How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Labor Party Wins in Australia   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Labor Party Wins in Australia

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


25 posted 11-28-2007 04:58 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

You are very right. Government sets out foundlings---I am wrong...GM study is president related. Bush would cut the founding for research on GW while Hillary night give out more.  Stem cell research is a typical example that to avoid using human  embryonic stem cell to make humans so government funded more project on research of adult stem cells...which to me is totally waste of money and time....but it is very important issue to politician.

But I do believe that industries has ruined climate(weather) and there are many fact like acid rain, and many other. By curbing green house gas...which, I believe, is related to many other harmful by-products, Kyoto shall be a good thing for the world. (politically right or not)
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


26 posted 11-28-2007 05:06 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Working stem cell research into global warming, Tom? Wow, you're learning here...

But I do believe that industries has ruined climate(weather) and there are many fact like acid rain, and many other

I grant you your beliefs. Some day back them up with something more factual and scientific than "how you feel about it" and see what you come up with...
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


27 posted 11-28-2007 05:12 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Oh, my dear sir Balladeer, I wish you happy today but not on this topic. Wait till I  give you some data after I read more if i got extra hour a day.

Tom
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


28 posted 11-28-2007 06:15 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html


Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

    * Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
    * The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
    * An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
    * The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
    * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

And more come out daily, sir  



The data will be updated hourly if my time is right.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


29 posted 11-28-2007 06:28 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

and http://www.tamug.edu/labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm

And they are very academic information.

and to your beloved Florida
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fflamap.asp

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-28-2007 09:08 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


30 posted 11-28-2007 10:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....



If an opinion is going to be offered as 'expert' -- yes qualifications are required Mike.

You don't really want to get into a numbers game do you Mike?  Naw.  You know you'll lose.  You'd just like to see us earthy green types spend a lot of carbon footprint wasting our time doing research and posting information that you'll promptly ignore.

quote:

You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.



It isn't interesting at all Mike.  Remeber all those doctors who used to tell us that smoking was healthy?  And then raised 'questions' for decades about the conclusive link between smoking and cancer?  Sure you do.

Oh yeah -- and those 'scientists' who used to say that we didn't know for sure that nuclear radiation was bad for us?  ROFL

You crack me up Mike.

You really do.  
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


31 posted 11-28-2007 11:13 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Oh what the heck -- since this is all fun and games -- why not throw out a few links for you to ignore Mike...
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74
http://www.petroretail.net/uploads/featurearticles/2006/npnMarketPulse/111506_mp2.asp

For what it's worth your Heartland Institute takes money from the Tobacco industry too to try to influence Tobacco policy.

You just keep cracking me up Mike.  
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


32 posted 11-28-2007 11:54 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

You crack me up too,  Mike
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


33 posted 11-29-2007 12:46 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Have some more punchlines then Tom!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


34 posted 11-29-2007 01:10 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

LR is absolutely right.

So, Sir balladeer, CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


35 posted 11-29-2007 04:24 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yep, I remember the doctors, LR, and John Wayne and his cigarette ads....what a jerk he was, the Duke. I also remember using chlordane to treat houses and asbestos to insulate schools. The point? I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies. The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

As for me, I can rest easy in my grave knowing I have brought laughter and amusement to you and your sidekick   I can live with that (until the global warming gets me   )

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-29-2007 05:00 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


36 posted 11-29-2007 04:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Oh, and for the record, I have no friends at the Heartland Institute, do not know any ofthe 60 scientists listed who sent the letter to the Canadian PM, and know no one at the CATO Institute, who submitted the following....

STATEMENT of

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

On the Kyoto Protocol before the

Committee on Small Business
United States House of Representatives
Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

July 29, 1998

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5�C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

    * Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),

    * Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations� scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer�methane�is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and

    * Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).

In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.



I don't even know anyone atthe National Academy of Sciences...

From 1998 through 2007 the Oregon Petition ("Global Warming Petition"), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was signed by 17,200 scientists including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. It urged the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


37 posted 11-29-2007 02:19 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

good scientists make bad politicians. bad scientists are worst politicians. Why scientist wants to involve in policy making based on uncertain data(it is the trend but not absolute certainty)? THEY ARE REPUBLICANS   Seeing brutally cutting of scientific research  fund by Bush Government, most scientists are suffering. why do they want to line with him?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


38 posted 11-29-2007 03:55 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Tom, if you bother to re-read the findings of all the scientists which the Cato report made public, you will see that they were made in 1998. Bush was not president and there was a Democrat in the White House. If you are going to yell BUSH and REPUBLICANS at least get your facts a little straighter  

Same goes for the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, which covered 1998-2007.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


39 posted 11-29-2007 05:07 PM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Thank you, sir Balladeer. I'll check the facts soon.

Tom
Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 11-03-1999
Posts 4427
Oklahoma, USA


40 posted 11-29-2007 11:58 PM       View Profile for Not A Poet   Email Not A Poet   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Not A Poet's Home Page   View IP for Not A Poet

quote:
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 07-27-2007
Posts 2111
LA,CA


41 posted 11-30-2007 12:18 AM       View Profile for TomMark   Email TomMark   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for TomMark

Mainly to find out who has changed mind due to new data collected in the past 5 years.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


42 posted 11-30-2007 12:31 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies.


No Mike -- you're the one, by going back to the same old arguments that have been asked and answered that is being personally insulting and sarcastic by ignoring the factual data that's been provided.

You can say -- "but what about this study? or that scientist?" until the cows come home -- but it doesn't matter because dissent is already stipulated -- it is consensus of the Scientific community that is not impressed by the dissenting conclusions -- they aren't peer reviewed and the data isn't persuasive Mike -- 30 National Academy of Sciences around the globe have endorsed the IPCC report on Anthropogenic Global Warming -- until someone can put a dent in that with some conclusive data -- then they are just whistling Dixie.

In fact -- the credentialed scientists who oppose the IPCC report is so short it can be listed:
wiki/List of scientists opposing global warming

Now you may want to say that the IPCC report and the endorsement of it by the scientists of the world is a conspiracy like Micheal Crichton or many others would like to suggest -- Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

but, the problem with conspiracies is that someone always cracks -- like, say -- Scott McClellan in the cover-up of the outing of Valerie Plame; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312349,00.html

quote:

The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.



There is something in logic called comparison and analysis Mike.  We can, for instance -- look at two bodies in space and see how they may be different or similar. What we know about one thing can tell us something about the other.

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.

Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

But, all of this stuff is so easy to find on the web, and our previous conversations have lead me to wonder if you actually believe all the stuff you're posting here -- or if you're just trying to get a rise out of the audience -- or if you have a portfolio full of Exxon-Mobile and Phillip Morris stocks.  But since I know for a fact that you're you love to make a good joke -- I just assume you aren't serious -- so I'm still cracked up -- just as I used to be at those funny adults who used to think that I couldn't see them when they hid thier eyes from me and played peekaboo --

quote:

I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..



I think you actually mean the seventies?
/wiki/Global_cooling

But it wasn't the scientific community -- as there was no consensus -- there were a few indidividual reports that the media distorted out of proportion -- particularly Newsweek.  But, the Academy of Sciences clearly stated they didn't know enough at that time to even form a consensus -- but instead reccomended the issue needed to be studied.

And in recent posts - you even want to go back to Al Gore's house vs. Bush's house -- even though the source you provided clearly outlined Gore's position of carbon neutrality -- it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.

But, let's once again assume that Al Gore is hypocritical -- it doesn't change the facts of global warming any more than Henry Hyde's or Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs meant that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


43 posted 11-30-2007 01:11 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

quote:

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


44 posted 11-30-2007 02:12 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.
Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.


LR, you can use the big oil and big tobacco fundings to make Heartland and the Cato Instututes prejudiced if you wish, and you may even be partially right, but that has little to do with the reports, unless you are claiming that the 500 scientists Heartland quoted, the 17000 Cato quoted and the 60 that sent their letter and recommendations to the Canadian PM all belong to those institutions.....which they don't. The only thing Heartland and Cato did was to take this information from acclaimed scientists with impeccable credentials and make them public, something the mainstream media failed (call it refused) to do. You label it disinformation so I must assume that you consider it some conspiracy these 18000 scientists are all banded together to fool the public with.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

Glad you mentioned that. They are definitely two different issues. Global warming certainly exists. It has existed since the beginning of time, taking turns with global cooling. The question is (1) is the man-made protion of it significant and (2) would the Kyoto protocol help to curb it?  I have addressed this in several replies throughout the thread to point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the subject matter at hand...

Reply 0.......whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Reply 3.......Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Reply 7........Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....

Reply 14...... the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.  Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.

Reply 22.......Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.

Reply 36.......This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

After all of those references I made, you now ask me if I want to argue global warming or Kyoto? Perhaps it's you who have been doing the ignoring?   The IPCC links you just offered concern global warming only and nothing to do with Kyoto at all.
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


45 posted 11-30-2007 02:37 AM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

Nope not ignoring -- just clarifying.

Post 0 you only focus on Kyoto.

Post 15 John goes off into Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I answer him.

You answer me.

Then you switch back to Kyoto.

So -- you've clarified -- you want to talk about both.  I've only talked about anthropogenic climate change and haven't made any arguments pro or con on Kyoto.  - Which is why I don't understand 36.

And, if you choose not to ignore the information -- you'll see that Heartland is actively involved with the Oil and Tobacco industry and has board members from the said same, Mike -- the same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy -- but like all conspiracies it's hard to keep it a secret -- except the mainstream media just doesn't cover it do they?  

It's a good damn thing Al Gore invented the internets!  

This enables you to look further into those '18,000' "scientists" -- the 60 and the 500 -- and see that it isn't above board.

The nature of science is that there will always be variance in opinion -- and there will be a consensus -- but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion like Rasool's and Mitchell's because it sells newspapers -- or when the Oil companies fund 'studies' to throw sand in the public's face -- sometimes it reminds me a little of Baghdad Bob -- which is again why I laugh.

It's all amazingly simply laid out at Wiki Mike -- maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (11-30-2007 05:58 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


46 posted 11-30-2007 10:22 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

he same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy

So you are saying, then, that either Heartland or the oil companies are funding those nearly 20,000 scientists? Iassume you can provide another link for that?

but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion

Now I'm the one who is laughing....no, guffawing and rolling on the floor holding my sides. That's exactly what  the mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 years. If you don't believe me, ask Dan Rather.

maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

A typical response, sadly. If you can't refute them, insult and trash them. That's what the left does. They ignore a man's 30 year record in service and, if they don't want him to be a judge, they find a point to trash him, ignoring his record. If General Petrakas (sp) gives opinions they don't want to hear, they ignore his sterling military record for three decades and try to discredit and trash him.  These 18,000 scientist who hold many of the absolute top positions in the scientific world, who have spent their lives in scientific research and matters, if they don't share the same opinions as what you want to hear, insult and trash them. Yes, they are "just scientists", LR. You have the right to wonder if they know Wikipedia exists....why not?

You bring up the Heartland funding again as if that's the key issue which makes everything suspect. I'd like to see the stock holdings of Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy and the boys to see how much stock they hold in those same oil and tobacco companies.....so what's the point?

If I hate my neighbor and I see him robbing a bank and turn him in, does my dislike of him taint the charge? Will you be the defense attorney who says "You just turned him in because you don't like him, right?" Maybe I did but that doesn't invalidate the action.  You can blast Heartland for their funding all you want and you can insult  the integrity and intelligence of 18000 scientists if you wish....I wouldn't expect any less - or more.
Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 12-17-2000
Posts 34089
City of Roses


47 posted 11-30-2007 02:34 PM       View Profile for Mistletoe Angel   Email Mistletoe Angel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Mistletoe Angel's Home Page   View IP for Mistletoe Angel

I've been busy with finals so haven't been able to visit and participate in this thread this week as much as I'd like to.

However, I'll add two additional points for now, the first in response to several comments made regarding global warming is caused more by natural cycles rather than by emissions, and that is to consider the following statistic.

It has been widely estimated (check "Earth's Energy Budget" for the citation) that the total solar energy reaching Earth annually is approximately 1.74 × 1017 watts, while the annual tidal energy is approximately 3 × 1012 watts, with mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption estimated at 1.3 × 1012 watts.

Thus, if these figures are truly accurate, then our energy consumption represents more power than the power of the ocean's tides, which to me is unbelievable, and when you consider this statistic alone, I believe it's quite telling and demonstrates it would be naive to ignore the likely issue that our excess waste heat is affecting weather patterns and encouraging climate migration.

*

Secondly, regarding the point of how special interest groups and oil lobbyists are trying to control the debate and coin its terminology, that is without doubt the case.

Take Steven Milloy, for instance, the self-professed "Junk Science Guru", who led the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition at one point, whose principal backer was, surprise surprise.........Philip Morris.

It has even been documented that, in April 1998, Milloy was involved as part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which ExxonMobil played a major role in forming, with a primary aim at convincing the media to report and recognize uncertainties regarding climate change.

UCSUSA.org: Exxon Report

Early this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report detailing how "ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."....................which references Milloy:

*

(Page 23 of the report)

...

"The important point in reviewing this history is that it is not a coincidence that ExxonMobil and its surrogates have adopted the mantle of “sound science.” In so doing, the company is simply emulating a proven corporate strategy for successfully deflecting attention when one’s cause lacks credible scientific evidence. From the start in 1993, in TASSC’s search for other antiregulation efforts to provide political cover, the organization actively welcomed global warming contrarians like Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, and Patrick Michaels to its scientific board of advisors. Thanks to the online archive of tobacco documents, we know that in 1994, when Philip Morris developed plans with APCO to launch a TASSC-like group in Europe, “global warming” was listed first among suggested topics with which the tobacco firm’s cynical “sound science” campaign could profitably ally itself.

Given these historical connections, it is disturbing that ExxonMobil would continue to associate with some of the very same TASSC personnel who had overseen such a blatant and shameful disinformation campaign for Big Tobacco. The most glaring of ExxonMobil’s associations in this regard is with Steven Milloy, the former executive director of TASSC. Milloy’s involvement with ExxonMobil is more than casual. He served as a member of the small 1998 Global Climate Science Team task force that mapped out ExxonMobil’s disinformation strategy on global warming.

Milloy officially closed TASSC’s offices in 1998 as evidence of its role as a front organization began to surface in the discovery process of litigation against Big Tobacco. Thanks in part to Exxon-Mobil, however, the “sound science” disinformation campaign continued unabated. Resuscitating TASSC under the slightly altered name The Advancement of Sound Science Center (rather than Coalition), Milloy continues to operate out of his home in Maryland. Between 2000 and 2004, ExxonMobil gave $50,000 to Milloy’s Advancement of Sound Science Center, and another $60,000 to an organization called the Free Enterprise Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise Action Institute), which is also registered to Milloy’s home address.109 According to its 2004 tax return, this group was founded to “educate the public about the American system of free enterprise,” employed no staff, and incurred approximately $48,000 in expenses categorized as “professional services.”


*

The report also states Milloy is a contributor to Tech Central Station and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, both funded by ExxonMobil.

The whole report is worth a read, as it highlights how oil barons and their special interest group sympathizers basically invented the terminology "sound science" to suit their own agenda.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


48 posted 11-30-2007 03:05 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

  it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.....referring to Gore.

Lr. you have outdone yourself. That is the most incredible statement I;ve seen coming from your golden fingers. The lengths you go to to justify actions by the Gores and Edwards of your world are remarkable.

In an Inconvenient Truth Gore implores the world to cut back on energy use. I didn't hear of him mentioning use all of the energy you want as long as you don't have a carbon footprint.  Why doesn't Gore have a carbon footprint? Simple - he buys carbon-offsets, those handy little items which allow you to use up as much energy and produce as much carbon as you want as long as you donate to companies that are working to reduce carbon in the world. Putting aside the fact that the company he bought the carbon-offsets from he has a major share in which means he was basically paying himself, let me ask you this. Did the carbon-offsets he bought eliminate the carbon that he produced? Did it just up and vanish? Now you see it, now you don't?

I'm sure Gore would be happy to know you have given him your approval  to use a billion per month as long as he doesn't produce carbon.  Problem is, you can't do that without producing carbon and paying yourself for a free pass makes no difference to the environment you claim to be trying to protect.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


49 posted 11-30-2007 03:12 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Secondly, regarding the point of how special interest groups and oil lobbyists are trying to control the debate and coin its terminology, that is without doubt the case.

I don't disagree, Noah. That's the case on BOTH sides. We know what the oil side wants out of it. Ask yourself what the other side wants.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the rebel. Do you think those thousands and  thousands of scientists who have spoken up advocating no entry into the Koyota treaty are all being paid off to do so?
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Labor Party Wins in Australia   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors