PDA

View Full Version : Where is the "step it up" global warming thread?



Tha Wookie
03-27-2007, 15:41
I understand that the "step it up" thread was moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but where is it? Has it been censored?

Global warming is certainly a trail related issue, and I thought there was a good discussion going on in that thread, which now seems to be inaccessible.

Dances with Mice
03-27-2007, 15:56
I understand that the "step it up" thread was moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but where is it? Has it been censored?Silly. You should know better...

Click on "User CP" in the dark green menu above, once there scroll down to "Group Discussions" and join the group called "Thick Skinned".

Newb
04-03-2007, 07:32
The thread was closed because we came to the consensus that Global warming is mostly hyped. It's become the "in thing", a fad. Al Gore is a nut.

camojack
04-04-2007, 03:47
The thread was closed because we came to the consensus that Global warming is mostly hyped. It's become the "in thing", a fad. Al Gore is a nut.

About 500 years (or so) ago, the consensus in the scientific community was that the Earth was flat.

Also, that the Sun (:sun ) orbited around same.

So much for consensus... :eek:

fiddlehead
04-04-2007, 06:09
I sure hope that NEWB is a troll and/ or joking.
It would be very sad for the consensus of hikers to ignore such a thing.
Typical American maybe but certainly not typical of folks who are in tune with nature.
Even the queen of England is doing something on a personal level.

rafe
04-04-2007, 06:28
About 500 years (or so) ago, the consensus in the scientific community was that the Earth was flat.

There was no scientific community 500 years ago.

That which we now call the "scientific method" didn't really take root until the 17th or 18th century. There was only the Catholic church, with its dogma and its active repression of those rare individuals who attempted to practice science (eg., Copernicus, 1473-1543, Galileo, 1564-1642.) The Royal Society was founded in 1660, a mere 346 years ago.

Frolicking Dinosaurs
04-04-2007, 06:47
Wookie, the thread has been moved to the sensitive topic areas.

As for Newb being a troll - well, some have said..... :D Seriously, he is just a very politically conservative fellow who feels that the global warming warnings do not reflect the true nature of the situation. I disagree with him, but he has a right to state his opinion.

frieden
04-04-2007, 10:43
Wookie, the thread has been moved to the sensitive topic areas.

As for Newb being a troll - well, some have said..... :D Seriously, he is just a very politically conservative fellow who feels that the global warming warnings do not reflect the true nature of the situation. I disagree with him, but he has a right to state his opinion.

I agree - he has a right to his opinion. I don't see where that gives him the right to lie and mislead people (speaking of the thread being closed, and why). Although, the Bush administration is a great role model!

We feel strongly enough about this that Ed and I are headed to Washington for Earth Day week, and the Step It Up march on the Capital. I bought the plane ticket, and then searched for a hotel room. The rates have literally tripled for that time. If I go a week early, or two weeks later, the rates go back to normal...... Grrrr. I can't pay $400 for a plane ticket, and then $1,800 for a budget room! I wonder if you can camp on the Hill. However, the AT is just a train ride away! Hey, no need to waste a ticket. :D

camojack
04-04-2007, 11:09
There was no scientific community 500 years ago.

Right. Anyway, we've got one now, in theory at least.

Here's a true story about it:
A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. (http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2007/03/13/frostbite_ends_bancroft_arnesen_trek/)
(From your local paper, no less...)

:sun :sun :sun :sun

Tha Wookie
04-04-2007, 11:11
First, I don't think the "Step it up" thread should have been moved to any secret forum. The thread was not, by nature, "thick-skinned" or political. That only came in the responses. It did not belong in the 2007 hikers thread, but should have not been hidden.

It reflects the political bias of Whiteblaze site administrators, unfortunately.

Climate change is certainly a real issue that hikers should be concerned about and have a forum to discuss, in the open.

Skidsteer
04-04-2007, 11:16
...It reflects the political bias of Whiteblaze site administrators, unfortunately....



Say what?

I don't recall any threads being moved or locked due to political bias. Got an example?

jesse
04-04-2007, 11:32
I saw "inconvienent truth" last night for the first time. I thoght it was more about algore self promotion, than science.

he thread was not, by nature, "thick-skinned" or political. That only came in the responses
It was political from the first post. The person that started the thread was promoting a "political" demonstration, to get Congress's attention.

Lone Wolf
04-04-2007, 11:35
I agree - he has a right to his opinion. I don't see where that gives him the right to lie and mislead people (speaking of the thread being closed, and why). Although, the Bush administration is a great role model!

We feel strongly enough about this that Ed and I are headed to Washington for Earth Day week, and the Step It Up march on the Capital. I bought the plane ticket, and then searched for a hotel room. The rates have literally tripled for that time. If I go a week early, or two weeks later, the rates go back to normal...... Grrrr. I can't pay $400 for a plane ticket, and then $1,800 for a budget room! I wonder if you can camp on the Hill. However, the AT is just a train ride away! Hey, no need to waste a ticket. :D

kinda hypocritical to fly all the way out there, burning all that jet fuel, to bitch about global warming don't ya think?

Newb
04-04-2007, 11:53
I sure hope that NEWB is a troll and/ or joking.
It would be very sad for the consensus of hikers to ignore such a thing.
Typical American maybe but certainly not typical of folks who are in tune with nature.
Even the queen of England is doing something on a personal level.

Me, troll? never...:bse

Newb
04-04-2007, 11:54
I sure hope that NEWB is a troll and/ or joking.
It would be very sad for the consensus of hikers to ignore such a thing.
Typical American maybe but certainly not typical of folks who are in tune with nature.
Even the queen of England is doing something on a personal level.

Me, troll? never...:bse

weary
04-04-2007, 11:54
kinda hypocritical to fly all the way out there, burning all that jet fuel, to bitch about global warming don't ya think?
No. Not really. That's how things work in a Democracy. You organize over an issue to get the attention of the politicians in Washington. That's how the Appalachian Trail was protected by Congress in the 60s.

And it's the only way for people to be heard over the special interest business lobbyists who would put private profits over the future of the earth.

I know the lazy, the bored or the ignorant like to complain about citizens organizing to protect their interests. But that doesn't make them right -- just lazy, bored or ignorant.

Weary

eventidecu
04-04-2007, 11:56
Seconds LW,,1800.00 for a motel room? ( friden post sounds more like bragging of support of a cause than actually supporting the cause ) Not to mention thats waisting a hell of alot of beer money. Plus you could have a practical / duel use by the cooling effect on the environment each time you open the fridge to get one.

frieden
04-04-2007, 11:59
First, I don't think the "Step it up" thread should have been moved to any secret forum. The thread was not, by nature, "thick-skinned" or political. That only came in the responses. It did not belong in the 2007 hikers thread, but should have not been hidden.

It reflects the political bias of Whiteblaze site administrators, unfortunately.

Climate change is certainly a real issue that hikers should be concerned about and have a forum to discuss, in the open.

I agree, it should have been moved to General. It most definitely affects hikers - especially when we are trying to find drinkable water!

I'm not sure the site administrators moved it based just on their political bias. As you know, things can get pretty heated on WB. From experience, they might have made the decision that this topic was too heated (pun intended) to be in the General forum. I doubt there was any malicious intent.

The issue itself isn't political, but it is long past time for our federal government to do something. The people and states are way ahead of them. The Bush administration is seriously messing up our country and reputation. Who are we supposed to appeal to, Betty Crocker?

The reaction to the concerns of Global Warming should be the same anywhere. Speak up! If you don't like how your town is handling the issue, talk to your city leaders, local groups, etc. Why would someone think it was ok to petition their governments, but not the organizations they belong to? If you think this issue really affects all hikers, and should be in the General forum, then politely tell the administrators. It doesn't mean they'll do it, but at least they'll know how you feel. If enough people speak up, they might change their minds. There are plenty of topics that have survived in the general forums. It helps when the masses want it badly enough to put the trouble makers in their place. Leaders can only do so much, without their people's support.

dixicritter
04-04-2007, 12:13
First, I don't think the "Step it up" thread should have been moved to any secret forum. The thread was not, by nature, "thick-skinned" or political. That only came in the responses. It did not belong in the 2007 hikers thread, but should have not been hidden.

It reflects the political bias of Whiteblaze site administrators, unfortunately.

Climate change is certainly a real issue that hikers should be concerned about and have a forum to discuss, in the open.

Well since SGT Rock and I haven't been around doing very much much "work" on the site lately, you'll have to take this up with Attroll I guess. I have no clue what thread y'all are even talking about honestly.

However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that. Thank you.

frieden
04-04-2007, 12:23
Seconds LW,,1800.00 for a motel room? ( friden post sounds more like bragging of support of a cause than actually supporting the cause ) Not to mention thats waisting a hell of alot of beer money. Plus you could have a practical / duel use by the cooling effect on the environment each time you open the fridge to get one.

Weary is right. Things don't get done by sitting on your couch, whining. Women and blacks have the right to vote and go to college, because they banded together, and marched on Washington, DC. Their individual, local efforts were in vain.

I know how bad flying is, but I thought it would be worth it, if we could get Congress to listen. Bragging? About what? I haven't done anything yet! (except for poor planning) I'm going to try staying out of town, taking the train in everyday, and walking around to all the events. Luckily, walking in DC isn't bad. I could rent a car, but there is plenty of public transport there.

I can't just sit back. I have to try.

weary
04-04-2007, 12:23
Well since SGT Rock and I haven't been around doing very much much "work" on the site lately, you'll have to take this up with Attroll I guess. I have no clue what thread y'all are even talking about honestly.

However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that. Thank you.
Global Warming is more science than politics, or should be.

dixicritter
04-04-2007, 12:30
Global Warming is more science than politics, or should be.

You are right it Should be, but people turn it into a Political debate every time it is brought up. Just go back and re-read this thread to see my point.

I've asked nicely there are two threads on this subject in the "thick-skinned area", and one in the General AT Hiking forum. Y'all go discuss on one of those three threads please.

Wanderingson
04-04-2007, 12:39
About 500 years (or so) ago, the consensus in the scientific community was that the Earth was flat.

:eek:

HAHAHA that's a good one--What type of fool would ever think that the earth isn't flat.

eventidecu
04-04-2007, 12:43
Well since SGT Rock and I haven't been around doing very much much "work" on the site lately, you'll have to take this up with Attroll I guess. I have no clue what thread y'all are even talking about honestly.

However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that. Thank you.

Thank you,,Somebody get the tree chain out and delete thread or please move it to it's proper fourum.

frieden
04-04-2007, 12:55
However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that. Thank you.

Dixicritter, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't see how you can consider the issue itself as political. Global Warming or Global Climate Change affects at least: water availability/quality, weather extremes, excessive insects and insect-spread diseases, and increased fuel prices (affecting everything from shuttles and food costs, to lodging expenses). The domino effect from this issue affects everyone, especially hikers trying to survive (at least partly) off of non-artificial resources. I'm sure the hikers for climate change thread was started with that in mind, and why it is such an issue on a hiking site.

It is most certainly a trail concern/issue, but I understand why you guys may not want to deal with the hassle of a debate. Both sides are trying to get people stirred up for different reasons, and passions run really high. This is your site, and you have the right to determine what is posted here, and where. I will respect your wishes, and only post anything related to Global Warming/Climate Change in the Political forum.

jesse
04-04-2007, 12:58
I thought it would be worth it, if we could get Congress to listen
Are you saying the democratic controlled congress is not listening?

frieden
04-04-2007, 13:13
I take it back. The issue wasn't moved to the Politics forum, it was moved to the Sensitive Topics forum. Has anyone read the rules and description of the ST forum? You were right, this issue has been buried as far as it possibly could be on this site, short of being banned. I can't imagine what would warrant that sort of banishment, other than bias. WBers are opinion-heavy, but the vast majority are basically a HYOH sort of crowd. Frankly, I'm shocked.

rafe
04-04-2007, 13:20
Frankly, I'm shocked.

They're only shocked at liberal or progressive notions. You can count the liberals/progressives here on one or two hands. :rolleyes:

Bohican
04-04-2007, 13:59
You were right, this issue has been buried as far as it possibly could be on this site, short of being banned.

I think using the term "buried" is a little strong. Being a hiking site, I'm sure there's alot of folks who log on to just look at the recreational aspects of the AT, and would prefer not to have to look at political and or heated threads. All you have to do is subscribe to the various sub groups you are interested in, and the new topics in those areas will be shown under today's posts. Without subscribing, they wont. I don't think this is censorship, just utilizing the forum software in a manner which will allow users the ability to customize their WB experience to their individual needs.


They're only shocked at liberal or progressive notions. You can count the liberals/progressives here on one or two hands.

Talk about "Fuzzy Math" ;)

TJ aka Teej
04-04-2007, 14:44
However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that.

Thank you, dixi!

Tha Wookie
04-04-2007, 17:00
Well since SGT Rock and I haven't been around doing very much much "work" on the site lately, you'll have to take this up with Attroll I guess. I have no clue what thread y'all are even talking about honestly.

However, Threads of a political nature such as global warming automatically go to either the "thick-skinned" or political area because they have nothing to do with hiking the AT. We set up the special political area for the people that want to discuss politics to keep those discussions off the hiking boards for everyone else, please respect that. Thank you.


Well I'm sorry for pointing fingers. I do think the thread should have been moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but why to a hidden forum? Even with my knowledge and lesson I received on how to view it, my access is denied.

I guess the bigger question is: Is a thread moved because of the responses, or because of the nature of the content? Shouldn't the individual posts be edited/deleted/warned if they are out of site standards? Why the whole topic?

Climate change is a very serious issue that people, especially those involved in outdoor activites, should educate each other about and discuss. It is a very real and pervasive issue, that exists well beyond the political scope.

Is this site a forum for these types of discussions or not?

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. There's no reason to put the kitchen in the cellar just because some people don't feel comfortable discussing it. If there is any public issue for which this site should provide an open venue for discussion, it is environmental stewardship.

Step it up, hikers.

rafe
04-04-2007, 17:05
Wookie, it's a lost cause, on this forum. Most folks here are in denial. They're far more concerned about Al Gore's electric bill.

Alligator
04-04-2007, 17:10
Well I'm sorry for pointing fingers. I do think the thread should have been moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but why to a hidden forum? Even with my knowledge and lesson I received on how to view it, my access is denied.

...


Silly. You should know better...

Click on "User CP" in the dark green menu above, once there scroll down to "Group Discussions" and join the group called "Thick Skinned".DWM quoted the wrong name. User CP, then Group Memberships, then join Thick Skinned.

You are still not subscribed to Thick Skinned, it is not listed in your profile.

Skidsteer
04-04-2007, 17:21
Problem solved. I love happy endings.

dixicritter
04-04-2007, 18:09
Well I'm sorry for pointing fingers. I do think the thread should have been moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but why to a hidden forum? Even with my knowledge and lesson I received on how to view it, my access is denied.

I took care of your problem, you should be subscribed to that forum now.



I guess the bigger question is: Is a thread moved because of the responses, or because of the nature of the content? Shouldn't the individual posts be edited/deleted/warned if they are out of site standards? Why the whole topic?

Climate change is a very serious issue that people, especially those involved in outdoor activites, should educate each other about and discuss. It is a very real and pervasive issue, that exists well beyond the political scope.

Is this site a forum for these types of discussions or not?[b]

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. There's no reason to put the kitchen in the cellar just because some people don't feel comfortable discussing it. If there is any public issue for which this site should provide an open venue for discussion, it is environmental stewardship.

Step it up, hikers.

As for the part I've emphasized, here is your answer... (can be found at the following location... About WhiteBlaze.net (http://www.whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=aboutus))



[B]Our Mission Statement



- Our goal is provide a free Internet community for the sharing of information related to the Appalachian Trail.
- We will do this by using open forums for all to use.
- We will honor freedom of speech (within limits).
- We will do tour best to keep this environment friendly for all.
- We will share or pass information on to others in regards to updates and information on the Appalachian Trail as it becomes available.
- We will respect others opinions and not force our views on to others.
- We expect the same in return from others.

Note: One person does not own WhiteBlaze. Everyone on this site shares a piece of it. Lets work together and help our community of Appalachian Trail Enthusiasts grow.

I hope this answers your question as to what the site is here to discuss, as if you haven't been here long enough to already know this Wookie, come on.

Dances with Mice
04-04-2007, 18:20
DWM quoted the wrong name. User CP, then Group Memberships, then join Thick Skinned.He's still silly and should know better.

Tha Wookie
04-04-2007, 21:49
I took care of your problem, you should be subscribed to that forum now.




As for the part I've emphasized, here is your answer... (can be found at the following location... About WhiteBlaze.net (http://www.whiteblaze.net/index.php?page=aboutus))



I hope this answers your question as to what the site is here to discuss, as if you haven't been here long enough to already know this Wookie, come on.

As a shareholder I submit that the thread in question meets every qualification in the WB mission statement.

My problem was not that I could not join the hidden forum, but rather that it is a discussion that should be kept in a public space.

As a shareholder, I see it as my responsibility to see that discussions that heavily impact the AT are kept in public, and not censored or hidden simply because a scientific issue exposes policital motivations.

In this light, I believe that you ought to read the Mission Statement again, Dixicritter. I couldn't have said it better myself.

rickb
04-04-2007, 22:03
No. Not really. That's how things work in a Democracy. You organize over an issue to get the attention of the politicians in Washington. That's how the Appalachian Trail was protected by Congress in the 60s.

And it's the only way for people to be heard over the special interest business lobbyists who would put private profits over the future of the earth.

I know the lazy, the bored or the ignorant like to complain about citizens organizing to protect their interests. But that doesn't make them right -- just lazy, bored or ignorant.

Weary


You can see me in this picture if you look real hard:

http://www.climatewalk.org/images/SkyCam1_Mar24.jpg

There were about 1000 of us. It was inspiring. The "thru walkers" as thew were called, got a standing ovation. We just did the last stretch.

weary
04-04-2007, 22:10
As a shareholder I submit that the thread in question meets every qualification in the WB mission statement.

My problem was not that I could got join the hidden forum, but rather that it is a discussion that should be kept in a public space.

As a shareholder, I see it as my responsibility to see that discussions that heavily impact the AT are kept in public, and not censored or hidden simply because a scientific issue exposes policital motivations.

In this light, I believe that you ought to read the Mission Statement again, Dixicritter. I couldn't have said it better myself.
Yep! I agree 100 percent. ATtroll and his helpers really need to reread their mission statement.

Weary

Skidsteer
04-04-2007, 22:13
You're picking the wrong battle, Wookie.

Global warming threads spawn passionate debate. That's a good thing and serves the greater good, no matter which side a hiker is on.

But hikers and potential hikers come to WB initially, for the most part, to find the best way to cure monkey butt, make alcohol stoves, choose a shelter, a pack, a hiking partner, and debate the finer points of carrying a piss bottle.

Give them a chance to get those questions answered first.

After they have weathered some knothead telling them they'll surely perish under the weight of a space blanket, they may wander into other areas of the site and actually be prepared for it.

Dances with Mice
04-04-2007, 22:24
You're picking the wrong battle, Wookie.Name two posters whose last contribution to That Thread (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22655)was on 3/25.

Skidsteer
04-04-2007, 22:32
Name two posters whose last contribution to That Thread (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?t=22655)was on 3/25.

Exactly...

rickb
04-04-2007, 22:39
ia massuming that is in boston, but i just can't put my finger on exactly where the people are walking..over I90 somewhere near the backbay/fenway?

Turning from Mass Ave down Comm Ave.

The thru walkers started in Northhamton, staying in churches over night.

http://www.climatewalk.org/

Cookerhiker
04-04-2007, 22:52
Wookie, it's a lost cause, on this forum. Most folks here are in denial. They're far more concerned about Al Gore's electric bill.

Well, there's more conservatives on this site than I would have expected (especially and surprising to me on environmental issues like global warming) but I wouldn't say that constitutes "most" folks. You said on another post that you count the progressives on no more than 2 hands. Not to mention specific names publicly, but I've counted much more. Not everyone posts with equal frequency.

Personally, I believe all political issues are connected at some point but I certainly see where environmental issues more directly impact the Trail and IMHO should be open freely rather than limited to separate registrants-only discussion. Climate change, deforestation, invasive species, endangered species, air quality, water quality, habitat loss, land use - all of these are critical to an enriching AT experience.

And for those WBers who badmouth "liberals," think of the Trail you allegedly love and support and ask yourself if it would exist at all if your "conservative" heroes of the last several Congresses were in power for the last 40 years. If you think it would, you're hopelessly naive or clueless. Because what it comes down to is that protection of the Trail is most certainly a "liberal" concept in our current liberal/conservative lexicon.

Tha Wookie
04-05-2007, 02:06
You're picking the wrong battle, Wookie.

Global warming threads spawn passionate debate. That's a good thing and serves the greater good, no matter which side a hiker is on.

But hikers and potential hikers come to WB initially, for the most part, to find the best way to cure monkey butt, make alcohol stoves, choose a shelter, a pack, a hiking partner, and debate the finer points of carrying a piss bottle.

Give them a chance to get those questions answered first.

After they have weathered some knothead telling them they'll surely perish under the weight of a space blanket, they may wander into other areas of the site and actually be prepared for it.

If the science is right the newbie's will need something more substantial than a space blanket.

If someone wants to read about what water filter to buy or where they can find sil-nylon for sale, there's no one else stopping them from choosing those threads. You could call it the empowerment of individual choice. The alternative is centralized regulation. I think sometimes that's perfectly appropriate. In this case, I don't believe so.

I'd like to give them a chance to ask those questions first, or second -in any order they choose.

TJ aka Teej
04-05-2007, 07:47
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/DDGEBOSC301.DTL

One of the stranger things to happen in recent political discourse -- and this is a crowded field -- is the morphing of global warming into a left-wing plot, a conspiracy by godless scientists to ... well, it's not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.
I have a pretty good idea where that meme started. If you believe that global warming is man-made, then you believe that greenhouse gases are a bad thing. If you believe they're a bad thing, you believe they should be reduced. And reducing greenhouse gases would mean using less petroleum, in all its myriad forms. And since the current administration is dedicated to the protection of petroleum companies, it is only natural that it would try to convince its base that somehow global warming is being promoted by the same people who approve of gay marriage, abortion and secular schools.
The idea that global warming is a liberal plot is a lunatic notion, but it's surprising how closely it maps with public opinion. It's an extremely successful con job, and it's bought the oil companies at least a decade of profits and indolence. It's not clear why evangelical Christians -- or that portion of them that are die-hard supporters of George Bush -- should be so interested in the financial well-being of oil companies. It's not as if they're getting anything out of it.
So the president, who is nothing if not consistent, is trying to stick it to environmentalists again. Last year, he nominated three people for top-level jobs at posts that affect the environment. All three nominations were blocked, and thank you, Barbara Boxer. But now the president is thinking of making recess appointments of the same three people. He thinks it's a game of chicken. He thinks he has to win.
Is politics the art of compromise? Not anymore. Politics is the art of slandering your enemies and rewarding your campaign contributors.
Who are these winners? Fortunately, Judy Pasternak of the Los Angeles Times has done the research so you don't have to. First there's William Wehrum, nominated as head of the air quality division of the EPA -- which is the post he currently holds, thanks to a temporary promotion. Wehrum is a lawyer who formerly represented the chemical, utility and auto industries.

His specialty is mercury and lead emissions. He thinks the EPA standards are far too strict. He has taken steps to loosen the rules because, really, how much harm can microscopic amounts of natural substances do? (Scientists say: plenty, but you know scientists. They're the ones behind the global warming hoax.) So Bush wants a guy in charge of clean air who is in fact in favor of dirty air.

Next we have Alex Beehler, a former Pentagon official and a former executive with Koch Industries, a private oil and chemical company in Kansas. Beehler is slated to be the new head of the EPA inspector general's office, which monitors how well the EPA is enforcing its own regulations. Sounds like a match made in heaven. Inspector: "How's the river quality around here? And do you like your current job?" Employee: "I love my job and I love this river." Inspector: "Carry on."

When Beehler worked for the Pentagon, he was involved in an effort to influence to EPA standard on perchlorate, a substance that interferes with iodide uptake by the thyroid gland. (Not enough iodine leads to goiter.) It's also been shown to impair fetal brain function. It exists in rivers in at least 25 states. Since most of the perchlorate in the water comes from rocket and missile fuel, the Air Force might have had to undertake expensive cleanup activities if the EPA's rules were enforced.

So Beehler: clean water, unless it costs money.

Finally there's Susan Dudley, who would head a section of the White House Office of Management and Budget that reviews all proposed government rules. She used to work for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a think tank partially supported by (wait for it) Koch Industries. She is already on record as believing that the EPA rules are too strict.

In her writings while at the center, she argued that the government should keep its big nose out of areas like smog, air bags and energy regulation. (Yes, the return of the free market to the energy sector certainly benefited the people of California.) She's also big on arsenic in drinking water -- she doesn't mind it so much. She wrote that the EPA should not value the lives of older people as highly as the lives of younger people when making arsenic calculations.
Oh: She's now a special adviser to the White House on regulations, meaning that all Americans already have the benefit of her wisdom, even older, disease-ridden citizens. Such a comfort. I have to go lie down now.
---------------

rafe
04-05-2007, 07:55
This is the classic fox-in-the henhouse schtick. Reagan played it well, but the Bushies have taken the game to a whole new level. Susan Dudley was one of two recess appointments in the news yesterday. (The other was Sam Fox, one of the orginal swift-boaters who was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Belgium.)

Face it, the Bushies don't believe in regulating business, whatsoever. Given a choice of government action on behalf of citizens' welfare or business interests, the Bushies will choose business, 100% of the time, without fail.

Dances with Mice
04-05-2007, 08:53
This is the classic fox-in-the henhouse schtick. Reagan played it well, but the Bushies have taken the game to a whole new level. Susan Dudley was one of two recess appointments in the news yesterday. (The other was Sam Fox, one of the orginal swift-boaters who was rewarded with an ambassadorship to Belgium.)

Face it, the Bushies don't believe in regulating business, whatsoever. Given a choice of government action on behalf of citizens' welfare or business interests, the Bushies will choose business, 100% of the time, without fail.Uh, this isn't the "Step It Up" global warming thread. This is the "Where is the "Step It Up" global warming thread".

Pretty soon I expect this thread will be moved to the 'Thick Skinned' forum then there will be the "Where is the "Where is the "Step It Up" global warming thread" thread".

Alligator
04-05-2007, 09:33
There were two problems with the original Step it Up thread. The first was that it was placed in the wrong forum initially. It would have been better placed IMO in the Hooking Up forum.


Dear Friends,

My name is Sean and I will be hiking starting the AT on April 14, 2007. For those of you who might be around I will be kicking off my hike by participating in the Step It Up climate change initiative www.stepitup2007.org (http://www.stepitup2007.org/). Countless millions of Americans enjoy the AT each year, and global warming threatens to irrevocably change the trail forever. Please join me in hiking to the summit of Springer mountain and demand that congress cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Thanks, and I look forward to seeing you all there.

Sincerely,

Sean Lena
Clearly a scheduled hiking event. If he had been put it in the right forum, somebody would have redirected the subsequent posts immediately;) .

The second problem was that from the second post, the vast majority of posters turned it into a global warming debate. It's already been well established that these more broader issues are moved into the Non-AT forums. That is, the topics that need "stretching" to encompass the AT. Topics where the AT is not the principal player. Almost everything after the first post should have been split off.

Personally, I would strongly argue that it is a scientific problem, and that global warming discussions should be placed into Non-AT General. It's too broad an issue to be narrowed down to the confines of the AT.

Dixi mentioned that it was ATTroll who must have moved the post. In his defense, he's not one to follow the "finer" points of the subscription forums. Rock and Dixi typically monitor those forums. Troll was just moving it over to Non-AT, I doubt there was any grand plan to bury the thread. Otherwise, all the global warming threads would have been put there too. And they weren't:cool: .

Skyline
04-05-2007, 09:33
About 500 years (or so) ago, the consensus in the scientific community was that the Earth was flat.

Also, that the Sun (:sun ) orbited around same.

So much for consensus... :eek:

Many Righties still insist the earth is flat. They are and always have been resistant to change even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Insisting that the status quo is correct is the hallmark of conservatism.

Left up to the conservatives of the 18th century, we here in the colonies would still be subjects of the Queen.

Mags
04-05-2007, 10:33
Just an FYI, the "People thought the earth is flat until Columbus" is an urban legend. At least since the days of the ancient Greeks, formally educated people knew the earth was NOT flat. And, many sailors had an inkling as well. Just look at how a sailing ship sails over the horizon.

A good "beer and pretzel" encapsulation:
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

Sorry..just a historial pet peeve of mine. :)

All Columbus "proved" is that he had a bad sense of geography and math! :)

Skyline
04-05-2007, 10:39
Just an FYI, the "People thought the earth is flat until Columbus" is an urban legend. At least since the days of the ancient Greeks, formally educated people knew the earth was NOT flat. And, many sailors had an inkling as well. Just look at how a sailing ship sails over the horizon.

A good "beer and pretzel" encapsulation:
http://www.sfu.ca/philosophy/swartz/flat_earth.htm

Sorry..just a historial pet peeve of mine. :)

All Columbus "proved" is that he had a bad sense of geography and math! :)

Well, I may have exaggerated. :-)

Of the POTUS candidates-in-waiting, only Newt Gingrich still insists the earth is flat. Or that global warming is a hoax. Yeah, one of those.

Cookerhiker
04-05-2007, 10:46
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/04/DDGEBOSC301.DTL

One of the stranger things to happen in recent political discourse -- and this is a crowded field -- is the morphing of global warming into a left-wing plot, a conspiracy by godless scientists to ... well, it's not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.
I have a pretty good idea where that meme started. If you believe that global warming is man-made, then you believe that greenhouse gases are a bad thing. If you believe they're a bad thing, you believe they should be reduced. And reducing greenhouse gases would mean using less petroleum, in all its myriad forms. And since the current administration is dedicated to the protection of petroleum companies, it is only natural that it would try to convince its base that somehow global warming is being promoted by the same people who approve of gay marriage, abortion and secular schools.
The idea that global warming is a liberal plot is a lunatic notion, but it's surprising how closely it maps with public opinion. It's an extremely successful con job, and it's bought the oil companies at least a decade of profits and indolence. It's not clear why evangelical Christians -- or that portion of them that are die-hard supporters of George Bush -- should be so interested in the financial well-being of oil companies. It's not as if they're getting anything out of it.
So the president, who is nothing if not consistent, is trying to stick it to environmentalists again. Last year, he nominated three people for top-level jobs at posts that affect the environment. All three nominations were blocked, and thank you, Barbara Boxer. But now the president is thinking of making recess appointments of the same three people. He thinks it's a game of chicken. He thinks he has to win.
Is politics the art of compromise? Not anymore. Politics is the art of slandering your enemies and rewarding your campaign contributors.
Who are these winners? Fortunately, Judy Pasternak of the Los Angeles Times has done the research so you don't have to. First there's William Wehrum, nominated as head of the air quality division of the EPA -- which is the post he currently holds, thanks to a temporary promotion. Wehrum is a lawyer who formerly represented the chemical, utility and auto industries.

His specialty is mercury and lead emissions. He thinks the EPA standards are far too strict. He has taken steps to loosen the rules because, really, how much harm can microscopic amounts of natural substances do? (Scientists say: plenty, but you know scientists. They're the ones behind the global warming hoax.) So Bush wants a guy in charge of clean air who is in fact in favor of dirty air.

Next we have Alex Beehler, a former Pentagon official and a former executive with Koch Industries, a private oil and chemical company in Kansas. Beehler is slated to be the new head of the EPA inspector general's office, which monitors how well the EPA is enforcing its own regulations. Sounds like a match made in heaven. Inspector: "How's the river quality around here? And do you like your current job?" Employee: "I love my job and I love this river." Inspector: "Carry on."

When Beehler worked for the Pentagon, he was involved in an effort to influence to EPA standard on perchlorate, a substance that interferes with iodide uptake by the thyroid gland. (Not enough iodine leads to goiter.) It's also been shown to impair fetal brain function. It exists in rivers in at least 25 states. Since most of the perchlorate in the water comes from rocket and missile fuel, the Air Force might have had to undertake expensive cleanup activities if the EPA's rules were enforced.

So Beehler: clean water, unless it costs money.

Finally there's Susan Dudley, who would head a section of the White House Office of Management and Budget that reviews all proposed government rules. She used to work for the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a think tank partially supported by (wait for it) Koch Industries. She is already on record as believing that the EPA rules are too strict.

In her writings while at the center, she argued that the government should keep its big nose out of areas like smog, air bags and energy regulation. (Yes, the return of the free market to the energy sector certainly benefited the people of California.) She's also big on arsenic in drinking water -- she doesn't mind it so much. She wrote that the EPA should not value the lives of older people as highly as the lives of younger people when making arsenic calculations.
Oh: She's now a special adviser to the White House on regulations, meaning that all Americans already have the benefit of her wisdom, even older, disease-ridden citizens. Such a comfort. I have to go lie down now.
---------------

Alex Beehler?!:-? I know him - I worked with him for many years in the late 80s and first half of the 90s when he was a trial attorney at Department of Justice and I was an expert witness accountant working for EPA. We worked together on Superfund cost recovery cases. He represented me in at least one deposition that I testified in. Frankly I'm surprised. I knew him as a dedicated career DOJ environmental attorney who certainly was diligent in pursuing the polluters. Could he have changed that much? The Alex Beehler I knew would be an excellent Inspector General for EPA - much better than the ones they've had.

RE why gobal warming has become a left-right issue - I agree with the article's points but would go further than just oil money influence. Remember the right wing (think Grover Norquist, Dick Armey) anti "big government" types are almost pathological in their hatred of government regulations and services at any level. Norquist famously said he wants the federal government small enough to flush it down the toilet - he also lamented the 9/11 attacks not for the loss of life but becuase it would inevitably lead to "more government."

Limited government is an end in itself to these idealogues. If global warming is real, government or at least some organized cooperative effort is needed which is anathema to the right wing. So it suits their agenda to deny deny deny and cast aspersions on scientists, the vast majority of which have no political agenda.

frieden
04-05-2007, 11:57
There were two problems with the original Step it Up thread. The first was that it was placed in the wrong forum initially. It would have been better placed IMO in the Hooking Up forum.
Clearly a scheduled hiking event.

Personally, I would strongly argue that it is a scientific problem, and that global warming discussions should be placed into Non-AT General.

Dixi mentioned that it was ATTroll who must have moved the post. In his defense, he's not one to follow the "finer" points of the subscription forums. Rock and Dixi typically monitor those forums. Troll was just moving it over to Non-AT, I doubt there was any grand plan to bury the thread. Otherwise, all the global warming threads would have been put there too. And they weren't:cool: .

Yes, the Hooking Up forum would have been perfect for the original post. It was probably posted in the 2007 forum, because that was the target audience.

I agree. Global Warming/Environment issues should be placed in the General forum. That way, the general membership knows that it is there, and that it is not AT-planning related (gear, maildrops, etc).

There are 4 threads in the Death forum - the rules, one on guns, and the other two on Global Warming. This is part of the rules of the forum by Sgt. Rock:

"This forum was designed after some members became concerned that things said on a public forum could be harmful to others, specifically members of hikers who had died and did not want to see speculation or discussion about the death of their loved one. This sub-forum is not indexed on search engines, it is not open for public viewing, it requires a membership to the board, and then it requires another sub-membership to get into the sub-forum to even see it exists. No one will come in here and see what is said unless they were looking for this, and everyone was warned in the above paragraph.:mad:


This is where the things that others don't want to read can be said; But they must be something that concerns the trail."

If this isn't burying an issue, I don't know what is. In order to put Global Warming in here, it has to "be harmful to others, specifically members of hikers who had died" and "something that concerns the trail". I didn't see in any of those threads where a hiker was killed by Global Warming, did you? It is "not indexed on search engines" (so no one could find it using a search), and if by chance someone does find out about it, it takes two memberships to get there.

It may have been placed in the wrong forum initially, but it is definitely in the wrong forum now.

Please Sgt, Dixi, Troll, place environmental issues in the non-AT General forum, or it's own sub-forum in General. Even in the AT Companion, there are numerous examples of what is happening out there, and how it affects hikers - from water availability to the dangers of infected dying trees (as in don't sleep in the dying tree area). Apparently, the ATC sees the affects of pollution and warming (most notably, insects) on the AT and hikers.

Thank you.

Alligator
04-05-2007, 12:16
1. The Sensitive Trails Issues forum rules haven't been updated since the last subscription forums reorganization, which was around the New Year. I could do a search, but I think the idea for the forum is now Thick Skinned.

2. I don't believe you can see any of the subscription forums from anywhere unless you are subscribed.

3. It only takes one subscription to get to STI/Thick Skinned.

camojack
04-06-2007, 01:16
...it's not clear what benefit the scientists get from spreading lies about global warming. Maybe they just want research money to study this nonexistent warming thing.

Incidentally, it is entirely possible to want to reduce pollution...without believing that anthropogenic global warming is as dire as some say.
:sun :sun :sun :sun

weary
04-06-2007, 11:37
Uh, this isn't the "Step It Up" global warming thread. This is the "Where is the "Step It Up" global warming thread".

Pretty soon I expect this thread will be moved to the 'Thick Skinned' forum then there will be the "Where is the "Where is the "Step It Up" global warming thread" thread".
Those were my thoughts exactly. The original "Step it up" thread didn't deserve to be in a restricted area. This one maybe.

Actually, of course, the whole restricted area thing is a bit silly. So, occasionally someone gets to glance at something they find offensive. That's a plus, not a negative. Everyone should be given chances to think occasionally, even those who don't like thinking.

Weary

SGT Rock
04-06-2007, 17:06
Hi yall. Man you guiys love to bitch

Jester2000
04-06-2007, 17:30
First, I don't think the "Step it up" thread should have been moved to any secret forum. . .It reflects the political bias of Whiteblaze site administrators, unfortunately.


It's not a secret forum. If they were being politically biased about it the'd just delete threads entirely.


Dixicritter, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I don't see how you can consider the issue itself as political. . . This is your site, and you have the right to determine what is posted here, and where.

It may not be a political problem by nature, but any solution to the problem is absolutely going to have to be political. As for the second sentence, you're absolutely correct.

Mostly everyone on this thread is coming across as incredibly whiny. Try more debate about global warming and less debate about where you think the debate should be located. This is exactly why Congress rarely accomplishes anything. You'd all make stunningly good politicians.

Dances with Mice
04-06-2007, 17:56
Hi yall. Man you guiys love to bitchNo we don't.

Tin Man
04-06-2007, 23:17
Global warming? Isn't that something Al Gore invented? Or was that the AT? I mean before he invented the Internet. :D

Scientists cannot agree on whether Global Warming will drown the earth or whether we are entering an ice age. Scientists cannot agree whether extinction of species is preventable or perhaps desirable. Scientists cannot agree on just about any science they come up with. SO, why the heck are a bunch of dumbass hikers worried about what damn thread a particular topic is posted under on a topic we know much less about than supposed expert scientists who cannot agree? I thought we were here to talk about hiking and the trail, which of course we all experts on. At any rate, I don't care what we talk about, hiking is boring - right foot, left foot, repeat.

frieden
04-07-2007, 02:34
Hi yall. Man you guiys love to bitch


Squeaky wheel..... :D

SGT Rock
04-07-2007, 08:18
Are you guys sniveling?

ed bell
04-07-2007, 12:03
C'mon SGT., drop a "no sniveling" on 'em.:)

frieden
04-07-2007, 12:49
Are you guys sniveling?

No, seriously, a bunch of people here think that this issue affects everyone. If environmental issues like pollution and global climate change need their own forum, at least put it in a location that is searchable by the general membership, so they can go in if they want to. This is the issue right now, and trying to keep it buried would be futile. The moderator would need to have a heart of gold and b***s of steel, though.

Newb
04-09-2007, 16:08
MIT Scientist puts global warming in perspective....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

Skidsteer
04-09-2007, 17:44
MIT Scientist puts global warming in perspective....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

It's been over an hour and Terrapin hasn't chimed in to dismiss him as an Oil company lackey? What's up with that?

Geez, I hope nothing happened to him...;)

rafe
04-09-2007, 17:48
It's been over an hour and Terrapin hasn't chimed in to dismiss him as an Oil company lackey? What's up with that?

Geez, I hope nothing happened to him...;)

This same article was cited in another thread. It's Richard Lindzen... again. Yawn.

Skidsteer
04-09-2007, 17:51
This same article was cited in another thread. It's Richard Lindzen... again. Yawn.


That's better.

Two Speed
04-09-2007, 18:22
Are you guys sniveling?Wrong website. Go here (http://www.hikinghq.net/) for the "No sniveling" zone.

camojack
04-10-2007, 00:44
This same article was cited in another thread. It's Richard Lindzen... again. Yawn.

Can't refute, dismiss. :-?

:confused: Spring Looks Like Winter Across US (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/weather/news-article.aspx?ref=rss&storyid=79645) :confused:
(Record lows across the country)

Oh...but of course the term du jour is no longer "global warming", it's "climate change". Sort of a "one size fits all" theory.
(You can blame anything on it)

The usual suspects here (and elsewhere) probably would've been equally vehement about the coming Ice Age theories being promoted in the 70's; some of them probably were...

rafe
04-10-2007, 00:57
(You can blame anything on it)

And you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything's just peachy, the scientists (except for Lindzen and his gang) are all wrong, no reason to be alarmed....

Spirit Walker
04-10-2007, 02:18
This same article was cited in another thread. It's Richard Lindzen... again. Yawn.

Gee - you used to claim that ALL "skeptics" were energy company lackeys - that doesn't work here. Or aren't you paying attention? :-?

From the article trailer --


Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

So - tell us - just why is Lindzen too stupid to live? Or is it just that you've made up your mind and don't want to be confused by facts?

Jim

spittinpigeon
04-10-2007, 03:18
Gee - you used to claim that ALL "skeptics" were energy company lackeys - that doesn't work here. Or aren't you paying attention? :-?

From the article trailer --



So - tell us - just why is Lindzen too stupid to live? Or is it just that you've made up your mind and don't want to be confused by facts?

Jim



I forgot what the difference between big energy companies and the government was.... Oh ya, there isn't one. Does Cheney/Enron ring a bell?

camojack
04-10-2007, 04:09
And you can stick your head in the sand and pretend that everything's just peachy, the scientists (except for Lindzen and his gang) are all wrong, no reason to be alarmed....

:sun Can't attack the message, attack the messenger. :sun

Ad hominem, anyone?

:confused: Damn, it's cold for April... :confused:

Two Speed
04-10-2007, 05:49
:sun Can't attack the message, attack the messenger. :sun

Ad hominem, anyone?

:confused: Damn, it's cold for April... :confused:Lindzen is taken seriously by the vast majority of climate specialists. There are always a few folks that don't agree when the subject is more complicated than basic math. As examples there was at least one dim bulb who stated explicitly that kudzu could be eradicated easily, there were physicians that thought that exposure to radium was just fine and let's not forget the company shills that still doubt whether or not tobacco use is associated with increased incidence of cancer. Believe those folks if you want to. I don't.

SGT Rock
04-10-2007, 17:08
Actually any of those sorts of things could go either way. Continental drift was not widely accepted when it first came out. All scientists had a consensus that the continents were fixed and immovable. Any evidence that they were once somewhere else was discounted.

Science has to have some debate or dissenting opinions or we can go back to the dark ages where the world was figured out and anyone that disagreed with the consensus was burned.

Tha Wookie
04-10-2007, 17:40
MIT Scientist puts global warming in perspective....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/


I can refute this. In fact, he is so fundamentally wrong on so many counts that I'm suprised such an esteemed scientific journal such as Newsweek even published it. Someone of his caliber would benefit from references. Like a single reference. This is just some guy talking from his desk. Just because he might not be funded by Enron does not exclude him from political motivation. If he is scientifically motivated, then where is the science?

First, his assertion that scientists model scenarios on a static representation of the earth's climate is troublesome. He insinuates that global warming (while not really saying so) is a natural cycle. That might be a good arguement in a different context, but since we are in a natural cooling period, his implications are unfounded. The natural cooling cycle is already overridden by anthropogenic influence. Scientists do in fact account for a changing climate, which so far has been regulated by natural services, yet continues to warm.

Second, the reason the temperatures have not risen corresponding with the CO2 increase is because our earth is regulated by the thermal mass of the oceans, which has a high specific temperature. They will increase, given the CO2 levels. I'm shocked that professor in climate at MIT does not acknowledge this well-known fact.

Third, he says the risk of sea level rise is overblown, citing the chance of earthquakes. Now he is a geologist. Yet any geologist will tell you that we do not have any control over earthquakes, and that they are extremely difficult if not impossible to predict. Since he is conveniently ignorant about the above mentioned specific heat issue in the seas, he might not honestly realize how underblown the potential effects are. Yet somehow I doubt that.

He obviously is not a marine scientist. In the sea, we already see dramatic impacts of global warming. Coral bleaching is a newly widespread phenomenon, which has turned many prolific species into endangered (such as with Acropora palmata in the Caribbean). The effects are already drastic, but they have not yet made it obvious enough for many people.

Lindzen might be unique for scientist global warming skeptics in that his research is not directly funded by an oil company, but he clearly benefits from his Newsweek column. This one is certainly news to many, although not to scientists. That's what the peer-reviewed process is for. Which makes me wonder why he would present unsupported comments to the at-large public.

Finally, if he is not comfortable with weather report models, then I wonder why his field uses them so much, obviously to the benefit of society. Although global warming models are obviously much more complex and inclusive of longer-term patterns, he compares them as if if there was little difference. It would have been more acurate for him to compare global warming models with the same models used that accurately predict longer-term changes, like an el nino or la nina. Obviously, we see that conditions can in fact give us a pretty good picture of the future, with a degree of unknown variability. Any good scientist reveals the unknowns in a research project. He did this, but I'm not sure if it was on purpose.

As for me, I read the sky and also use weather reports before camping. Like this past weekend, when temperatures dropped to record lows in the North Georgia mountains. Thanks to my own little research based on climatology models, my party and I were quite well-prepared for the sudden climate change.

Two Speed
04-10-2007, 18:55
Lindzen is taken seriously by the vast majority of climate specialists. . .Smoking this thing over, and realized that I left the word "not" out of my first sentence. Should be "Lindzen is not taken seriously by the vast majority of climate specialists . . . "

oso loco
04-11-2007, 03:22
He insinuates that global warming (while not really saying so) is a natural cycle. That might be a good arguement in a different context, but since we are in a natural cooling period, his implications are unfounded. The natural cooling cycle is already overridden by anthropogenic influence. Scientists do in fact account for a changing climate, which so far has been regulated by natural services, yet continues to warm.
<snip>
As for me, I read the sky and also use weather reports before camping. Like this past weekend, when temperatures dropped to record lows in the North Georgia mountains. Thanks to my own little research based on climatology models, my party and I were quite well-prepared for the sudden climate change.

Uh - wrong - on all counts. Haven't seen that much BS in one place since I last debated this subject with TT.

"Cooling cycle"? The planet has been in a warming cycle for the last 400 years. Where have you been? :-?

"sudden climate change"? Really???? Climate change is long term - what you experienced was "weather". If you're gonna use the words then use them properly.

For the rest of your arguments - well, you need to do a whole lot of research cause every paragraph (and sometimes every sentence) had major errors of fact. I'd strongly suggest that you learn something about the hisory of science. It might give you a clue about what "science" is - and how it works. I believe I suggested that to someone else several years ago - he seems to have ignored the suggestion. I expect you will, too.

You might also consider that articles written for mass media magazines are rarely, if ever, provided with references. If you want the references, then go to "real" science publications, but don't demand them (and dis the author for not providing them) when they're neither necessary nor appropriate.

BTW - assuming that your knowledge overrides that of someone who's actually a REAL scientist -- well, that's arrogance.

BTW again - I know Lindzen - I worked with him 20 years ago. Your assumptions are just that - assumptions based in ignorance.

In any case, I'll say 'bye' - for now. I'll be hiking. But I'll be back - sooner or later. :D

rafe
04-11-2007, 08:13
In any case, I'll say 'bye' - for now. I'll be hiking. But I'll be back - sooner or later. :D

Bye, Bun-Bun. It's been real. As for cites for all that trash... got any? :rolleyes:

Tha Wookie
04-11-2007, 15:24
In any case, I'll say 'bye' - for now. I'll be hiking. But I'll be back - sooner or later. :D

Welcome to Whiteblaze.

All of the information I used in my rebuttal is from recent lectures last month from renowned scientist Steve Hubbell, who cited his references to us in the lecture.

Perhaps this will help clear things up for you:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070409/full/446706a.html

I stand by every point I made. If you would like to argue them, or coment on the Nature article, please be my guest.

The only part you actually responded to was my sarcastic use of the word climate for the weekend change of weather. The point was that Lindzen compared weather and climate models in a faulty context. Mine was that while neither are exact, they both are useful.

Don't worry, there's always second impressions.

rafe
04-11-2007, 15:46
Welcome to Whiteblaze.

I suspect "oso loco" isn't a newbie at all, but an old-timer operating under an alias. His MO is to drop a bomb and scurry off, to attend to "more pressing matters."

oso loco
04-11-2007, 23:51
Bye, Bun-Bun. It's been real. As for cites for all that trash... got any? :rolleyes:

I see you're still stuck in the "preconceptual science" rut.

Might want to watch how you talk about bunbun, though -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ez5QPW-ku4&eurl= :D

What trash, TT?

Oh yeah - it's trash if you don't have an answer for it, isn't it. :rolleyes:

BTW - weren't you the one who was so insistent on the validity of the "hockey stick" a few years ago? Have you figured out yet that it's been discredited for the most of the same reasons I pointed out to you on the TA list? :banana

Not to worry - I only get email access about once a week so there won't be any looong conversations.

camojack
04-12-2007, 00:48
Lindzen compared weather and climate models in a faulty context. Mine was that while neither are exact, they both are useful.

Actually, I think it's an excellent point; we still cannot predict the weather for a week in advance with any real accuracy, yet with computer modeling some people are trying to tell us what the global climate will be like 50 years hence.

:sun Anti Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm) :sun
(There's a LOT of good information here)


Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.
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.

oso loco
04-12-2007, 01:12
Welcome to Whiteblaze.

All of the information I used in my rebuttal is from recent lectures last month from renowned scientist Steve Hubbell, who cited his references to us in the lecture.

Perhaps this will help clear things up for you:

http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070409/full/446706a.html

I stand by every point I made. If you would like to argue them, or coment on the Nature article, please be my guest.

The only part you actually responded to was my sarcastic use of the word climate for the weekend change of weather. The point was that Lindzen compared weather and climate models in a faulty context. Mine was that while neither are exact, they both are useful.

Don't worry, there's always second impressions.

I haven't been here for a couple years - partly for lack of time - and partly for lack of interest. But we don't need to expand on that right now, do we?

You missed a few things - I responded to your points about the necessity for references in a mass media article. BTW - where are the references in the article you quoted? I also responded to your contention that the planet is in a cooliing cycle. No reputable scientist that I know would support that contention - and I know a lot of them. FYI - I was the science operations engineer for the Nimbus, Landsat and UARS spacecraft programs for the best part of 42 years. Meaning specifically that I worked directly with the scientists in the data collection, dissemination and analysis processes.

Now for just a few of your points -
1. Lindzen did NOT say most of what you imputed to him. You need to read more carefully - MUCH more carefully - before you start quoting people. If someone misquoted you that badly, I think you'd have a real problem with it. And rightfully so.
2. Warming/cooling is well known to be a cyclical function for which we have insufficient data. At least one of the cycles is a 1500 year cycle. There are others that superimpose on that one - and possibly still others that the 1500 year cycle is imposed upon.
3. Recent research has shown that - AT A MINIMUM - 25% of the present warming is directly due to increased solar output. Recent estimates are that it's higher - much higher.
4. The article in question has no requirement whatever to be peer reviewed. Peer review is reserved for formal scientific papers - not mass media articles. You should learn a little more about the process before trying to disparage someone with false facts - in legal terms that's called slander although you're not likely be prosecuted for it in this context.
5. The most hysterical evidence for massive sea level rise comes only from the past Executive Summaries of the IPCC reports and some few unscrupulous "science writers" trying to fan the flames of hysteria. And those Executive Summaries are written by politicians --- FOR politicians. The body of the IPCC reports have consistently failed from the beginning to support the overblown contentions of the Executive Summaries much less those of the hysteria merchants. More than that - each successive IPCC report reduces the previously projected impacts of warming. I haven't seen the latest IPCC data yet, but I've been told that the predictions of disaster have been significant'ly scaled back.
6. Computer simulations - are what the IPCC reports are based on - and most of the simulation results that show up in the IPCC reports are carefully vetted to support only the most extreme results. Those who would provide a balanced view ( like Lindzen and others) are excluded from the process. Do I need to expand on how that biases the data and results? Or how it invalidates the final results of the process?
7. Why is it so hard to understand that the entire process - the entire Global Warming/Climate Change debate started as a wild-ass idea that grew to present proportions only because of the support of political opportunists? Claiming that it's not a "political" debate is just too stupid for words. Worse than that - along the way it's morphed into a religious debate. You think not? Just look at the passion that some people put into it. And the frankly questionable science that they use to support their ideas.
8. Questionable science? Yep - just go back to the "hockey stick" that was used to justify the first few IPCC reports. It's called the "Mann curve" - and it was obviously totally bogus right from the beginning because it totally ignored known historical events and conditions. Since then it's also been proved to be mathematically invalid.
9. Oh yeah - weather predictions - I've spent 8 of the last 12 months outdoors and weather predicitons are no more than 40% right - if that. Assuming that long term climate predictions can or will be more accurate than that is --- foolish. We can discuss "simulation techniques" some other time.

There's more - but I think that's enough to start with.

No - I'm not gonna give you references. All my stuff is in storage back on the East Coast - and I'm in Arizona. You want references, go to the articles and authors that you so glibly dismiss - and try actually reading what they have to say. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than you think. And certainly more than you've been told.

Of course if you're one of those people who believe that only "your" scientists know what they're talking about, then you fail entirely to understand the process of "science." Just to give you something to think about, here's a relevant passage from a book on the history of physical chemistry - it's directly applicable to EVERY branch of science - including the "climate change" debate:


Because the subject of physical chemistry is the study of objects you can’t always see, undergoing changes you can’t always measure, and behaving in ways you can’t always predict, physical chemistry has a long history of encountering contentious resistance to the paradigm shifts it has proposed. Therefore the study of the history of physical chemistry is instructive because it cautions us to examine our ideas carefully and take care that we do not impose previously held beliefs on newly acquired data. History always teaches that we must always question our assumptions and even authority. When it comes to science, skepticism is healthy. To appreciate or participate in the advancement of science, we must be prepared to revise, sometimes drastically, our perception of the universe. (p20)

From – Magick, Mayhem, and Mavericks by Dr. Cathy Cobb

Are you capable of that kind of revision of perception? Are you capable of gathering the data from BOTH sides of an argument (including "climate change") and reaching a balanced point of view? Some people are - some aren't. And I'm not the one who decides. You are.

Enuff - for now, I'm done. I'm going hiking tomorrow - and the next day - and nearly every day for the next several months. I won't have time for inane arguments. Maybe I'll see you at the Gathering.

Tha Wookie
04-12-2007, 02:33
Have a great hike.

Here's an actual scientific reference for you to check out of the Haiwassee library. Doesn't it just make you giddy inside?

To answer your earlier question. I wasn't around 400 years ago for the relatively recent change in temperatures but my ancestors were. They were the ones who started the industrial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution).



Global warming and human activity: A model for
studying the potential instability of the carbon
dioxide/temperature feedback mechanism
Alessio Alexiadis
UCY-CompSci, European Marie Curie Transfer of Knowledge Center (TOK-DEV) for the Computational Sciences, Department of
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering , University of Cyprus, 75 Kallipoleos St, PO Box 20537, 1678 Nicosia, CYPRUS
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 27 March 2006
Received in revised form
17 November 2006
Accepted 20 November 2006
Published on line 8 January 2007
Keywords:
Global warming
Climate change
Greenhouse effect
a b s t r a c t
In this paper, control theory is used to study the connection between human activities and
global warming. A feedback model is proposed and tested against temperature and carbon
dioxide concentration historical data. Four scenarios are taken into account and simulated
by the model; stability analysis is also discussed. The model proposed here simulates the
historical data correctly and the scenarios show that, even in the case of dramatic reduc-
tion of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission, the temperature will not decrease for a
certain time. Stability analysis reveals a complex pole near the unit circle. This means that,
although the system at the moment is stable, it is very close to becoming unstable with
unpredictable consequences on climate change.

rafe
04-12-2007, 07:42
:sun Anti Global Warming Petition Project (http://www.oism.org/pproject/pproject.htm) :sun


The petition was a fraud. It was a mass mailing sent out in 1998 by Fred Seitz. It was designed to look like it was produced by the National Academy of Science but the NAS has summarily denied any connection with the project. Here's a link (http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html) (and another (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html)) with more info debunking this "project" including the NAS commentary.

It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz - as he had just reminded his correspondents - was once president.

Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: "The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited - by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others - as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

rafe
04-12-2007, 07:46
BTW - weren't you the one who was so insistent on the validity of the "hockey stick" a few years ago?

Nope. Never once mentioned a "hockey stick." But I have mentioned the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/) on numerous occasions and will continue to do so. Have a nice hike.

Jester2000
04-12-2007, 17:58
. . . along the way it's morphed into a religious debate. You think not? Just look at the passion that some people put into it. And the frankly questionable science that they use to support their ideas.


I often wonder why some people want to ascribe a religious nature to anything people feel passionate about. This was going on just a short bit ago when Coulter's book "Godless" came out (she was referring specifically to liberalism; she claimed it was a secular religion).

Is it that some people themselves care passionately only about their religion (and so have no concept of passion regarding other things)? I don't know. I doubt it, but it makes me wonder.

I think you could fairly say that it's like a religion, I suppose. But then again, you could say that about my relationship to cheese. Or accordions.

Tha Wookie
04-12-2007, 19:00
There is certainly no faith stonger in this country than that of the status quo.

saimyoji
04-12-2007, 19:20
There is certainly no faith stonger in this country than that of the status quo.

Could be said of masses of people in most places. Path of least resistance...and all that.

Tha Wookie
04-12-2007, 19:28
Could be said of masses of people in most places. Path of least resistance...and all that.

Good point. Although I've only been to about 5 other countries so I couldn't say for sure.

bito7
04-13-2007, 17:31
The earth may be warming but not very much and not because of us... just like it has cooled and warmed in the past (ice ages). Al Gore says that there is a consensus in the scientific community... huh... there are about the same amount on both sides and some people in the scientific community weren't even asked. He has redefined consensus as "all that share his view = consensus". Then he has the nerve to say "i need to change my ways" but he won't commit to any such changes.... some carbon offset bs. It is difficult to argue with the gw crowd because they blame absolutely every weather event on global warming. Colder? GW. Warmer? GW. Too much snow? GW. Not enough snow? GW. Too many hurricanes?GW. Not enough hurricanes?GW. It can't all be because of gw.

rafe
04-13-2007, 18:51
The earth may be warming but not very much and not because of us... just like it has cooled and warmed in the past (ice ages). Al Gore says that there is a consensus in the scientific community... huh... there are about the same amount on both sides...

Nope, that's just plain wrong. Show me one major scientific body that's on record as agreeing with you. The "controversy" is mostly manufactured.

weary
04-13-2007, 20:27
The earth may be warming but not very much and not because of us... just like it has cooled and warmed in the past (ice ages). Al Gore says that there is a consensus in the scientific community... huh... there are about the same amount on both sides and some people in the scientific community weren't even asked. He has redefined consensus as "all that share his view = consensus". Then he has the nerve to say "i need to change my ways" but he won't commit to any such changes.... some carbon offset bs. It is difficult to argue with the gw crowd because they blame absolutely every weather event on global warming. Colder? GW. Warmer? GW. Too much snow? GW. Not enough snow? GW. Too many hurricanes?GW. Not enough hurricanes?GW. It can't all be because of gw.
Ah! A group of less than wise opinions. Non of which srike me as being based on any facts that I'm aware of.

Particularly absurd is your claim that "there are about the same amount (of scientists) on both sides and some people in the scientific community weren't even asked."

In case you haven't noticed, there is no roster of folks in the "scientific community." Scientists by the nature of their trade post in scientific journals. Few are begged to submit information. Submitting information is a part of what scientists do. They investigate, submit the results of their investigation for peer review, and I assume hope someone will tell them where they are right -- or wrong so as to get on with their careers.

Among scientists who have been studying global warming, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that most think that it is happening and that humans tend to be responsible.

If you have evidence to the contrary, let us know.

Weary

Tin Man
04-14-2007, 00:42
The following viewpoints are simply mine:

1) Adding copious amounts of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere cannot be a good thing.
2) Too many focus only on emissions and do not consider the effects of natural heat absorptive features such as dirt/trees/etc. being replaced by reflective heat-producing materials such as concrete/asphalt/glass/etc.
3) The excessive hot air passed between seemingly intelligent people on the subject is only adding to the problem.
4) Doing nothing about 1 and 2 is probably not a good thing.
5) Taking drastic steps about 1 and 2 is probably a worse thing.
6) Reasonable, incremental steps to increase energy efficiencies; reduce emissions and deforestation; manage urban sprawl; and discover/utilize building materials that capture energy rather than reflect it back into the atmosphere are among the things that should be the focal points of discussion and scientific progress. In the end I believe this approach can and will prevail, if people would simply accept the basic notion that human activity will deplete our natural resources if we continue to hide our heads in the sand.
7) I seriously doubt anyone is changing anyone's views here. So since I don't want to add any more hot air to the problem, I have nothing more to say on the subject.

bito7
04-14-2007, 00:57
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0

camojack
04-14-2007, 03:54
The petition was a fraud. It was a mass mailing sent out in 1998 by Fred Seitz. It was designed to look like it was produced by the National Academy of Science but the NAS has summarily denied any connection with the project. Here's a link (http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html) (and another (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1875762,00.html)) with more info debunking this "project" including the NAS commentary.
Simply because a couple of extremist websites claim that the petition was a fraud doesn't make it so.

Just because something is posted on the Internet (http://www.theonion.com/content/), that doesn't automatically make it true.

I say those sites are extremist because:

One of them claims that at least one of the authors of the report that accompanied the petition is guilty as a "FELONY conspirator in
attempted MASS MURDER by Weather Chaos"...just for being such a heretic as to be skeptical about "global warming", and writing about it.

The other site has an article to the effect that "Planting trees to offset carbon emissions could contribute to global warming, scientists believe." (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2053447,00.html)

To anyone who believes that hokum, I have a (very nice!) bridge to sell.
(Trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere)

Seitz did indeed mass mail his report and petition, in the wake of a Congressional vote on Kyoto Protocol.

A little history lesson:
In 1997 (during the Clinton/Gore administration), the Senate voted unanimously to oppose any agreement that would, like the protocol, require significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in America and some other developed nations but that would involve no "specific scheduled commitments" for 129 "developing" countries, including the second-, fourth-, 10th-, 11th-, 13th- and 15th-largest economies (China, India, Brazil, South Korea, Mexico and Indonesia).

The petition included some findings and conclusions; recipients were encouraged to review the materials and sign the petition if they agreed. Many thousands (19,000+ at last count) did just that.

For the record, I am certainly not opposed to doing everything within reason to reduce humanity's impact on the planet...but not at the cost of wrecking the economy.

Call me a capitalist; I can take it...

rafe
04-14-2007, 08:05
Simply because a couple of extremist websites claim that the petition was a fraud doesn't make it so.

Seitz packaged and presented the petition, and his paper, as a production of The National Academy of Science. Subsequently, The NAS went out of their way to disavow it. If not outright fraud, it's certainly deceptive and dissembling.

The fact that Seitz and dozens of "skeptic" websites have repeated and promulgated this nine-year-old lie (and you dutifully played your part) is what makes it all the more tragic. This is how the Republican Noise Machine works. It's the sort of thing that Drudge and Limbaugh and Fox News do every day.

Jimmers
04-14-2007, 09:17
The other site has an article to the effect that "Planting trees to offset carbon emissions could contribute to global warming, scientists believe." (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2053447,00.html)

To anyone who believes that hokum, I have a (very nice!) bridge to sell.
(Trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere)

Didn't even bother to read the article, did you? Not that you'll read it, but here's the complete article. 1692 Turns out that as usual there's more at work than common sense would sugest.

Jimmers
04-14-2007, 09:56
Just for fun, feel free to go to the Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences website. here's the link: http://www.pnas.org/contents-by-date.0.shtml

Now try and find, in the archives section, any reference to Seitz or his petition, or the "scientific article" he cites in his oregon petition, "The Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide." It could take you a while, since the archive covers everything ever published since 1915 by the NAS.

Frustrated yet? It was never published or peer reviewed, except in that oregon petition. Look at the credentials of the scientists who wrote it. One biochemist , two astrophysicists, and one Zachary W. Robinson with no apparent credentials. Not exactly a balanced selection for a paper on the environment.

camojack
04-14-2007, 11:16
Didn't even bother to read the article, did you? Not that you'll read it, but here's the complete article. Turns out that as usual there's more at work than common sense would sugest.

Actually, I did read it...and thanks for making my point; things are not as simple as some people try to make them out to be.
(Take this whole climate change thing, for example)

:sun BTW, it's a REALLY nice bridge. :sun

Here, try this on for size:
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml)

Nightwalker
04-15-2007, 06:03
But then again, you could say that about my relationship to cheese. Or accordions.

Or accordion-playing, cheese-eating, double-amputee barmaids, hmmm?

Just saying...

Jester2000
04-15-2007, 18:00
Or accordion-playing, cheese-eating, double-amputee barmaids, hmmm?

Just saying...

My God. Do you know where I can find one of those?

Nightwalker
04-15-2007, 20:23
My God. Do you know where I can find one of those?

Depends on what you're willing to spend...

How much ya got?

weary
04-15-2007, 20:40
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oZrhG2iT3H0


Good satire illuminates truth. Bad encourages ignorance.

Jimmers
04-15-2007, 21:09
Actually, I did read it...and thanks for making my point; things are not as simple as some people try to make them out to be.
(Take this whole climate change thing, for example)

BTW, it's a REALLY nice bridge.

Here, try this on for size:
Climate chaos? Don't believe it (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml)

So let me get this straight, your sole objection to the article is the (obvious, common sense) fact that trees absorb carbon dioxide? A fact which was taken into account in the models in the study, and is the exact kind of common sense I was referring to? Trees absorbing co2 is only one part of the equation; heat input is what drives the entire process. The amount of heat absorbed into Earth's atmosphere is directly related to albedo, which the presence or absence of trees modifies.

Simply put, you just don't like the idea, so you're calling it hokum. That's a compelling argument.:rolleyes:

I did like the "Climate chaos? Dont believe it" article. That was well thought out and reasoned. Too bad the rebutal to it was essentialy printed in 2005 here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
Hockey stick's played out.

Tin man was right with his point #7, no one's going to change anyone's mind here on this thread. But then I have been known to argue just for argument's sake.:D

Oh, and I'll take that bridge if it's still for sale. Might be usefull as an offshore resort in a 100 years. My grandkids might enjoy it. (Assuming I can find a woman who enjoys arguing with me):sun

Jimmers
04-15-2007, 21:12
My God. Do you know where I can find one of those?

I met one in Nova Scotia! Ok, so she was just really short, but she played accordion and was French. They love cheese, right?:sun

camojack
04-16-2007, 01:28
I did like the "Climate chaos? Dont believe it" article. That was well thought out and reasoned. Too bad the rebutal to it was essentialy printed in 2005 here:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/what-if-the-hockey-stick-were-wrong/
Hockey stick's played out.

Tin man was right with his point #7, no one's going to change anyone's mind here on this thread. But then I have been known to argue just for argument's sake.:D

Oh, and I'll take that bridge if it's still for sale. Might be usefull as an offshore resort in a 100 years. My grandkids might enjoy it. (Assuming I can find a woman who enjoys arguing with me):sun

If you liked Monckton's article in the Telegraph, maybe you'll like his more recent offering: Apocalypse cancelled (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=5OCCYTRLLOURTQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUI V0) :sun

Arguing for argument's sake is just asinine. I used to date a gal like that.
(Note emphasis on "used to")

As I've said previously:
"The usual suspects here (and elsewhere) probably would've been equally vehement about the coming Ice Age theories being promoted in the 70's; some of them probably were..." (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showpost.php?p=350508&postcount=72)
(If you're 35, you're too young to remember the Newsweek article (http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm))

I'm not opposed to doing things "greener"...but the alarmists have been oscillating back and forth since 1895, at least.

Regarding the bridge, the only one I really have is only 8' long and spans a drainage ditch in order to access the mailbox for "La Casa de Camo".
(My rambling estate)

For the right price, it's yours, but I don't think it'd make much of a resort... :eek:

minnesotasmith
04-16-2007, 02:46
About 500 years (or so) ago, the consensus in the scientific community was that the Earth was flat.

Also, that the Sun (:sun ) orbited around same.

So much for consensus... :eek:

500 years ago there essentially were no scientists, not as we understand the term today.

Two definitions of "what is a scientist" I find apt:

American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) sci·en·tist
n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html)
sci·en·tist an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Cookerhiker
04-16-2007, 08:21
Sometimes it seems like half the skeptics on White Blaze feel the way they do because they don't like or trust Al Gore or enviro groups. Never mind the fact that many businesses are also concerned now about global warming as well as other less-conservative sources, now we have some admirals & generals. This was reported on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9580815) this morning which included an interview with General Zinni.

Tha Wookie
04-16-2007, 10:37
500 years ago there essentially were no scientists, not as we understand the term today.

Two definitions of "what is a scientist" I find apt:

American Heritage Dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html) sci·en·tist
n. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna.html)
sci·en·tist an expert in science, esp. one of the physical or natural sciences.

Actually, many historians believe that Pythagoras of Samos (circa 500 BC) or his earliest disciples (who credited all their findings to Pythagoras) were the origins of what we know today as a "scientist."

Pythagoras is also often credited as the first philosopher, mathematition, and the creator of music theory. If you're interested, check out the book "Music of the Spheres."

That was 2,500 years ago.

rafe
04-16-2007, 10:48
Actually, many historians believe that Pythagoras of Samos (circa 500 BC) or his earliest disciples (who credited all their findings to Pythagoras) were the origins of what we know today as a "scientist."

Pythagoras notwithstanding, the fact is that anything resembling "science" in Europe between, say, 700 AD and 1500 AD was ruthlessly suppressed by the Catholic Church if the "science" conflicted in any way with Catholic doctrine. IMO, modern science begins with people like Copernicus and Galileo, but the real blossoming didn't happen till the 17th century, with Newton, Kepler, Liebniz, Lavoisier, et. al.

Nightwalker
04-16-2007, 14:19
Good satire illuminates truth. Bad encourages ignorance.

And some gots no sense of humor so as to know the difference...

Tha Wookie
04-16-2007, 18:16
Pythagoras notwithstanding, the fact is that anything resembling "science" in Europe between, say, 700 AD and 1500 AD was ruthlessly suppressed by the Catholic Church if the "science" conflicted in any way with Catholic doctrine. IMO, modern science begins with people like Copernicus and Galileo, but the real blossoming didn't happen till the 17th century, with Newton, Kepler, Liebniz, Lavoisier, et. al.

Of course, by definition, the "modern" science is "modern." But that doesn't mean science or scientists didn't exist.

Interesting, because the book I mention above claims that science today asks very small questions, and that most of the more important questions have not been asked in quite some time (that is basically ended with Newton, with small flashes seen last with Einstein)

rafe
04-16-2007, 18:29
Interesting, because the book I mention above claims that science today asks very small questions...

Gosh, do you really think so? I don't buy that, but I haven't read the book you're refering to.

We know so much more about the universe now... even since Einstein's death in 1952. Both at the macro level (sub-sub-atomic) and at the galactic level.

I dunno, there are still questions galore. Dark matter? Black holes? Protein folding? Climate change? Mechanisms of aging?

Maybe what you're saying is that there haven't been as many "earth-shattering" inventions or discoveries, as there were, say, between 1850 and 1950. That might be true. OTOH, the Internet might be one of those, and we're only now beginning to appreciate its impact.

Fifteen years ago, it was not commonplace for ordinary (first world, middle-class) humans to communicate by email or surf the web.

Dances with Mice
04-16-2007, 18:34
IMO, modern science begins with people like Copernicus and Galileo, but the real blossoming didn't happen till the 17th century, with Newton, Kepler, Liebniz, Lavoisier, et. al.Lip*****z. Don't forget Lip****z (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lip*****z_continuity). He may not be in the same class or era as Newton et al., but with a name like that you just can't forget him.

All those summbiches killed our whole 'lead into gold' racket. Up till then, jugglers could earn a pretty good living.

Nightwalker
04-16-2007, 21:51
Of course, by definition, the "modern" science is "modern." But that doesn't mean science or scientists didn't exist.

Interesting, because the book I mention above claims that science today asks very small questions, and that most of the more important questions have not been asked in quite some time (that is basically ended with Newton, with small flashes seen last with Einstein)

All of the important discoveries have been made already. (Paraphrase from a patent department official around 1900.)

weary
04-17-2007, 10:17
....Maybe what you're saying is that there haven't been as many "earth-shattering" inventions or discoveries, as there were, say, between 1850 and 1950. That might be true. OTOH, the Internet might be one of those, and we're only now beginning to appreciate its impact......
Yup. That's another reason to criticize Al Gore's promotion of the internet -- it's growth has coincided with an increase in ignorance. In the mid 70s 75 percent of americans knew the name of their vice president. Today only 69 percent know that cheney is vice president. Fewer still know which party currently control the US Congress.

Weary

weary
04-17-2007, 10:19
I suspect "oso loco" isn't a newbie at all, but an old-timer operating under an alias. His MO is to drop a bomb and scurry off, to attend to "more pressing matters."
Some of us know him as "Jimmy"

MOWGLI
04-17-2007, 20:53
This evening I conducted an interview with the Carolina Mountain Club president Lenny Bernstein. Lenny has been involved with the issue of climate change for 18 years. Until 1999 he worked for Exxon-Mobil, and since then he has been attending the IPCC meetings.

To listen to this 27 minute interview, please visit the following link;
http://americanhiking.chattablogs.com/archives/047646.html

Enjoy!

Skidsteer
04-17-2007, 21:38
This evening I conducted an interview with the Carolina Mountain Club president Lenny Bernstein. Lenny has been involved with the issue of climate change for 18 years. Until 1999 he worked for Exxon-Mobil, and since then he has been attending the IPCC meetings.

To listen to this 27 minute interview, please visit the following link;
http://americanhiking.chattablogs.com/archives/047646.html

Enjoy!

That was really interesting. Thank you for posting it.

Tha Wookie
04-18-2007, 01:08
There is a debate between two forestry professors this thursday at UGA. Sounds like fun.

Let me know if anyone in the area wants to go.

oso loco
04-21-2007, 20:54
To answer your earlier question. I wasn't around 400 years ago for the relatively recent change in temperatures but my ancestors were. They were the ones who started the industrial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution).

Global warming and human activity: A model for
studying the potential instability of the carbon
dioxide/temperature feedback mechanism

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, control theory is used to study the connection between human activities and
global warming. A feedback model is proposed and tested against temperature and carbon
dioxide concentration historical data. Four scenarios are taken into account and simulated
by the model; stability analysis is also discussed. The model proposed here simulates the
historical data correctly and the scenarios show that, even in the case of dramatic reduc-
tion of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission, the temperature will not decrease for a
certain time. Stability analysis reveals a complex pole near the unit circle. This means that,
although the system at the moment is stable, it is very close to becoming unstable with
unpredictable consequences on climate change.

I wasn't around 400 years ago either - although there are some people who think I was. But the "industrial revolution" wasn't around then either. 400 years ago one of my ancestors was sacking Panama with Morgan's pirates. Not industrial revolution stuff. At least not in any way that would relate to GW. :D

Um - your reference - cites a simulation study. Lemme tell you about simulation studies - the short version is that they're still a work in progress. The supercomputer farm that's supposed to give us sufficient computing power to answer ALL(??) the questions is still being built in WV. After it's built it will take several (maybe 10 ?) years to be completely operational. ALL other simulations have been done on computers that have insufficient power/memory to take into account all the different factors necessary to provide the results that are being claimed by the GW religionists.

I think you should also realize that a sensitivity analysis depends entirely on the parameters - and the range of values CHOSEN for those parameters. Failure to include any of the relevant factors - or use of an incorrect value for any parameter - will result in incorrect results. The problem here is that ALL of the parameters necessary for this kind of analysis are not yet known - and the proper ranges of parameter values are also still being investigated.

For example - What is the overall effect of the increase in solar output on warming? Or better yet - what is the effect of the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field? Both of those are factors that haven't included in most previous simulations. And the second question has yet to even be evaluated by any reputable scientist.

None of that means in any way that the work should be stopped - after all, it provides many scientists with something to occupy their time. And only by continuing to refine their results will we ever get to the "real" answers. But we're not there yet.

Note please that I did not - nor have I ever - denigrated the efforts of those who work toward proving your viewpoint. Science REQUIRES opposing viewpoints - otherwise it isn't science - it's opinion.

oso loco
04-21-2007, 20:54
To answer your earlier question. I wasn't around 400 years ago for the relatively recent change in temperatures but my ancestors were. They were the ones who started the industrial revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution).

Global warming and human activity: A model for
studying the potential instability of the carbon
dioxide/temperature feedback mechanism

a b s t r a c t
In this paper, control theory is used to study the connection between human activities and
global warming. A feedback model is proposed and tested against temperature and carbon
dioxide concentration historical data. Four scenarios are taken into account and simulated
by the model; stability analysis is also discussed. The model proposed here simulates the
historical data correctly and the scenarios show that, even in the case of dramatic reduc-
tion of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emission, the temperature will not decrease for a
certain time. Stability analysis reveals a complex pole near the unit circle. This means that,
although the system at the moment is stable, it is very close to becoming unstable with
unpredictable consequences on climate change.

I wasn't around 400 years ago either - although there are some people who think I was. But the "industrial revolution" wasn't around then either. 400 years ago one of my ancestors was sacking Panama with Morgan's pirates. Not industrial revolution stuff. At least not in any way that would relate to GW. :D

Um - your reference - cites a simulation study. Lemme tell you about simulation studies - the short version is that they're still a work in progress. The supercomputer farm that's supposed to give us sufficient computing power to answer ALL(??) the questions is still being built in WV. After it's built it will take several (maybe 10 ?) years to be completely operational. ALL other simulations have been done on computers that have insufficient power/memory to take into account all the different factors necessary to provide the results that are being claimed by the GW religionists.

I think you should also realize that a sensitivity analysis depends entirely on the parameters - and the range of values CHOSEN for those parameters. Failure to include any of the relevant factors - or use of an incorrect value for any parameter - will result in incorrect results. The problem here is that ALL of the parameters necessary for this kind of analysis are not yet known - and the proper ranges of parameter values are also still being investigated.

For example - What is the overall effect of the increase in solar output on warming? Or better yet - what is the effect of the reduction in the Earth's magnetic field? Both of those are factors that haven't included in most previous simulations. And the second question has yet to even be evaluated by any reputable scientist.

None of that means in any way that the work should be stopped - after all, it provides many scientists with something to occupy their time. And only by continuing to refine their results will we ever get to the "real" answers. But we're not there yet.

Note please that I did not - nor have I ever - denigrated the efforts of those who work toward proving your viewpoint. Science REQUIRES opposing viewpoints - otherwise it isn't science - it's opinion.

oso loco
04-21-2007, 20:56
Sorry about the double posting - my bad.

weary
04-21-2007, 21:14
Sorry about the double posting - my bad.

Thanks, Jimmy. I always look forward to your posts.

camojack
04-22-2007, 00:46
Sorry about the double posting - my bad.

It's been an awfully cold (record-setting, in fact) April, and February was the 3rd coldest on record. We may be heading into the next cycle: cooling. The last one was from around 1940 to 1975, so we're about due.

The climate changes all the time.
(Hint: :sun )

I posted Christopher Monckton's first article on climate change (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=NVVI0TXTKWJIHQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQ UIV0?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml) already; his references and detailed calculations are detailed in this PDF download (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=5OCCYTRLLOURTQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUI V0), which includes plenty of discussion of the basic science dealing with CO2 and its impact...or lack thereof.
(It's much more in depth than the article)

His second article is:
Wrong problem, wrong solution (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/12/nclim12.xml)

That one also includes a link to a 77 page PDF of his correspondence vis-á-vis the first article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/12/warm-response3.pdf;jsessionid=VNG12BS2UQPGFQFIQMGCFF4AV CBQUIV0).

I've got more from multiple sources, but you "true believers" just don't WANT to shift your paradigm, do you? Nah...

oso loco
04-22-2007, 02:09
I often wonder why some people want to ascribe a religious nature to anything people feel passionate about. This was going on just a short bit ago when Coulter's book "Godless" came out (she was referring specifically to liberalism; she claimed it was a secular religion).

Is it that some people themselves care passionately only about their religion (and so have no concept of passion regarding other things)? I don't know. I doubt it, but it makes me wonder.

I think you could fairly say that it's like a religion, I suppose. But then again, you could say that about my relationship to cheese. Or accordions.

Nope – it IS a religion.

To define “religion” –

1. it must have a body of dogma/doctrine (whether written or oral) that its adherents accept on faith.
2. It generally has a hierarchy (read “priesthood”)
3. it usually claims to be the only true “way” and labels opposition as “skeptics”
4. many religions have or at least have attempted to kill or imprison “unbelievers”

GW meets ALL of those conditions. It IS a religion.

Cheese and accordions may well be obsessions – as well as double amputee women. But they don’t qualify as “religion”. GW does –

1. the dogma comes from the IPCC even though it changes with every successive report).
2. The priesthood ? Do I need to name names?
3. Yup – GW religionists claim their beliefs to be above question - and ignore the fact that for the last 500 years “science wouldn’t have survived or advanced without “skeptics”
4. Yup – there was a recent proposal to jail anyone who dared publish an opposing viewpoint

oso loco
04-22-2007, 02:15
Pythagoras notwithstanding, the fact is that anything resembling "science" in Europe between, say, 700 AD and 1500 AD was ruthlessly suppressed by the Catholic Church if the "science" conflicted in any way with Catholic doctrine. IMO, modern science begins with people like Copernicus and Galileo, but the real blossoming didn't happen till the 17th century, with Newton, Kepler, Liebniz, Lavoisier, et. al.

I'll agree with you about the beginning of "modern" science, but you need a better history book. Without the Catholic Church, science, along with Western civilisation, would have died under the chaos and pagan hordes of the Middle Ages. You should learn about the history of science - the conflict between science and religion that you apparently assume was a "manufactured" conflict that didn't happen until the late 19th century (1870's).

Garlic
04-22-2007, 07:19
I too am skeptical of the whole global warming thing. I am all into saving energy, going hybrid/electric, etc., but the data I have been seeing is that we are still coming out of the last ise age, which was not that long ago.

weary
04-22-2007, 09:01
.... – it IS a religion....

That's loco, Oso

Weary

Jimmers
04-22-2007, 12:27
That's loco, Oso

Weary

Well, he is named "crazy bear."

Nightwalker
04-22-2007, 14:57
That's loco, Oso

Weary

C'mon, Weary. I know that you ignore me, or act as if you do, but it bears all the hallmarks of a religion. Were it not so, you guys might have made more (ahem) converts by now.

I have no idea how much we humans add to the problem. I know that we don't help things a lot. I believe that most of us could agree that cleaning up our act would be an EXCELLENT thing, don't you?

Respectfully,
Frank Looper

Nightwalker
04-22-2007, 15:01
Well, he is named "crazy bear."

Bob and Jim have a history on AT-L. You kind of have to take that into consideration when viewing any interaction between them.

Can't you feel the love? :sun

oso loco
04-22-2007, 22:07
Bob and Jim have a history on AT-L. You kind of have to take that into consideration when viewing any interaction between them.

Can't you feel the love? :sun


LOL!!! Weary is just illustrating the truth of the following quote:

[qote]A scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. If the predictions agree with the observations, the theory survives that test, though it can never be proved to be correct. On the other hand, if the observations disagree with the predictions, one has to discard or modify the theory. (At least that is what is supposed to happen. In practice, people often question the accuracy of the observations and the reliability and moral character of those making the observations.) (p 31)
From “The Universe in a Nutshell”
by Stephen Hawking [/quote]

When one has no counter-arguments, the time-honored tactic is to revert to attacking the messenger without addressing the argument. ;)

The idea of GW being a religion is no more "loco" than the idea of taking sides in a scientific argument when you have no scientific training or background. Or, even worse, ignoring and/or slandering those who actually have scientific training and background, but don't agree with your particular bias - generally because they understand parts of the problem that you don't even know exist.

As Weary knows - I'm a skeptic because I have a fairly high level of scientific training and background - and a high degree of cynicism about his information sources.

Have a good day -

attroll
04-22-2007, 22:22
I understand that the "step it up" thread was moved from the 2007 hikers forum, but where is it? Has it been censored?

Global warming is certainly a trail related issue, and I thought there was a good discussion going on in that thread, which now seems to be inaccessible.
I believe it was moved to the Thick Skinned or the Non-AT forums.

bfitz
04-22-2007, 22:55
Might be time to consolidate all the global warming threads into one massive forum.

bfitz
04-22-2007, 23:02
Anyway, the scientists mostly agree something is happening, and data seems to bear them out. The politicians and oil companies and other forces are engaging in this charade of a debate about whether it's real or not, hyping panic while ignoring simple obvious steps to deal with it. They all have agendas. The UN has an agenda. People need to open their eyes and see the reality. There's plenty of clean alternate energy out there, but the oil companies don't want you to use them. They want you dependant on a scarce resource they control. So does Monsanto. The politicians want to encourage partisanship. How many times are we gonna fall victim to politicians fear mongering before we wake up?

bfitz
04-22-2007, 23:06
This "Is it happenning or not?" debate is the perfect cover to appear active while doing nothing. Al Gore is no better than Exxon-mobil, argueing a BS argument to further his own agenda. (election or at least the next book he's gonna write...)

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2007/02/is_global_warmi.html