The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lauri on April 25, 2008, 02:28:13 PM
-
Make it Earth Day, Every Day
To celebrate Earth Day, The Washington Policy Center has gone all retro on the subject by taking a flashback to 1970. Get your love beads and Jefferson Airplane albums out.
John Barnes blogs about it here.
"By 1985...air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by one half" - Life magazine, January 1970
“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind," biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
By 1995, "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor "...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born," Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
The world will be "...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age," Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction," The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half..." Life magazine, January 1970.
Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
By the year 2000...the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine," Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970."
Far out man.
Posted by DonWard at April 22, 2008 08:52 AM
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/010580.html
-
There is a difference in weather and climate. Just going on ahead and getting that out of the way. 30 years from now, we'll be heaving the same thread about Man Made Global Warming. And TNO will be telling us that the climate is getting warmer, it's the weather that is staying the same. Like the economy, it's all cyclical.
-
i keep seeing headlines about 'the coming ice age' ... so, who knows. either way, mankind has survived all of it obviously.
-
You would think that with everything the Earth has had thrown at it that life on this planet would be a footnote and not something to enjoy and marvel at. If this planet and all that it holds can go through all the changes it has with Volcanos and Eathquakes and Meteor strikes then nothing that man could do even with nukes is going to do more then change the geology and the weather patterns.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do the basic conservation stuff byut this Gloal warming crap is all a lie. This planet has been going through changes ever since it came to be and it will keep on changing. We can't stop it or start it.
-
Air, dead on...
its amazing we have survived all of Earth's natural cycles to date.. but we have. granted, its not easy with earthquakes and tornadoes, tsunamis, flooding and viruses, etc.
-
and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. :popcorn:
-
i keep seeing headlines about 'the coming ice age' ... so, who knows. either way, mankind has survived all of it obviously.
Eventually one day they'll be right.
-
and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. :popcorn:
Well, here I am and I say no such thing. Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process. Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable. That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable. Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data. AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off. But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.
-
and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. :popcorn:
Well, here I am and I say no such thing. Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process. Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable. That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable. Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data. AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off. But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.
it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining :-)
-
You would think that with everything the Earth has had thrown at it that life on this planet would be a footnote and not something to enjoy and marvel at. If this planet and all that it holds can go through all the changes it has with Volcanos and Eathquakes and Meteor strikes then nothing that man could do even with nukes is going to do more then change the geology and the weather patterns.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do the basic conservation stuff byut this Gloal warming crap is all a lie. This planet has been going through changes ever since it came to be and it will keep on changing. We can't stop it or start it.
Yes, conservation is a good idea and should be encouraged. No one likes pollution and to extend the resources we have makes good sense. But I don't want it done at the point of a gun and be told I will be taxed for political hysterical pseudo-science.
-
and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. :popcorn:
Well, here I am and I say no such thing. Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process. Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable. That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable. Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data. AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off. But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.
it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining :-)
Please show somewhere where I have been selective in my use of science. The fact that you don't like the conclusions doesn't make it selective.
-
and, i'm frankly surprised Freeddumb hasnt been in this thread to club me and state that scientists are infallible in their knowledge and how all of this was settled a long time ago. :popcorn:
Well, here I am and I say no such thing. Climatology is an infant "science" dealing with more variables than it can process. Since it only deals in predictions of a future we can't see, and has a very bad past record, it certainly is not reliable. That the planet has had changing climate for billions of years is unquestionable. Whether Man, in our less thank an eye blink here can have any effect is both counter-intuitive and not supported by any "hard" lines to be drawn from the data. AGW is not a theory, and barely makes it as a hypothesis.
I am sorry that my use of science and facts throws you off. But, I don't have a lot of alternatives if I am to be intellectually honest.
it doesnt throw me off; your selective use of when science works and when it doesnt is just entertaining :-)
Please show somewhere where I have been selective in my use of science.
well, in just two threads that ive been in thus far... in one about Ben Stein's movie you were vehement in your denial that God and Science cannot, should not and will never be linked to one another. End. Of. Story.
but yet, climatology is so infantile in its theory that it cannot be considered a science yet.
either science solves a problem or it doesnt.
it appears that science doesnt prove much of anything, that isnt subject to change down the road when more information is gained. but yet, you already know that science can never prove or disprove God. I just find the contortions interesting.. that's all.
-
well, in just two threads that ive been in thus far... in one about Ben Stein's movie you were vehement in your denial that God and Science cannot, should not and will never be linked to one another. End. Of. Story.
That is not selective. It is true. That has to do with the NATURE of science. There is no place in any branch of science for faith. It a structural argument, not a conclusionary argument.
but yet, climatology is so infantile in its theory that it cannot be considered a science yet.
Again, I speak from knowledge within the scientific community. The conclusions of AGW researchers are being met with increasing skepticism within the scientific community. But nowhere in the AGW debate does anyone say "and here God (or an ID) stepped in."
either science solves a problem or it doesnt.
Then all problems would be solved. This doesn't even make sense.
it appears that science doesnt prove much of anything, that isnt subject to change down the road when more information is gained. but yet, you already know that science can never prove or disprove God. I just find the contortions interesting.. that's all.
You continue to misconstrue my arguments. And if science doesn't prove anything then how in the hell are you posting topics to a message board? There are no contortions, just a fundamental knowledge of how science works. Which you clearly lack.
Your arguments from ignorance don't really have much heft. You should quit while you are not too far behind.
-
"if science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting topics on a message board?"
uh, what?
and ive got a few degrees myself, i dont lack for education. i just dont buy that science answers all of our questions with no room for change. i also dont buy that science and faith cannot intermingle and just because you think it cant, well, we can just agree to disagree.
-
Most of the eviro-weenies I know, the ones who take the hand wringing and gloom and doom too the extreme, as if every bit of phony bullshit they spout is 100% gospel, have little or no belief in God. I suppose this makes sense because you cannot worship two Gods.
Since there is no belief in God in the Church of the Environment, there is no afterlife, so what difference does it make if the earth explodes tomorrow? All memory of earth will vanish. It will be as if earth and the life it nourishes never existed. It simply won't matter. So what's the point? What are we living for and why are we trying to preserve life's environment?
Wouldn't it be better if we all returned to the state of consciousness we enjoyed before we were born. That is to say, a perpetual state of nothing. There would never be an unhappy moment for anyone again.
So, let's party like it's 2099 and to hell with the earth. The sooner it is all over with, the happier we will all be. We just won't know it.
-
"if science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting topics on a message board?"
uh, what?
and ive got a few degrees myself, i dont lack for education. i just dont buy that science answers all of our questions with no room for change. i also dont buy that science and faith cannot intermingle and just because you think it cant, well, we can just agree to disagree.
In the physical realm, science is the only tool we have to answer questions. And it isn't my "opinion" that science and faith can't intermingle -- IN THE SCIENCE REALM. It is a cold, hard fact that cannot be rebutted. To tell children (for example) that ID or Creationism are "alternative theories" is misinformation and dangerous.
In the philosophical realm, OTOH, sure, faith and science can mix all people want.
And if you are educated you should know that.
-
Most of the eviro-weenies I know, the ones who take the hand wringing and gloom and doom too the extreme, as if every bit of phony bullshit they spout is 100% gospel, have little or no belief in God. I suppose this makes sense because you cannot worship two Gods.
Since there is no belief in God in the Church of the Environment, there is no afterlife, so what difference does it make if the earth explodes tomorrow? All memory of earth will vanish. It will be as if earth and the life it nourishes never existed. It simply won't matter. So what's the point? What are we living for and why are we trying to preserve life's environment?
Wouldn't it be better if we all returned to the state of consciousness we enjoyed before we were born. That is to say, a perpetual state of nothing. There would never be an unhappy moment for anyone again.
So, let's party like it's 2099 and to hell with the earth. The sooner it is all over with, the happier we will all be. We just won't know it.
LOL -- you expose them quite well. Of course, we know the real answer is that they have latched onto AGW as a way to control people.
-
it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?
my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.
-
it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?
my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.
I don't know what you mean by statements like that.
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
You accused me of being inconsistent. I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?
-
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
Actually, it is more than that. Ponder this quote for a moment:
Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car. It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference. If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights.
I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me. It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me.
If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on.
-
Pop Quiz:
1. What do the quotes in the WPC article prove?
2. What do all but one of the quotes have in common?
-
it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?
my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.
I don't know what you mean by statements like that.
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
You accused me of being inconsistent. I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?
in another post in this very thread you stated, and i quote: "If science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting on a message board?"
i dont find your posts all that consistent, especially statements like that up above.
does it mean that science created text and words? or science created a message board? hmm.. its a quandry. :popcorn:
but like i said, it doesnt bother me.. i find it entertaining. people with rock solid beliefs are easy to bug. :-)
-
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
Actually, it is more than that. Ponder this quote for a moment:
Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car. It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference. If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights.
I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me. It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me.
If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on.
*finally* somebody gets it
*thank you* :-)
-
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
Actually, it is more than that. Ponder this quote for a moment:
Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car. It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference. If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights.
I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me. It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me.
If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on.
It matters, but it doesn't make sense. I am not "selling" anything. I am providing education. I am an advocate for information over superstition. I do not, nor shall I ever apologize for being a zealot against willful ignorance.
-
it really chaps you that not all of us bow at the knee of science, doesnt it?
my background is in nursing and journalism.. knock yourself out trying to impress upon me how little i know about the world.
I don't know what you mean by statements like that.
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
You accused me of being inconsistent. I clarified that I have been 100% consistent and explained how so. Why does this bother you so?
in another post in this very thread you stated, and i quote: "If science doesnt prove anything, then how in the hell are you posting on a message board?"
i dont find your posts all that consistent, especially statements like that up above.
does it mean that science created text and words? or science created a message board? hmm.. its a quandry. :popcorn:
but like i said, it doesnt bother me.. i find it entertaining. people with rock solid beliefs are easy to bug. :-)
You have yet to point out an inconsistency. And my point was the physical existence of the board -- a result of science.
And if one doesn't have a rock solid belief in science as opposed to religion as the only tool we have to understand and alter the physical world, then one is a Luddite.
-
Science has specific parameters that define what it is. I don't want people to "bow at the knee" or whatever. I just want them to know what science is and isn't and what it can do and what it cannot. It is a simple question of definition.
Actually, it is more than that. Ponder this quote for a moment:
Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Imagine for a moment that you are a car salesman and I am a person looking to buy a car. It doesn't matter if the car you're selling is the most reliable, fastest, economical, etc car available - most times your presentation of those facts will make all the difference. If you're trying to sell a car from a position of arrogance, you're going to go home hungry most nights.
I followed that thread about Ben Stein's movie somewhat closely as it was interesting to me. It appeared that you were saying some very compelling things but everytime I read one of your posts that quote from Emerson above came to me.
If none of what I'm saying matters to you, then just ignore my post and carry on.
It matters, but it doesn't make sense. I am not "selling" anything. I am providing education. I am an advocate for information over superstition. I do not, nor shall I ever apologize for being a zealot against willful ignorance.
where has anyone discussed superstition to date?
-
where has anyone discussed superstition to date?
Clumsy word -- but I am having difficulty findng the exact word. Belief and Faith don't quite work. Maybe Supernatural would be better. The idea that there is a place within the structure of science for non-natural causes.
-
where has anyone discussed superstition to date?
Clumsy word -- but I am having difficulty findng the exact word. Belief and Faith don't quite work. Maybe Supernatural would be better. The idea that there is a place within the structure of science for non-natural causes.
hmm.. ok.. i dont find faith and supernatural to be interchangeable.. but like i said before, we dont have to agree on everything. :cheersmate:
-
where has anyone discussed superstition to date?
Clumsy word -- but I am having difficulty findng the exact word. Belief and Faith don't quite work. Maybe Supernatural would be better. The idea that there is a place within the structure of science for non-natural causes.
hmm.. ok.. i dont find faith and supernatural to be interchangeable.. but like i said before, we dont have to agree on everything. :cheersmate:
Well, that is always a mine field. The words "superstition" or "supernatural" make people think that their faith or religion are being pooh-poohed (and I am a person of great faith). And that usually starts a whole branch of discussion away from the issue at hand. Perhaps "extra-natural" would be a better fit.
-
Pop Quiz:
1. What do the quotes in the WPC article prove?
2. What do all but one of the quotes have in common?
What does it prove? That a bunch of egghead ****in' scientists can be wrong and HAVE been wrong. It also proves that idiots that believe this bullshit being pimped by Al Gore and the other jackasses are exactly that, idiots who'll buy into the first lame-brained idea that comes their way so long as it trashes success.
-
It matters, but it doesn't make sense. I am not "selling" anything. I am providing education. I am an advocate for information over superstition. I do not, nor shall I ever apologize for being a zealot against willful ignorance.
Sure you are - you are trying to convince others of your point. This is no different than selling and we all do ith. You believe that the facts that you present should stand on their own without question. The problem is that the world does not work this way. People will, by nature, tune you out when they feel that you are talking down to them.
No one is asking you to apologize for being a zealot. Personally, I admire your passion and your knowledge. It's your delivery that is a turn off.
-
Pop Quiz:
1. What do the quotes in the WPC article prove?
2. What do all but one of the quotes have in common?
What does it prove? That a bunch of egghead ******' scientists can be wrong and HAVE been wrong. It also proves that idiots that believe this bullshit being pimped by Al Gore and the other jackasses are exactly that, idiots who'll buy into the first lame-brained idea that comes their way so long as it trashes success.
it would be interesting to hunt down all those people in the OP and ask them why none of their hysterical headlines didnt work out.
i'm sure its Bush's fault in some way :-)
-
What does it prove? That a bunch of egghead ******' scientists can be wrong and HAVE been wrong. It also proves that idiots that believe this bullshit being pimped by Al Gore and the other jackasses are exactly that, idiots who'll buy into the first lame-brained idea that comes their way so long as it trashes success.
A bunch of egghead scientists? Any credentials or degrees held by the people quoted are not listed, so we have no way of knowing their standing, if any, in the scientific community. In some cases, the person being quoted isn't named. Most of the quotes are partial quotes and all of the quotes seem to be taken out of context.
"By 1985... air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by one half." - Life magazine, January 1970
Life magazine? Life magazine is not a scientific publication. The quote is useless.
“...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind," biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
Okay. George Wald... a real scientist. Why not provide the full text of what Wald said? It can't have been that long.
By 1995, "...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct." - Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
This is funny. The quote is not only incomplete but secondhand as well. Why not quote Dr. Ripley completely and directly?
Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor... "the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." - Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
Newsweek magazine? Newsweek magazine is not a scientific publication. The quote is useless.
The world will be "...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age," Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
Another partial quote. What Kenneth Watt actually said...
"The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." - Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
As anyone can see, Mr. Watt did not say that the cooling trend would continue. What he said was that if the cooling trend continues, the world will enter an ice age.
"We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." - Biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.
The quote is complete but what is the quote about? Disease? Climate change? Famine? Pollution? Nuclear testing? We don't know. Anyway, I'll accept the quote as a legitimate example of scientific doomsaying since the quote is the first complete one.
"Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction." - The New York Times editorial, April 20, 1970.
Who is the author of the editorial and what are that person's scientific credentials? We don't know. The quote is useless.
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make." - Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.
The quote doesn't indicate when population will outstrip the food supply, so I'm hesitant to categorize it as doomsaying proven wrong.
"It is already too late to avoid mass starvation." - Earth Day organizer Denis Hayes, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Denis Hayes is not a scientist. Enough said.
"By the year 2000... the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine." - Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring 1970.
Peter Gunter is a professor of Philosophy.
"Far out man." - Posted by DonWard at April 22, 2008 08:52 AM
Far out indeed. Idiot.
So, what do we have here? We have, if we include one partial quote and one secondhand quote, 4 examples of 4 scientists engaging in what seems to be doomsaying. A pretty weak compilation.
-
Here's a giggles-worth:
http://www.igreens.org.uk/paul_ehrlich.htm
-
TNO is dumb enough an individual that he'd tell you 40,005 ways to toast bread; 20,000 wrong, and 10,005 ways right, and 10,000 ways that won't toast it at all.
TNO, Life doesn't write a damn thing. "Life" is a magazine. An inanimate object. It does, however, have writers who, I would "assume" have some sort of credentials in the field. Kinda like the morons today.
What are you, about 22? Sad to be such a ****ing dumbass at such a young ****ing age. :whatever:
-
TNO, Life doesn't write a damn thing. "Life" is a magazine. An inanimate object. It does, however, have writers...
My point exactly. The opinion of some staff writer from Life magazine is irrelevant to science and yet some here are trying to use it and other irrelevant quotes to portray the scientific community as a bunch of idiots.
... who, I would "assume" have some sort of credentials in the field. Kinda like the morons today.
An unwise assumption.
What are you, about 22? Sad to be such a ******* dumbass at such a young ******* age.
Why is everyone obsessed with my age?
-
It's an interesting tact. Unless the climate chicanery comes from Scientific American (which I stopped reading because of all the activism ads featuring Alan Alda) TNO will discount it as if Life magazine deliberately misquoted the scientists being interviewed.
But here's my question: if second-hand sources = bunk what does that make TNO's posting this alarmist BS?
Follow-up question:
I wonder if Nobel prizes are irrelevant to science?
-
It's an interesting tact. Unless the climate chicanery comes from Scientific American (which I stopped reading because of all the activism ads featuring Alan Alda) TNO will discount it as if Life magazine deliberately misquoted the scientists being interviewed.
The quote from Life does not appear to be a quote from anyone let alone a scientist. It seems to be a statement which might be based on what a scientist told a writer from Life, but we don't really know what the statement is based on or if the statement is an accurate representation. And, keep in mind that the quote is a partial one. A while back, I demonstrated how partial quotes can be used to misrepresent someone's position...
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=2865.msg41584#msg41584
Partial quotes are the tool of a dishonest writer who intends to manipulate readers.
But here's my question: if second-hand sources = bunk what does that make TNO's posting this alarmist BS?
I can assure you that I don't want people forming their opinions about global warming on anything I have to write about it. In my posts on global warming, I often include links to scientific material I use as the basis for my arguments precisely because I don't want anyone to get the impression that I'm trying to pass myself off as an authority on the subject of climate.
Follow-up question:
I wonder if Nobel prizes are irrelevant to science?
Basically... yes.
-
And yet the Nobel society gives its prize to Al Gore for his schlockumentary...which even you retreat from.
So much for peer-review. Perhaps a better term would be hand-wringing activist circle jerk dressed up as scientificalism.
Oh, to be sure many (most?) prizes are well deserved but it seems a little leaven, leaveneth the whole loaf.
Loafer:
(http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2005/06/09/al_gore.jpg)
i can haz invisbul catastrophe?
-
And yet the Nobel society gives its prize to Al Gore for his schlockumentary...which even you retreat from.
I would have to have taken a position in defense of An Inconvenient Truth for me to retreat from it. Nice try.
-
And yet the Nobel society gives its prize to Al Gore for his schlockumentary...which even you retreat from.
I would have to have taken a position in defense of An Inconvenient Truth for me to retreat from it. Nice try.
Fine.
Then I reterm it to: "ran away from in stark terror"
-
Why is everyone obsessed with my age?
Why are you evasive about your age? :-)
-
Why is everyone obsessed with my age?
Why are you evasive about your age? :-)
Lift up his chins and count the rings.