What Do We Think About Climate Change

I just got in a jab in at Barney Frank - I didn't mean to bring down the wrath of "Queer Nation"! I used to have a gay friend that would say, "it's all about making your ____ feel good, baby." Sorry to say, he recently passed away. Guess what got him. The decline in morals, in common sense, in decency is pervasive and destructive. I'll try to remember that there are sensitive ones about and not call Barney a "homo" anymore.

 

If you are quoting Bible passages, you were brought up in a religion. Like ex-smokers/drinkers, those that "once where" are the most rabid "anti"s around. Try tolerance and moderation.

 

Strangely enough, the only mention of Kenneth Watt that comes up on google is this particular quote, which every two-bit internet skeptic of climate change faithfully repeats. It's like the guy existed just long enough to make a speech, then disappeared again into thin air. So he couldn't have been too important in the scheme of things back then.

I'd say it's rather absurd for website after website to carry on as though Watt was some sort of spokesman for any prevailing scientific viewpoint in 1970. Even if the quote is real, it in no way proves that thousands of scientists today are dead wrong about climate change.

 

Mark, you lecturing me on tolerance and moderation is like Paris Hilton lecturing someone on chastity and decorum.

As far as religion goes, I don't claim to be a Biblical scholar. But I probably know my way around the Bible better than the average person who waves it in my face, and have more genuine respect for it.

 

And still more passages talk about their extreme lack of hospitality toward strangers, an egregious taboo in middle eastern cultures to this day. Remember these men brutally ***** and murdered the one of Lot's daughters, while Lot and family were strangers in town.

Jimbo

 

Troy, the point was that Watt's views represented the consensus of scientists at that time and of course was wrong. He wasn't a spokesman but was one of a group of "ecologists" that spoke with absolute certainty that runination was just around the corner. Article after article foretold doom, famine and a new ice age due to C02 increases. I remember a Readers Digest article on the Sahel that predicted it would spread by hundreds of miles north and south and cause a continent wide famine that the world would not be able to respond to. Again wrong of course. Facts and history are cruel to the pompous and dogmatic. What is interesting in all of that is mention of a 20 year decline in temp from 1950 to 1970, a decline that is missing from the AGW data we are given today as the new gospel.

 

There was no such scientific consensus back then. There was a little idle speculation without much to back it up -- which was latched onto by the media looking for interesting news, and by a few science fiction writers looking for a hook to hang a story on.

Comparing that to the scientific consensus among scientists today about AGW is completely inaccurate.

 

I'm not sure the leading minds of the time would take favorably to having their work called idle speculation. As far as no mention of Watt, simply go to Yahoo, enter Professor Kenneth Watt, and you will find bunches of stuff about him and his buddies predicting a coming ice age. Today of course Professor Watt is nothing but a no good skunk who doesn't buy into C02/AGW and is therefore a denier and a oil industry hack and shill who has swatikas covering his walls. Nonsense of course but then so is todays AGW hypothesis.

If one was to do even 2 minutes of research into the thinking of the 70's you could find tons of studies, documents and books full of idle speculation backed up by the best data of the time along with books by some of todays preeminent leaders of the AGW KoolAid Club predicting doom and a new ice age caused by C02. These scientists would probably object to being called science fiction writers. But they were wrong then, and they are wrong now.

 

Of course it doesn't, Troy; We have the facts to do that, like CO2 increases always following temperature increases, the missing fossil fuel signature, the short residence time, The absence of the fabled strongly positive feedback, the CO2 at spectral saturation problem and so forth.

No one is saying the AGW narrative was not plausible; it certainly was. But a plausible narrative does not equal a confirmed fact; plausible narratives have to be tested. Of course we can't test the entire narrative, but tests have been devised for each of the components. Each of the various components of the narrative have failed upon such testing, so why should anyone continue to believe in a narrative that amounts to a collection of disproven sub-plots?

The mainstream magazines don't carry stories like the "Global Cooling" or "Coming Ice Age" until a critical mass of scientists start to believe it first. I can understand why the AGW people now try to squash the idea that the ice age scare was ever real; it quite obviously kills their credibility now, so I fully get it. But then that's still dishonest. Let me quote someone nearby:

"How many times do I have to say this: if you're going to rewrite history, you better wait until the people who lived it are gone."


Don't be a hypocrite Troy; practice what you preach.

Jimbo

 

Re: my comment that until proven otherwise, the oil platform was sabataged by muslim terrorists. Note that, TODAY, Obama sent SWAT teams to the oil platforms. It was likely either Jihadists or Earth First type people, ALF/ELF, Sea Shepard, or some such such, IMO.
If it was merely an accident, leftists will pounce on the oil spill as an opportunity to discredit the entire notion of drilling for oil. If it was an act of Jihadist terrorism, the government, and media by government direction, will suppress the fact just as they did the Major Hassan incident.
Muslim = "good", "we are a Muslim nation" - Obama.
Jews = "bad", they are not welcome here, nor apparently, in Isreal.
It is a screwed up world you people are forming, Troy.
Here's one on which you will probably agree with me; Iran today was made a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which works to promote gender equality.

*Marry off your daughter when she is nine.
*Wear a Burkha
*Get stoned for immodesty or wearing slacks
*Get arrested for looking too "tan"
*Get killed for protesting (Neda Agha Sultan)
*Not quite as bad as the Taliban, but almost.

How out of touch can the U.N. be?

 

Step over here into the real world for a moment, Mark.

1. You're bass ackwards. Until proven otherwise, the oil rig was not blown up by Muslim terrorists. Since the purpose of their attacks is to draw attention to themselves and their cause, there's no way they would blow up an oil rig and fail to claim credit for it. Criminey, son: they take credit every time a camel farts upwind, and claim it was their doing. You think they'd keep quiet about this, if they had done it?

2. Eco-terrorists? Slightly more plausible; they might be willing to let the damage speak for itself, in the hopes that people will believe it's the sort of unavoidable accident we're facing with every rig. But it's highly unlikely, and there's no evidence to support the idea yet. Considering that BP had just finished cementing the hole, and that something like 18 of the last 37 blowouts in the Gulf were the result of poor cementing jobs, that's the way to bet.

3. I'm sorry; what's this 'suppression' ******** you're slinging about the Ft. Hood incident? What's been suppressed, and how has it been suppressed? And if it's been suppressed, how did you find out about it?

The reality is that if a conspiracy theory is all over the internet, it hasn't been 'suppressed.' Of course, that doesn't mean it isn't ********....

4. "We are a Muslim nation?!?" You know, they have medications for that sort of hyperventilating hysteria now. You should really talk to your doctor; you may just be going through the change.

Here's what Obama really said: "Now, the flip side is I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam. And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples."

Only someone who is willfully and cynically twisting what Obama said could turn that into "We are a Muslim nation." And you swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Shame on you for being so gullible.

If someone pointed out that 40% of the world's Jews live in the United States (about the same number as there are in Israel), would you run around claiming he was calling the US a 'Jewish nation'?

5. Yep; I agree. Making Iran a member of the UN Commission on the Status of Women is an insult to common sense. It's like putting Colonel Sanders on the board of directors for an animal rights group.

 

I'm more than a little puzzled by this one, after going back and reading it again. I guess you could call it a delayed reaction.

What have I said that would make you believe I'm rabidly anti-religion?

 

You are correct.
However the point made was that there is no particular condemnation in the bible of *************.
There is.
However the more interesting point is that when such condemnation does exists, there is also condemnation of every particualr "sin" you can think of.
One can anwer "so what?" or... no one is perfect.
Or.
Engage in a crusade against any particual sin you happen to be interested in. I was brought up in a country were meat eating is like rice eating in Japan, and when my family and I decided to be vegetarian, mainly because it was fascionable we became parias in our own Christian Church since "Do not call dirty what I have made clean". One can make up a religion of just about anything and turn normal people into heretics as a consequence.
Not to mention that if you are really mean you could find incongruence in the life of a Christian a Jew or a Muslim in the light of their own holy books to a point of histeria. But that is besides the point.

The inherent and universal problem of preaching to others any religion really, is that the person doing the preaching is automatically judge and jury, even when he/she go to great lenghts to deny it.
Preaching and evangelising and missioning should be banned by law.
In my opinion anyway.

Just look at the AGW religion. There, once more I am a heretic in light of Al Gore's Bible and condemned to the eternal fire of global warming for my transgressions.

 

OK....you were doing really good there, Marco. You were actually making sense -- right up until you started trying to claim AGW is a religion instead of a scientific theory. If you don't understand the difference between a faith-based religious belief and a scientific theory that can be supported or disproven by research and evidence, you're hopeless.

I know people like you would love to turn scientific theories into just another bunch of religious beliefs. Then you could claim "it's just their unsupported, faith-based beliefs against my unsupported, faith-based beliefs."

Unfortunately, the right to free speech doesn't make all speech equal. You may have a right to make irrational statements, but that hardly gives them the same gravitas as conclusions reached by scientific researchers who actually know what they're talking about.

 

Okay, I paraphrased. We are "one of the largest Muslim countries in the world." - Is that better?
The Jihadists would remain silent until opportunity for another attack passed. Did I not mention that there are now SWAT on the platforms?
Major Hassan was painted to be a kook and his Jihadism was downplayed. Your friend Obama openly equates the Tea Party with right wing extremism.
I seriously, honestly, cannot believe there are still people like you after what is happening. Even our youth are turning against this clown, Al Gore, and the rest. Most people don't believe in AGW and most don't like the direction Obama is trying to lead the country. Most people don't trust this Democrat Congress, most people don't want socialized medicine. Who are you trying to fool?