushmore

apdst said:

That's why global warming is the farce that it is. We're all supposed to blindly accept the word of a few scientists that it's fact and empty our pockets to pay them to figure out how to stop it. Sounds alot like, "tithing", to me.

Click to expand...

Don't blame the Chicken Littles on science - blame politics. Science is supposed to be objective and unbiased, and when it's implemented properly it is a powerful tool for progress and enlightment; only when ass-lickers like Al Gore and the lunatic leftists get their hands on it does it become a distortion of reality.

Ethereal said:

I agree with this whole heartedly. That's why it's imperative for the whole AGW mass hysteria nonsense to be exposed for what it is. Al Gore is a fraud and a disgrace to science. The man was awarded a damn Nobel Prize for Chrissakes. When science becomes politicized by ass-hats like Gore then we're in real big trouble. Politics has NO PLACE in science. Science is pure and it must remain that way. AGW theory threatens the foundations of scientific objectivity and progress.

Click to expand...

He won the Nobel Peace Prize, I believe Arafat won that too...which I say is clear indication to how that goes. I think there were quite a few who wanted to cash in on the global warming scare, not many wished to look at the problem rationally. If you look at it rationally, you see there's no reason to declare us all dead. There are good steps to take to refine our technologies, and we can continue to do that. We don't wish to totally ignore our effects either. We just want to take things in rational manner, understand that we could be effecting the system, look into how we can effect that and ways to mitigate those effects. Scare tactics in the end help no one. And bad policy can be made (Kyoto anyone?) because of it. It would behoove us to avoid those sorts of circumstance.

Ethereal said:

Don't blame the Chicken Littles on science - blame politics. Science is supposed to be objective and unbiased, and when it's implemented properly it is a powerful tool for progress and enlightment; only when ass-lickers like Al Gore and the lunatic leftists get their hands on it does it become a distortion of reality.

Click to expand...

I blame both. It's the very reason there's a seperation of church and state. It's why I don't think the president should have a scientific advisor.

Picaro said:

Oh, it's definitely billions. Al Gore has already raked in over a $100 million personally, and that's just his personal cut; he'll be a billionaire in just a couple of years, and then there are the university 'research' payoffs to reach the proper 'data interpretations', and then the tax breaks for big Corporations, and the financing of the bonds and IPO's, etc., right on down the line.

At least that is what they're hoping will happen, but apparently the Cake Eaters have absolutely no idea how bankrupt the peasants are they need to shake down to pay for all of this, like a whole entire upper income demographic as ignorant as Marie Antoinette was when we wondered why there were bread riots in Paris and uttered her famous 'observation'.

Whether or not global warming is actually real or not is not a concern. We've all been told it is by our Masters, and that's that.

Click to expand...

I believe all the money that Gore has made through his movie and other "environmental" ventures has gone to back to the cause. Really.

Middleground said:

Completely untrue. We have been getting warmer, even despite a La Nina in 2007-08. Seven of the hottest years since the recording of temperature has began (late 1800's) have happened in the 21st century, so that ain't cooling.

Click to expand...

These results flatly contradict the predictions of AGW theory, hence it is bunk.

apdst said:

No, that's exactly what you said. You said that you're, "capable of rational and unbiased thought". Want me to link that? Or can we agree that that's exactly what you said? Ok, now, you're making that claim to convince me that you would never make an uninformed, politically motived, monetarily motivated, rational, unbiased decison on anything. Well, we can only take your word for that. You have no way to prove that.

Click to expand...

I am very capable of rational and unbiased thought. That was in reference to your deflect against my arguments that separation of science and state is ridiculous when I told you I am a scientist. You used that line to ignore my argument that government needs science, and that government uses science. That was the base premise of argument, you keep trying to change things because I highlighted the absurdity of your "separation of science and state" comment.

Noooo, science is political! Why hell no!

They already pay the most when it comes to taxes, and if a group of scientists have their way, the wealthy could soon be on the hook for their greenhouse emissions, too.

It's a plan that's being floated in an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, which suggests an easy way around the ongoing debate between rich and poor nations about who should bear the brunt of having to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to shift the focus to the number of rich people a country has.

The idea is that rich folks throw off more greenhouse gases because they're more likely to drive gas guzzlers, travel more frequently by airplane and live in large homes that require more energy to heat and cool. As such, countries with higher concentrations of wealthy people would be subject to carbon emission targets.

"You're distributing the task of doing something about emissions reduction based on the proportion of the population in the country that's actually doing the most damage," Princeton Environment Institute's Shoibal Chakravarty, one of the study's authors, told Reuters.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES ARTICLE SUGGESTS RICH COUNTRIES HELP REDUCE EMISSIONS - New York Post

Click to expand...

From NASA:

Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

Ikari said:

I am very capable of rational and unbiased thought. That was in reference to your deflect against my arguments that separation of science and state is ridiculous when I told you I am a scientist. You used that line to ignore my argument that government needs science, and that government uses science. That was the base premise of argument, you keep trying to change things because I highlighted the absurdity of your "separation of science and state" comment.

Click to expand...

And, you would be just as supportive of religion if you were a Methodist preacher, too.

As if you're going to agree with me that science and state politics should be seperated. You believe science is the know all, end all grab bag of answers to everything wrong with the world.

It's completely assinine to suggest that politics should be intermingled with science. Political decisions based on science is as bad, if not worse, than political decisions based on religion.

We;ve gone up 3/10 of a degree in 120 years? Well, I'm convinced we're doomed. How 'bout everyone else? hell, let's just pack it up and go home.

apdst said:

Political decisions based on science is as bad, if not worse, than political decisions based on religion.

Click to expand...

And that's an absurd comment, as I have already demonstrated government needs and uses science for its own technologies and for proper regulation of certain industries. The government is intertwined with science, it can be no other way. Less you want to argue that we shouldn't have the military, medical, safety, etc. technologies that we presently do. If that's the case, I would argue that your point is extremely dangerous and would unnecessarily open the US up to attack militarily and economically. Not to mention drastically shorten the life spans of people and subject them to dangerous disease, infection, and outbreak which could otherwise be controlled through proper medical technologies.

Middleground said:

From NASA:

Originally posted Dec. 16, 2008, with meteorological year data. Updated Jan. 13, 2009, with calendar year data.

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record.


Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2008 Annual Summation

Click to expand...

When a theory predicts an unceasing rise in global temperatures and temperatures begin to decrease the theory has failed. A picture is worth a thousand words:



The purple lines represent the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the red line represents the actual temperatures. The theory has failed, it's right in front of your eyes.

Ikari said:

And that's an absurd comment, as I have already demonstrated government needs and uses science for its own technologies and for proper regulation of certain industries. The government is intertwined with science, it can be no other way. Less you want to argue that we shouldn't have the military, medical, safety, etc. technologies that we presently do. If that's the case, I would argue that your point is extremely dangerous and would unnecessarily open the US up to attack militarily and economically. Not to mention drastically shorten the life spans of people and subject them to dangerous disease, infection, and outbreak which could otherwise be controlled through proper medical technologies.

Click to expand...

So far, crap science has cost this country billions and will cost us billions more. Obviously, there's a place for science, but intertwining science and government isn't that place.

it's almost as if you saying that our faith in science will get us killed. That was the religious mindset for hundreds of years.

apdst said:

So far, crap science has cost this country billions and will cost us billions more. Obviously, there's a place for science, but intertwining science and government isn't that place.

it's almost as if you saying that our faith in science will get us killed. That was the religious mindset for hundreds of years.

Click to expand...

This is absurd, unbacked claim on your part. I have not alluded to in the least that our "faith in science will get us killed". That's a blatant lie and distortion of truth on your part. Science has overall created MUCH more benefit than "harm". It has expanded our life spans, it has allowed us to keep food longer, to develop medicine, to create vehicles which are safer, to produce many luxuries such as cell phone technology used by many people every day. Government further needs science to keep on the cutting edge of technologies and to ensure our military is always the best in the world. Billions of dollars? Maybe over a many year period, fine. But it's not the biggest section of the funding pie, not by a long shot. Government wants and needs science for our military, for our economy, for our medical technologies, for the convenience of the People themselves.

apdst said:

I already did and all the personal attacks in th world isn't going to change that.

Click to expand...

No, you posted Opinion Pieces not factual reporting. So, you HAVE NOT posted any FACTS to back up your statements. Want to try again?

Also, now that you've accused me of attacking you personally, would you mind showing me exactly what I said that was a personal attack. Do you understand the meaning of "giving you benefit of the doubt."?

I clearly said that I don't think you're stupid, but, in a rush to post something, anything to back up your claims, you posted Op-Ed pieces. It happens.

However, now I'm giving you an opportunity to save face and post something that backs up your claims...

apdst said:

How much money do those groups stand to make from global warming grants? Is it millions, or billions?

There's more cash involved with global warming research than there is in the oil and gas industry.

Click to expand...

Just kindly back that statement up with some LINKS TO FACTS and I will be more than happy to review those facts. Again, this is your opportunity to prove that what you said is true. Will you take that opportunity?

Ikari said:

This is absurd, unbacked claim on your part. I have not alluded to in the least that our "faith in science will get us killed". That's a blatant lie and distortion of truth on your part. Science has overall created MUCH more benefit than "harm". It has expanded our life spans, it has allowed us to keep food longer, to develop medicine, to create vehicles which are safer, to produce many luxuries such as cell phone technology used by many people every day. Government further needs science to keep on the cutting edge of technologies and to ensure our military is always the best in the world. Billions of dollars? Maybe over a many year period, fine. But it's not the biggest section of the funding pie, not by a long shot. Government wants and needs science for our military, for our economy, for our medical technologies, for the convenience of the People themselves.

Click to expand...

Let's see, so far you've called me a liar, an idiot and absurd. Preachers have names for folks that don't believe, too.

apdst said:

So far, crap science has cost this country billions and will cost us billions more. Obviously, there's a place for science, but intertwining science and government isn't that place.

it's almost as if you saying that our faith in science will get us killed. That was the religious mindset for hundreds of years.

Click to expand...

Well, you have to distinguish between science and the crap the politicians use to concoct assinine laws.

It wasn't science the engendered Roe vs Wade and the subsequent murders of tens of millions of babies, is was the avoidance of science.

If the law waited for science, as it should have, it would have come to the conclusion that abortion kills humans. The politicians wouldn't have liked that. They've been avoiding that bit of science for decades now, and still haven't legislated a consistent definition of the term "human".

If the law waited for science to come to a conclusion, there wouldn't be a Crap&Trade bill wending through Congress seeking to steal hundreds of billions of dollars and shut down America's coal miners. Too bad they elected their Messiah, huh?

Law rarely waits for science. The people are too stupid to even begin to understand the issues. Instead, the conmen typically concoct some half-assed scientific sounding nonsense that scares enough people to demand support for whatever silly legislation it is the conmen are seeking to line their pockets with.

Remember the air-bag nonsense? The engineering analysis of their effectiveness wasn't fully determined, but Congress was passing legislation forcing them, and their costs, on us anyway.

You'll notice city buses and school buses do no have seat belts, nor do city buses suffer from the same absurd emission requirements the other motor vehicles in California do.

No, politics isn't about science, politicians do not use science, except superficially. Politics is all about emotion and shell games. Hasn't changed in millenia.

The ultimate problem is, naturally, that ignorant and stupid people, who far out number us, are allowed to vote...by the politicians that want as many stupid and ignorant voters as possible.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Well, you have to distinguish between science and the crap the politicians use to concoct assinine laws.

It wasn't science the engendered Roe vs Wade and the subsequent murders of tens of millions of babies, is was the avoidance of science.

If the law waited for science, as it should have, it would have come to the conclusion that abortion kills humans. The politicians wouldn't have liked that. They've been avoiding that bit of science for decades now, and still haven't legislated a consistent definition of the term "human".

If the law waited for science to come to a conclusion, there wouldn't be a Crap&Trade bill wending through Congress seeking to steal hundreds of billions of dollars and shut down America's coal miners. Too bad they elected their Messiah, huh?

Law rarely waits for science. The people are too stupid to even begin to understand the issues. Instead, the conmen typically concoct some half-assed scientific sounding nonsense that scares enough people to demand support for whatever silly legislation it is the conmen are seeking to line their pockets with.

Remember the air-bag nonsense? The engineering analysis of their effectiveness wasn't fully determined, but Congress was passing legislation forcing them, and their costs, on us anyway.

You'll notice city buses and school buses do no have seat belts, nor do city buses suffer from the same absurd emission requirements the other motor vehicles in California do.

No, politics isn't about science, politicians do not use science, except superficially. Politics is all about emotion and shell games. Hasn't changed in millenia.

Click to expand...

Granted, junk science is being used to justify green laws and part of that is the avoidance of real science, however in the cases we see before us now, science is being used as justification for legislation the same way that religion has.

The ultimate problem is, naturally, that ignorant and stupid people, who far out number us, are allowed to vote...by the politicians that want as many stupid and ignorant voters as possible.

Click to expand...

I think that we need to go back to the days of only certain people being allowed to vote. Welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote. Anyone that doesn't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote. Career students living off student loans shouldn't be allowed to vote. For those who pass those qualifications, there should be a basic knowledge test that has to be passed before they are allowed to register.

apdst said:

Granted, junk science is being used to justify green laws and part of that is the avoidance of real science, however in the cases we see before us now, science is being used as justification for legislation the same way that religion has.

Click to expand...

No.

Junk science is being used. AGW is junk, nothing more.

apdst said:

I think that we need to go back to the days of only certain people being allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

I'm all for that. I'm the certainest person I know.

apdst said:

Welfare recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

Not until their loans and interest are fully paid back.

apdst said:

Anyone that doesn't pay taxes shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

Fine in theory, and I agree, but horribly dependent on what taxes we're talking about. Everyone pays sales tax, for example.

apdst said:

Career students living off student loans shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Most of them are too young to know what's up, anyway.

apdst said:

For those who pass those qualifications, there should be a basic knowledge test that has to be passed before they are allowed to register.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Not to mention providing proof of citizenship, registering far enough in advance of the election to allow a citizenship check, proof of ID at the polls, and the abolition of the absentee ballot except for medically certified mentally competent but physically incapacitated (ie, BEDRIDDEN - wheelchairs can go to polls, and take their passengers with them) voters meeting all other eligibility requirements. (Military and consulate personnel overseas are the only acceptable exception.)

Without all those fraudulent absentee ballots, Franken (will he share committee chairs with Feinstein, making them Franken-stein seats?) would be contaminating the Senate now. Don't expect him to vote in favor of these ideas.

Scarecrow posted:Fine in theory, and I agree, but horribly dependent on what taxes we're talking about. Everyone pays sales tax, for example.

Click to expand...

I'm talking about income taxes. If you haven't been raped by the IRS, after busting your ass all year to make a living, you don't get to vote.

NOT SO FAST...

apdst said:

I already did and all the personal attacks in th world isn't going to change that.

Click to expand...

No, you posted Opinion Pieces not factual reporting. So, you HAVE NOT posted any FACTS to back up your statements. Want to try again?

Also, now that you've accused me attacking you personally, would you mind showing me exactly what I said that was a personal attack. Do you understand the meaning of "giving you benefit of the doubt."?

I clearly said that I don't think you're stupid, but, in a rush to post something, anything to back up your claims, you posted Op-Ed pieces. It happens.

However, now I'm giving you an opportunity to save face and post something that backs up your claims...

apdst said:

How much money do those groups stand to make from global warming grants? Is it millions, or billions?

There's more cash involved with global warming research than there is in the oil and gas industry.

Click to expand...

Just kindly back that statement up with some LINKS TO FACTS and I will be more than happy to review those facts. Again, this is your opportunity to prove that what you said is true. Will you take that opportunity?

hazlnut said:

NOT SO FAST...



No, you posted Opinion Pieces not factual reporting. So, you HAVE NOT posted any FACTS to back up your statements. Want to try again?

Also, now that you've accused me attacking you personally, would you mind showing me exactly what I said that was a personal attack. Do you understand the meaning of "giving you benefit of the doubt."?

I clearly said that I don't think you're stupid, but, in a rush to post something, anything to back up your claims, you posted Op-Ed pieces. It happens.

However, now I'm giving you an opportunity to save face and post something that backs up your claims...



Just kindly back that statement up with some LINKS TO FACTS and I will be more than happy to review those facts. Again, this is your opportunity to prove that what you said is true. Will you take that opportunity?

Click to expand...

I've shown you the information. Op-eds, or not, they used factual information to make their point. If you think that I'm the least bit worried about losing face, then you have issues that this forum won't help. Grow up!

Got anything to refute my documentation? Didn't think so. Have a nice day.

Dr_Patrick said:

Personally, I'm concerned that anyone would try to put religion and science on the same level as if they are on some sort of level playing ground.

Click to expand...

When dealing with hypothesis and theory someone making the statement would be correct. As is MMGW is a theory at best and the evidence for is weakening, the best data now is in the form of static computer models which don't factor in the dynamic nature of our ecology and it's complete relationship to exterior solar and gravitational factors, which we still haven't fully explained, as it stands, the global warming theory is as much dogma as any organized religion.

Dr_Patrick said:

That's a good way to get attention. Deface a national monument with a banner and then get tons of press about it. Current and future activist organizations of America, take note!

Click to expand...

As it were, I believe the local Native American tribe regards Mount Rushmore as sacred and the "monument" as an abomination. I suppose we all have our petty superstitions; some are just more nationalistic than others. :shrug: