Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Forum Rules Enter at own risk!

The Philosophy, Science & Religion forum has been created as an unmoderated forum. The issues discussed here can and will get very intense. Please show respect and appreciation to alternative views posted here. We appreciate your consideration.

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Global Warming, Is it the end of the world?
Bookmark and Share
Antwn 
Posted: 04-Apr-2007, 12:12 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (John Clements @ 04-Apr-2007, 09:19 AM)
That is, cherry picking the evidence. Now I know that every one cherry picks to advance their agenda, but some agendas save lives, while others take them.
JC

Yes people will cherry pick what they believe about global warming. But all "evidence" may not be equally valid. It may be true that we just don't know enough to draw the conclusions that are rapidly being considered givens. You'd probably say that about entering into Iraq as well. Water under the bridge.

Two things about your Bush/Iraq reference: that's another board - my points on it were about what to do now and the wisdom of pulling out, not whether it was wise to go in initially. Said that there too. Said it below as well.

Ultimately, since evidence and opinion on both sides of the global warming issue is freely available to all, then it seems beholden upon us (the public) to self educate concerning it, to whatever extent our concern inspires. Hopefully that will happen and we won't make dumb decisions prematurely or because we were brow beat by someone's political agenda. You'd probably point to Iraq and say "been there done that" ....alright already.





--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Emmet 
Posted: 04-Apr-2007, 04:39 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 486
Joined: 09-Jun-2005
ZodiacOak

Realm: Clearwater, FL

male





The Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released in March stated that "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal".
"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations." According to their footnotes, by "likely" thay mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgement", is in excess of 90%.

Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years since records have been kept(since 1850).Warming in the last 100 years has caused about a 0.74 °C increase in global average temperature. Observations since 1961 show that the ocean has been absorbing more than 80% of the heat added to the climate system, and that ocean temperatures have increased to depths of at least 3000m (9800 ft). There has been an increase in hurricane intensity in the North Atlantic since the 1970's, and that increase correlates with increases in sea surface temperature. Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in 2005 (379 ppm) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm).The amount of methane in the atmosphere in 2005 (1774 ppb) exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to 790 ppb). The primary source of the increase in carbon dioxide and methane is anthropogenic, primarily related to fossil fuel use. "Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere."

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman (a Bush apointee) told a news conference that the report was "sound science," and "human activity is attributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."

I realize just how much some people on this forum hate Democrats, but to claim that it's all false simply because Gore said it and a couple of right-wing oil-industry-funded crackpots claim to refute it flies in the face not only of the consensus thousands of the world's leading experts on climate change, but common sense.


--------------------
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
maisky 
Posted: 04-Apr-2007, 05:48 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



King of CelticRadio.net Jesters
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 4,631
Joined: 17-Nov-2003
ZodiacVine

Realm: Easton, PA

male





QUOTE (Emmet @ 04-Apr-2007, 03:39 PM)


I realize just how much some people on this forum hate Democrats, but to claim that it's all false simply because Gore said it and a couple of right-wing oil-industry-funded crackpots claim to refute it flies in the face not only of the consensus thousands of the world's leading experts on climate change, but common sense.

I love when you talk dirty like that!! laugh.gif

Many of the same folks who busily deny global warming also believe the US occupation of Iraq is "just" and think that evidence of the holocaust is "fabricated".
Mind transplants are in order here.


--------------------
"If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe."
Carl Sagan
PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
haynes9 
Posted: 04-Apr-2007, 11:32 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10,850
Joined: 05-Jun-2005
ZodiacElder

Realm: Ganado, Navajo Nation, Arizona

male





Hate Democrats? Nah, not in my case, anyway. I've always voted for the person who most closely aligns with my personal philosophy.

I don't think everyone who is convinced of global warming as a freak. I don't consider everyone who is not convinced of global warming is a freak. People can disagree and be civil. (Yes, I know. A novel concept indeed).

Al Gore means very little to me in this debate. The science behind what he says should be the determining factor. I don't think he is an ideal spokesman, but that has been hashed and rehashed over and over again in this thread, so no need to go there.


Let's talk about consensus for a bit. Could be a strong argument, Emmet, if the science supports it. Conventional science is not always right (and I don't claim to be an expert or even to be able to discern whether the report to which you refer is right or wrong). Was it not conventional science that denied that the earth was round? did the conventional science of the day believe the sun revolved around the earth? How many times has the age of the earth been shifted a few million years or more? All I am saying is that science and scientist are not infallible. We should strongly take into consideration what they say - all of them - on both sides of the issue, and then do our best to make an informed decision. That scientist that we consider "whacko" (naturally, he/she's the one who disagrees with our own personal view), may be found to be right somewhere down the line. Galileo comes to mind.

Insulting and condescending rhetoric on both sides will do little to bring the controversy to a close. Just my two cents.

Have a great day!


--------------------
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. -- John Quincy Adams

Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less - Robert E. Lee

For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved - Romans 10:13 (KJV)

The Lord is good, a strong hold in the day of trouble, and he knoweth them that trust in him - Nahum 1:7 (KJV)
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMy Photo Album               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 05-Apr-2007, 12:23 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (Emmet @ 04-Apr-2007, 04:39 PM)
I realize just how much some people on this forum hate Democrats, but to claim that it's all false simply because Gore said it and a couple of right-wing oil-industry-funded crackpots claim to refute it flies in the face not only of the consensus thousands of the world's leading experts on climate change, but common sense.

You don't realize people on this board hate Democrats, you assume they do. Quite a difference there. It might surprise you to know that I personally have never voted for a Republican, nor do I belong to any political party. But why actually find out what a person believes when one can simply throw accusations and labels their way. I am not claiming "its all false because Gore says it" but also posted sites which refute or doubt global warming claims, since I'm not a cliamatologist either. I don't suppose anyone bothered to read them. You're right, this isn't about Gore. There is consensus among thousands of scientists of the other opinion as well. For example, the 17,000 who signed a petition urging the administration not to sign the Kyoto accords stating:

''There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.''

The Leipzig Declaration stated "the dire predictions of future warming have not been validated by the historic cliamate record. In fact, most climate scientists now agree that actual observations from both weather satellites and balloo-borne radiosondes show no current warming whatsoever - in direct constradiction to computer model results."

Please note that weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes take actual measurements while computer models attempt to predict from information pre-programmed into them - an entirely different situation, particularly when you're talking about a dynamic non-linear system as complex as climate. Computers are machines, only as good as what's programmed into them to evaluate. What's reliable is actual climate measurements.

Among the scientists who endorsed The Leipzig Declaration were: David Aubrey of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute; Larry Brace of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center; meteorologist Austin Hogan, who co-edits the journal Atmospheric Research; Richard Lindzen, the Sloane Professor of Meteorology at MIT; and Patrick Michaels, a University of Virginia professor and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists.

Likely not a Holocaust denier in the bunch as Maisky so condescendingly accuses. Apparantly his own "mind transplant" was unsuccessful. At any rate, I think the accusations of "hatred" are more fittingly placed elsewhere.

Another important consideration comes from the IPCC mandate itself. In "About the IPCC" on its own website come this statement:

"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."

Thus it "cherry picks" what to include in its reports and what not to, out of all pertinent data. Wouldn't it be prudent to assess all available data from reliable sources? Why rely on a single sourced global clearing house? IPCC "Lead authors" are selected by governments and its governments who choose how reports can "best be said" according to its methodology. No politics in that situation, oh no! Here's a statement of concern by an attendee at the meeting where IPCC reports were finalized:

"This candid report confirms that the Statement For Policymakers was actually written with a small number of climate scientists. That such a small number of scientists are actually involved in the writing may make sense from the perspective of efficiency, but it also is guaranteed to result in a report that emphasizes the particular perspectives of the small group of scientists who wrote it. The biases that result would have been balanced if other climate scientists were able to write alternative perspectives, but this was not done. A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community."

“A full report that’s the basis for the summary was drafted by 154 lead authors and more than 450 contributing authors and runs to about 900 pages." Not exactly thousands of scientists is it?

Australian Professor Lance Endersbee makes a good point in the newsletter New Concepts in Global Tectonics by saying:
"There are several disturbing aspects of the IPCC report which indicate that the conclusions are based on serious misconceptions about the behaviour of the Earth. The report reflects little understanding of the dynamic relation between the Earth, the Sun and the Cosmos. In these circumstances it is incredible that some leaders of scientific societies and academies have tried to use their authority to demand acceptance of the IPCC report."

I think the jury's still out on anthropogenic global warming and its effects. This subject is too vast and possibly too important to be trusted to a few scientific cliques. A wide range of data and assessments are in order, and from that information, some conclusions drawn. However with the vast economic and political implications involved, objectivity becomes a tall order.

haynes9: You said "Was it not conventional science that denied that the earth was round? did the conventional science of the day believe the sun revolved around the earth?" While I like some of your statements, actually it was the church that denied the fact that the sun revolved around the earth. They forced scientist Galileo to deny his Copernican views or face the punishments of the inquisition. Science postulated these concepts and later advanced them amid church opposition.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
haynes9 
Posted: 05-Apr-2007, 12:38 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10,850
Joined: 05-Jun-2005
ZodiacElder

Realm: Ganado, Navajo Nation, Arizona

male





QUOTE (Antwn @ 05-Apr-2007, 11:23 AM)
haynes9: You said "Was it not conventional science that denied that the earth was round? did the conventional science of the day believe the sun revolved around the earth?" While I like some of your statements, actually it was the church that denied the fact that the sun revolved around the earth. They forced scientist Galileo to deny his Copernican views or face the punishments of the inquisition. Science postulated these concepts and later advanced them amid church opposition.

Of course, you are correct an bout Galileo. Sorry about that. I just got on a roll and didn't bother to make sure that my brain was in gear. wink.gif

The basic premise, though, I believe is a correct one. Galileo was certainly the scientific mind that challenged the old notions and the established church (which, for me, was despotic. Once again, another topic for another day) did fight him tooth and nail. But he did challenge what were considered scientific facts of the day. I guess my main point is that with the increase in knowledge, what was once the accepted norm can certainly be found to be wrong at a later date. Bottom line is, you are absolutely correct with regards to what I said, Antwn.

BTW, reckon why the established church failed to read the Scripture that talked about the "circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)?
PMEmail PosterUsers WebsiteMy Photo Album               
Top
Emmet 
Posted: 06-Apr-2007, 09:36 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 486
Joined: 09-Jun-2005
ZodiacOak

Realm: Clearwater, FL

male





QUOTE
"The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters. It bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature." Thus it "cherry picks"...Not exactly thousands of scientists is it?


Clearly, you don't understand what a study of peer reviewed literature means.

QUOTE
A “unanimous consensus” is hardly how science should be presented by a subset of the climate science community."


A “unanimous consensus” is an oxymoron.

QUOTE
Even the IPCC reports express uncertainties about correlations between C02 and warming.


Yeah; 10% uncertainty. Science doesn't deal in absolutes; 90% certainty is about as good as it ever gets.

QUOTE
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."


Did the article mention that Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, is funded by Exxon?

QUOTE
The Leipzig Declaration stated...blah, blah, blah


Many signers of the Leipzig declaration, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others have no scientific training or can't not be identified. Those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather "presenters", including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labeled himself]/i] a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study. Of the declaration's 33 European signers, four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. Of the names on the list had [i]any scientific connection with the study of climate change, several were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait. While their core statement: "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."might have been debatable when first issued in 1995, it is demonstrably and irrefutably false in 2007.

QUOTE
All I am saying is that science and scientist are not infallible. We should strongly take into consideration what they say - all of them - on both sides of the issue

QUOTE
There are scientists, equally qualified on both sides, who say opposite things.

QUOTE
Wouldn't it be prudent to assess all available data from reliable sources?


RELIABLE sources. Not all science is created equal. Placing petrochemical industry funded charlatans like Frederick Seitz, Bob Carter, and Fred Singer on the same level as real climatologists and then claiming that there is some sort of serious debate in the scientific community regarding the reality of global warming is suggestive of either a very shallow understanding of the scientific process, our deep intellectual dishonesty. It is precisely the same reasoning of those who say evolution is "just a theory" and insist on teaching "intelligent design" to my children as if it had even remotely the same degree of scientific validity.
QUOTE
I think the jury's still out on anthropogenic global warming and its effects.


Then the petrochemical industry and their coterie of ersatz climate experts and political prostitutes have achieved their objective.

PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 06-Apr-2007, 01:07 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





Unanimous consensus is in quotes in a quoted paragraph. The author agrees perhaps?

Peer review does not obviate editing. Lead authors are often authors of the original studies themselves or peer review one another's studies or those of like bias. If the same clique reviews one another's work, how is objectivity preserved?

IPCC again: “Contributed material may be edited, merged and if necessary, amended, in the course of developing the overall draft text.” You'd expect this of course, but why doesn't the IPCC publish alternative or dissenting views?

Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic said when discussing the IPCC “IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice”.

Georgi Grusa is one of Russia's leading climatologists. He says just "a medium term prognosis on climactic trends is not possible, because it is completely unclear how the factors will behave that influence climate change."

Yuri Golubchikov of Moscow State University Georgraphy Department says "The upper levels of the ocean contain 57 to 60 times more carbon dioxide than the air. If the temperature of the ocean rises a little, gigantic amounts of carbon dioxide are released into the atmosphere through the evaporation of water. The total volume of this release and absorption of carbon dioxide is five times higher than the industrial emission of carbon dioxide."

So how do IPCC authors distinguish between anthropogenic and natural C02 emissions? By proxy output estimations made by governments and industry. Did I say industry?? The same institutions who you suggest buy off scientists? Well who better to provide data on greenhouse gas emission projections? So if industry buys off scientists and provides data for emission projections which ultimately end up with IPCC authors, then whose information is trustworthy? Projections are not assured nor are computer models who rely upon them.

Claude Allegre, who was among the first scientists to warn people of global warming 20 years ago now says “increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled." "

Aside from my statements about Gore, that's all I'm suggesting. The science is not settled.

Working Group I of the IPCC 2007 report just came out. Why don't we give some time to see what the reaction is from all parties to the first part of the latest report.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 07-Apr-2007, 11:40 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





From an interview with Al Gore in Grist magazine:

Grist: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Gore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Its okay to exaggerate the facts and the danger until the public feels an appropriate level of fear to be amenable to Gore's solutions. So manipulation and coercion apparantly trumps truth and the integrity of factual presentation in Gore's view.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
gtrplr 
Posted: 07-Apr-2007, 02:02 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,216
Joined: 22-Jan-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: Nashville, TN

male





Long time, no blather. Just dropping by and thought I'd add some fuel to the fire. Check out this link:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

17,000 scientists have signed a petition asking the government to reject global warming. From the website:

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

Check it out. Speaking of out, gotta run. I'm outta here.


--------------------
Randal Smith alias Smitty the Kid
Wielder of the Six-String Claymore!

"We have enough Youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?"
"When the going gets tough, the smart go fishing!"


PMEmail PosterUsers Website               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 09-Apr-2007, 10:49 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







Wow, I don't know about the planet, but this conversation is certainly generating a bit of heat. I need to review what's been going on for the last week, but this one comment caught my eye:

QUOTE (Antwn @ 07-Apr-2007, 11:40 AM)
Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Its okay to exaggerate the facts and the danger until the public feels an appropriate level of fear to be amenable to Gore's solutions. So manipulation and coercion apparantly trumps truth and the integrity of factual presentation in Gore's view.

This may mean exactly what you think -- that "over-representation of factual presentations" is an actual distortion of the facts and a lessening of their truth value. But there's a possibility that it means something rather different, in line with that thing we call "validity effect", which you can find discussed in any intro to psychology textybook: people have a tendency to believe the thing they have heard most often, regardless of the inherent truth value. Repetition heightens familiarity, and familiarity increases willingness to accept, and eventually promotes trust. (It's the reason we are so bloody interested in how much money these pre-nomination campaigns are managing to raise -- money is advertising and related exposure, and the more a candidate can afford to repeat himself the better his chances are.)

So what Gore may be saying, in this clunky off-the-cuff sentence of his, is that to keep repetitively hammering ("over-represent") the actual facts ("factual presentations") means a greater likelihood that the message will get through. The one with the most repetitions of his position to the most people at the end of the day wins. Not necessarily a distortion -- though distortion is always possible -- just the biggest and loudest broken record. And I believe he is quite right in pointing out that no one who doesn't see a problem will be interested in solutions.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 09-Apr-2007, 12:49 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into a hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."
--- Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, MIT

Testimony of Dr. Lindzen before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Despite the age of this report (2001) the general points made concerning misuse of IPCC summaries, computer modeling reliability and media reporting and are still pertinent. In part:

"The misuse of the IPCC summaries, however, is not entirely accidental. The IPCC does a number of things which encourage misuse.
! Use a summary to misrepresent what scientists say.
! Use language which conveys different meaning to laymen and scientists.
! Exploit public ignorance (and the embarrassment about this ignorance) over quantitative matters.
! Exploit what scientists can agree on in order to support one’s agenda.
! Exaggerate scientific accuracy and certainty.
! Exaggerate the authority of undistinguished scientists."

Full report: www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf

Stoirmeil-- Fine, the efficacy of Gore's techniques are established, but the veracity of his assertions and the integrity of his intent are not. There's big difference between repeating a problem until the public agrees that there's a need for a solution, and to do the same thing when the problem is fabricated, or exaggerated to compel public overreaction, fear and amenability to excessive policies in response. Gore ignores compelling scientific evidence that contradicts or mitigates his claims, indicating another agenda is more likely than merely raising public consciousness of an impending danger. We'll have to see what that is. See below -

Here's an editorial by Lindzen from the Wall Stree Journal editorial page. Of note is the following statement:

"So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky."

Full article: www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597




PMEmail Poster               
Top
stoirmeil 
Posted: 09-Apr-2007, 03:15 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 3,581
Joined: 07-Nov-2004
ZodiacBirch

Realm: New York







QUOTE (haynes9 @ 05-Apr-2007, 12:38 PM)
BTW, reckon why the established church failed to read the Scripture that talked about the "circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22)?

This isn't exactly on point -- but I want to know, what are you establishing here? unsure.gif The word chet-vov-gimel ("hog", but pronounced like khog) in that passage means "circle," as opposed to sphere, which is a different word even within Isaiah (or the Isaiahs, properly) -- at IS22:18, the word "caddur" is used to represent "sphere" or "ball". I don't think you can use this passage at IS40:22 to claim the prophet knew the earth was spherical -- in fact, it seems to support a circular, flat-world view with the 360-degree horizon as the edge.

I don't fluently read Hebrew per se, but I am a very fluent reader of Yiddish, which uses the same alphabet and has plenty of Hebrew and aramaic incursions in it, and I know how to sort the radicals out of the Hebrew to get basic meaning. The word here is "hog" and it means "circular." One could confuse the issue by using the english word "round," which also catches in "spherical," but I don't think it's what the original text means.

But I'm not sure what you're demonstrating anyway, so let me not add any more methane to the warming of this discussion or the atmosphere in general. smile.gif Just a purely linguistic interest, even though imprecise translation is an infinite source of hot gaseous emissions when it gets out of hand.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
John Clements 
Posted: 10-Apr-2007, 05:24 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,466
Joined: 26-Oct-2005
ZodiacElder


male





Sorry all, but I have to say this. That anyone, who thinks that curtailing the poisoning of the earth, is not a good idea, for what ever reason. Has got to have their head examined, period

JC


--------------------
We’re all poets, only some of us write it down. JC 9/27/08

Anyone who has the courage to disagree, deserves all do respect. JC 4/28/08

Life is a loosing battle, so you might as well live it up.
J.C. 3/29/08

Life should be like skiing, you have the most fun on the way down. J.C. 8/17/07

Take their word for it, and that’s just what you’ll get.
J.C. 3/19/07

Only the truth is worth the ultimate sacrifice.
J.C. 1/26/06

Compared to the far right, the far left is somewhere in the middle. J.C. 2/22/06

I’ll be the first to apologies, as long as I get one back.
J.C. 3/7/06

It’s a happy man, who can laugh at himself.

If you’re looking for a new experience, don’t hire someone with a lot of it. J.C. sometime in 1990
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 11-Apr-2007, 11:27 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





Just because one thinks global warming may not be happening doesn't mean they're in favor of pollution any more than a person who is against the death penalty thinks that nothing should ever be done about crime.

The problem is the "for whatever reason" part. No civilization was ever destroyed by excess rationality. Environmental agendas foisted upon humanity by deceit and trickery undermines any rational decision and displays an abject distrust, arrogance and condescention. If one group of humans has proclaimed themselves so singularly enlightened that they're compelled to coerce their supposedly moronic fellows by the exaggeration of events to the point of hysteria, because they believe only by such machinations will their imagined catastrophe be rectified, who's irrational? Why would one assume that proposed solutions to pollution were going to be appropriate if they arose from a laid groundwork of fraud or extremeism? Its not that nothing should be done, but responses should come from an acknowlegement of what is true, to the best of our knowledge. When you have people comparing doubt about global warming, which is backed up by science, to the denial of the Holocaust for example, you're not talking to rational people. When you're listening to people trying to convince you that their facts are scientifically sound when they call CO2 a "pollutant" and claim you can tell the influence of the American Clean Air Act from the level of Antarctic ice sheet melting, you're listening to someone who doesn't know what they're saying.

Its difficult to make good decisions amid hysteria and misinformation, and its good decisions which are needed.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt