Global warming and other fairy tales

[Amicustoall]

Deep freeze across nation to get colder
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/weather/01/04/cold.weather/index.html

These headlines always makes me respond the same...........well that is global warming for you!

[WeedMage]

Yes, that's why it's better to call it Climate Change. And it's no fairy tale.

[Lacey]

hyuk well gee Cletus we best be gettin them there shotguns ready for if global warming actually shows up!

[garyrulez]

Now I'm starting to feel like I'm home!

by the way, the polar ice caps over the last 4 years have EXPANDED.

Just thought I'd throw that in there, before Dayton, Ohio is a solid sheet of ice.

[garyrulez]

From what I've been seeing, this isn't just a typical cold spell. It's world wide and it's setting records in both temps and snow.

Beijing is having it's coldest temps in 40 years.
South Korea has the most snow its had in 70 years.
In Peru, people who live in the mountains have had sub-zero temps for 4 years running, and are considering abandoning their homes.
In Vermont, they've had the most snow in recorded history from one storm.
Record low temps are being set all over the U.S.

I'm actually getting a little worried here.

[therealshell]

It has been unusually bleak here in Arizona....

[Amicustoall]

Perhaps instead of global warming we should be worried that this is hell freezing over!

[just blame craig]

From what I've been seeing, this isn't just a typical cold spell. It's world wide and it's setting records in both temps and snow.

Beijing is having it's coldest temps in 40 years.
South Korea has the most snow its had in 70 years.
In Peru, people who live in the mountains have had sub-zero temps for 4 years running, and are considering abandoning their homes.
In Vermont, they've had the most snow in recorded history from one storm.
Record low temps are being set all over the U.S.

I'm actually getting a little worried here.

You keep spreading the word Gary and I will throw all my money into winter coats. We'll make a fortune and be able to fly in our private jet everywhere to spread the word faster!

[garyrulez]

That sounds fine, Craig, except that I'm pretty sure our private jet is contributing to all this cooling.

[just blame craig]

That sounds fine, Craig, except that I'm pretty sure our private jet is contributing to all this cooling.

well yea, of coarse it is. How else do you expect to make money off it?

[garyrulez]

Great point! Man, I wish I had a private jet for real- I'd jet down to south Florida where it's up in the high 30's right now. I could get warm.

[PolyesterAngel]

Yes, that's why it's better to call it Climate Change. And it's no fairy tale.

Exactly.

The climate IS changing. Whether this is a natural period of "deep freeze" or it's due to humans, I don't know (I'm not familiar enough with all the research to comment on that aspect), but it is happening.

[Amicustoall]

Isn't climate by its very nature always changing?

[Lacey]

Exactly.

The climate IS changing. Whether this is a natural period of "deep freeze" or it's due to humans, I don't know (I'm not familiar enough with all the research to comment on that aspect), but it is happening.

Lies! All Lies! It's all propaganda and fairy tales dispensed by the Gore machine in order to make bank! DON'T YOU SEE THE SNOW OUTSIDE????? HOW CAN THE EARTH BE WARMING IF IT'S SNOWING

:cool:

[PolyesterAngel]

Isn't climate by its very nature always changing?
Yes. But this seems to be a quicker/more drastic change than in the past. Again, I don't want to pretend I am an expert on the subject but everything I've read/seen so far have suggested that something is going on. All I'm trying to say is that "Global Warming" is a misleading name to the issue and I do believe it has been revised and is now being called "Climate Change."

I think that when the whole El Niño thing came about people were freaking out that it was getting freaky hot and therefore decided that the problem was the Earth was getting warmer. As more research has come about, I think they have revised and reconsidered the facts.

[garyrulez]

Well, I agree with you about the Gore machine and the "how can we make money off of it?" part.

[PolyesterAngel]

DON'T YOU SEE THE SNOW OUTSIDE????? HOW CAN THE EARTH BE WARMING IF IT'S SNOWING

Actually, I don't see snow. I'm in the basement of the library and the view from the window seems to be blocked by something... white..

Wait a sec...

[Lacey]

Yes. But this seems to be a quicker/more drastic change than in the past. Again, I don't want to pretend I am an expert on the subject but everything I've read/seen so far have suggested that something is going on. All I'm trying to say is that "Global Warming" is a misleading name to the issue and I do believe it has been revised and is now being called "Climate Change."

I think that when the whole El Niño thing came about people were freaking out that it was getting freaky hot and therefore decided that the problem was the Earth was getting warmer. As more research has come about, I think they have revised and reconsidered the facts.

I think you're pretty correct. Though people who don't "believe" in it will argue that the name was changed by liberals to try and trick more people into buying into the "theory" haha

[Amicustoall]

Lacey you use the term believe in like you would referring to the Easter Bunny or Santa. I prefer to rely on evidence. Do I believe that the temperatures fluctuate? Yep there is data to support that. Do I believe that there has been cyclical changes in temperatures? Yep, there is evidence and data to support that. Do I see the data that there is currently some short term catastrophic climate change occurring? Nope. Do I see any evidence that to the extent that there are climate fluctuations that man can control them? Nope.

[PolyesterAngel]

I think you're pretty correct. Though people who don't "believe" in it will argue that the name was changed by liberals to try and trick more people into buying into the "theory" haha

And some people who do believe it will call those people ignorant (I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE IGNORANT!!!)... It's a two way street and I think that's why there are so many problems within governments (I really don't know anything about US politics, I'm talking about Canada here). Each side is so dedicated to undermining their opposition, they can't even fathom working together to find a solution to whatever problem is at hand. That's why I try not to associate myself with the Liberals or the Conservatives, and I don't blindly vote for a party. I try to inform myself on what that party stands for and what the individual candidates want to attempt in office. Then I realize that it's all bullshit and I'm ****ed no matter who I vote for

[Lacey]

I believe in the fiction projection monster.

Also, the nonfiction projection monster!

[garyrulez]

I think you're pretty correct. Though people who don't "believe" in it will argue that the name was changed by liberals to try and trick more people into buying into the "theory" haha

I suppose I am just another conservative wacko, but I absolutely believe that by turning global wa...uh...climate change into a scare tactic, liberals HAVE found a great way to make money, both through carbon credits and huge grants to scientists.

Also, I think there are a lot of "higher minded" people than myself who hate capitalism (like Michael Moore, who outright admits that he hates capitalism) and find tying climate change to man as a great way to get capitalistic nations (read: the United States) to stop growing and manufacturing. That way, the world has a better chance of being the way they want it, which is with nobody better off than anyone else.

[PolyesterAngel]

And some people who do believe it will call those people ignorant (I AM NOT CALLING ANYONE IGNORANT!!!)... It's a two way street and I think that's why there are so many problems within governments (I really don't know anything about US politics, I'm talking about Canada here). Each side is so dedicated to undermining their opposition, they can't even fathom working together to find a solution to whatever problem is at hand. That's why I try not to associate myself with the Liberals or the Conservatives, and I don't blindly vote for a party. I try to inform myself on what that party stands for and what the individual candidates want to attempt in office. Then I realize that it's all bullshit and I'm ****ed no matter who I vote for

Dude... I've been censored?

[Lacey]

I really don't get how "grants to scientists" is a covert way for liberals to make money. People that push for stem cell research...Are they just trying to get money to liberals or something too?? I mean, if this is a controversial science-based subject, shouldn't we be researching it more?

[garyrulez]

Lacey you use the term believe in like you would referring to the Easter Bunny or Santa. I prefer to rely on evidence. Do I believe that the temperatures fluctuate? Yep there is data to support that. Do I believe that there has been cyclical changes in temperatures? Yep, there is evidence and data to support that. Do I see the data that there is currently some short term catastrophic climate change occurring? Nope. Do I see any evidence that to the extent that there are climate fluctuations that man can control them? Nope.

Well said- I agree with this 100%.

[Lacey]

Dude... I've been censored?

uh oh....we can't say ****?

[garyrulez]

Dude... I've been censored?


Was your post changed for real?

[Lacey]

well **** that noise. YAY censorship!

[PolyesterAngel]

Was your post changed for real?

Yes. Yes it was. I don't know how I feel about that. I guess I will not swear on the board.

[Amicustoall]

Polyester why not? I read it as it was intended. I have to say that it is funny that they merely * out some of the letters, like we can't all figure it out. I guess it is better than when they substitute another word altogether..........that is funny bullshit.

[garyrulez]

I really don't get how "grants to scientists" is a covert way for liberals to make money. People that push for stem cell research...Are they just trying to get money to liberals or something too?? I mean, if this is a controversial science-based subject, shouldn't we be researching it more?

Simple: if you're a scientist at a university or even independently, and you want a grant to study climate change, you damn...uh...dang...well better come up with the finding that climate change IS caused by man or there goes your grant. Within those stolen emails, they discussed specific ways to keep scientists who disagreed with their theories out of publications- i.e., there was an organized effort to keep non-believers out of the discussion.

Also, in answer to your last question, hell...uh...heck yes, we should be researching it more. But the research done that shows carbon levels have little to do with temperature change is ignored by the mainstream media.

[Lacey]

what the media does with it etc. are not what I was interested in. I thought, however, that grants worked like this: Group/individual/whoever requests grant from org with proposal of their intended research, org grants the money, research happens. Is there a stipulation that if the results aren't "correct" that they don't actually get all the money??? I bet Laurel would know.

[PolyesterAngel]

Also, in answer to your last question, hell...uh...heck yes, we should be researching it more. But the research done that shows carbon levels have little to do with temperature change is ignored by the mainstream media.

You're fine Gary, it's only the F word being censored I think.

I agree that it's wrong that mainstream media will ignore some information because it doesn't fit in with their "lead story" or whatever their reasons are.

I don't know enough about the different research findings to comment on anything (but ask me about second language acquisition, I'm an expert on that by now lol), but I do feel that there are a lot of people who refuse to change their ways because they see no evidence that something is going wrong.

Think about the Titanic. It was "unsinkable," right? But it sank. It didn't have enough life boats because there was NO EVIDENCE that it would sink.

Just think about it.

[Lacey]

also, just testing.....

[Lacey]

Wow if they're gonna censor, you'd think they'd do some of those words too at least hahaha

[garyrulez]

Okay...wow.

[PolyesterAngel]

what the media does with it etc. are not what I was interested in. I thought, however, that grants worked like this: Group/individual/whoever requests grant from org with proposal of their intended research, org grants the money, research happens. Is there a stipulation that if the results aren't "correct" that they don't actually get all the money??? I bet Laurel would know.

To get the grant, it has to be something the organization is interested in and wants to have it's name associated with. Sadly, there are some grant giving organizations who will pick and choose what they want to back, according to the crisis du jour. I have no idea about getting the money according to the results, though. That is something for Laurel or someone else familiar with the process.

[garyrulez]

I think that if you want a specific result for your research, you go to a scientist you believe will give you that result.

So why aren't there more scientists saying the opposite? Well, the reality is that there are, but they become ostracized within their community, they lose tenure from their universities, and they stop getting their work published- so they eventually just shut up.

[PolyesterAngel]

I think that if you want a specific result for your research, you go to a scientist you believe will give you that result.

Sadly, I think this is the norm :(

So why aren't there more scientists saying the opposite? Well, the reality is that there are, but they become ostracized within their community, they lose tenure from their universities, and they stop getting their work published- so they eventually just shut up.

Very good point, Gary.

[Michelle in WI]

Uh, guys? I think everyone needs to take a deep, cleansing breath.

In with the good air...

Out with the bad...

That was, uh, a bit much, Lacey. Testing or not.

[garyrulez]

This is the same Lacey who's okay with banning trans fats without a vote, by the way.

[thales]

The censorship settings were a default, they've been removed.

So maybe hold off on further testing please....

[garyrulez]

The censorship settings were a default, they've been removed.

So maybe hold off on further testing please....


Yes- PLEASE no more testing!

[PolyesterAngel]

The censorship settings were a default, they've been removed.

Well, you didn't have to if you didn't want it. It's *your* board after all. I can't speak for the rest of these animals, but I promise not the abuse of the swearing... Thanks for removing the censorship :)

[thales]

Ha, it's not mine, I just work here!

[PolyesterAngel]

Ha, it's not mine, I just work here!

Details... ;)

[Lacey]

The censorship settings were a default, they've been removed.

So maybe hold off on further testing please....

No more testing no prob :D

[Lacey]

This is the same Lacey who's okay with banning trans fats without a vote, by the way.

I never actually said I was or wasn't okay with it, you know. In fact, I said I was playing devil's advocate. STOP PROJECTING FICTIONS!!!!

[Lacey]

Uh, guys? I think everyone needs to take a deep, cleansing breath.

In with the good air...

Out with the bad...

That was, uh, a bit much, Lacey. Testing or not.

Ha! You should have seen the word that got censored! It wasn't fuck.

[garyrulez]

I never actually said I was or wasn't okay with it, you know. In fact, I said I was playing devil's advocate. STOP PROJECTING FICTIONS!!!!

Easy. It's hard to predict you people who use the N word in regular conversation.

[Lacey]

testing is considered regular conversation?

[Amicustoall]

OK I will give Lacey that that was irregular conversation

[garyrulez]

Excellent point.

And no, it wasn't regular conversation, I was just playing devil's advocate.

[WeedMage]

There may be no solution to holding off climate change. In the words of Mr Hammerstein, "How do you catch a wave upon the sand?"

Of course the climate is constantly changing - but we're talking long term trends here. Ice age kind of changes. You don't think the glaciers covered half the world in just a few years, do you?

We're talking about what we, as human beings, can do to slow down climate changes - not for what could happen in our lifetime, but in the greater scheme of the Earth's lifetime. We are borrowing our living from the Earth - the very LEAST we can do is take care of it while we're here.

[UmbraVirgo]

Well said, weed!

[garyrulez]

We're talking about what we, as human beings, can do to slow down climate changes - not for what could happen in our lifetime, but in the greater scheme of the Earth's lifetime. We are borrowing our living from the Earth - the very LEAST we can do is take care of it while we're here.

Well said, but the answer to your first comment is nothing: human carbon emissions represent such a tiny, tiny percentage of the total atmosphere and the rate of increase/decrease in carbon emitted has no direct relationship with temperature rise or fall.

It would be fair to say "here's a direct link between temps increasing and human carbon emissions" if that were the case, but it's not fair to say "sometimes temps go up and sometimes they go down and it's because of human carbon emissions". That's just not science.

Having said all that, I COMPLETELY agree with your last statement. It's not our planet, it's not our universe, and we do have an obligation- a moral, ethical, whatever obligation- to take care of the planet.

To me, clean air, nice parks, and a nice environment for our children is enough of a reason to clean up pollution, without all the Al Gore crap.

[Michelle in WI]

Clean parks? So...you don't "Don Draper" your picnics?

[garyrulez]

Clean parks? So...you don't "Don Draper" your picnics?

Awesome!!! But it was BETTY who did that!

[Kellylight]

Well said, but the answer to your first comment is nothing: human carbon emissions represent such a tiny, tiny percentage of the total atmosphere and the rate of increase/decrease in carbon emitted has no direct relationship with temperature rise or fall.

It would be fair to say "here's a direct link between temps increasing and human carbon emissions" if that were the case, but it's not fair to say "sometimes temps go up and sometimes they go down and it's because of human carbon emissions". That's just not science.

Having said all that, I COMPLETELY agree with your last statement. It's not our planet, it's not our universe, and we do have an obligation- a moral, ethical, whatever obligation- to take care of the planet.

To me, clean air, nice parks, and a nice environment for our children is enough of a reason to clean up pollution, without all the Al Gore crap.

As far as I know- no one here is a scientist. As far as I know - this is the band's message board. As far as I know - the band does believe in stopping climate change and have put forth great efforts along with Reverb to do what they can. Because it is the band's message board- not the fan message board , not the cruise message board- not the after the cruise message board... one should know who's house they are in before they put their feet up on the coffee table.
Also- repeating and repeating your own Strong opinions - especially against other's expression of their opinions (which may differ from your own) is aggressive.

Think about leaving space for others on this board. Think about it not being a soap box or debate forum. It killed the other boards for many people who tired of seeing the same anti climate change- anti Obama- negative comments over and over. It's not a political forum- there are many of those available on the internet.

I could block the few out who annoy me - but before I do, here's my opinion: Be respectful - not so concerned with being right. Your beliefs are just that- your beliefs, not absolutes. Freedom of expression - and the right to your own opinion should be exercised for all with out the imlplication that other's beliefs are crap.

[garyrulez]

Huh.

Well, first, my understanding was that in the miscellaneous thread it was okay to discuss topics that weren't related to the band.

Second, it's ironic to me that in the post you decided to call me out on, there's a large section that starts "I COMPLETELY agree..." with the previous person's opinion. I'm not sure why you consider that disrespectful. In fact, yes I do throw my opinions on here a lot- in the threads where they are appropriate, but I don't think I'm ever disrespectful to anyone when giving my opinion. Certainly not in the post you chose to quote.

Third, this idea that I'm not leaving room for anyone else. Is there a limit here? Have I used too large of a percentage of the total posts allowed.

Fourth, I didn't even start this thread! I did start one Obama thread, and I will refrain from that going forward, mostly because I don't want to deal with stuff like this.

Finally, one thing you said actually creeps me out a bit: you imply- in fact, almost directly state- that if my opinion disagrees with the band's opinion then I shouldn't state it. Wow. Do you really think that? That if I have an opinion that disagrees with the band's opinion, I should keep my mouth shut? If I go to dinner at a friend's house and we get into a discussion about politics should I agree with him carte blanche because he made the steaks?

Having said all of that stuff, I totally respect what you said- you have every right to speak your mind, and please consider everything you said noted. But at least let me tell you where I'm coming from: I like to talk about things that are interesting. No disrespect, but a poll about which studio album is your favorite is not interesting to me. This is interesting to me, and apparently, to at least a few other people as well. If this isn't the place for it, well, I guess I know where you come down on that one.

[Kellylight]

Huh.

Well, first, my understanding was that in the miscellaneous thread it was okay to discuss topics that weren't related to the band.

Second, it's ironic to me that in the post you decided to call me out on, there's a large section that starts "I COMPLETELY agree..." with the previous person's opinion. I'm not sure why you consider that disrespectful. In fact, yes I do throw my opinions on here a lot- in the threads where they are appropriate, but I don't think I'm ever disrespectful to anyone when giving my opinion. Certainly not in the post you chose to quote.

I think the continuous repetition of your opinions is overbearing.

Third, this idea that I'm not leaving room for anyone else. Is there a limit here? Have I used too large of a percentage of the total posts allowed.

You do monopolize - have - have displayed a tendency to "knock people over the head" with your strong opinions.

Fourth, I didn't even start this thread! I did start one Obama thread, and I will refrain from that going forward, mostly because I don't want to deal with stuff like this.

THANK YOU.

Finally, one thing you said actually creeps me out a bit: you imply- in fact, almost directly state- that if my opinion disagrees with the band's opinion then I shouldn't state it. Wow. Do you really think that? That if I have an opinion that disagrees with the band's opinion, I should keep my mouth shut? If I go to dinner at a friend's house and we get into a discussion about politics should I agree with him carte blanche because he made the steaks?

Creep you out? It's called manners.

Having said all of that stuff, I totally respect what you said- you have every right to speak your mind, and please consider everything you said noted. But at least let me tell you where I'm coming from: I like to talk about things that are interesting. No disrespect, but a poll about which studio album is your favorite is not interesting to me. This is interesting to me, and apparently, to at least a few other people as well. If this isn't the place for it, well, I guess I know where you come down on that one.

When you post thing's your partner says - no prob. When you post about "24" - fine. It's when you take your position on a multi positional topic and voive your opinion over and over - you do take away the virtual air space for others to feel comfortable to express their opinions.

What is interesting to you is fine- when it's stated over and over and over - about polarizing topics - stated in an emphatic way ON A BOARD THAT IS NOT POLITICAL -it becomes a soap box.

[garyrulez]

So, 24 and goofy stuff: fine. Stuff where my opinion isn't wanted by you: not fine.

Got it.

[Kellylight]

So, 24 and goofy stuff: fine. Stuff where my opinion isn't wanted by you: not fine.

Got it.

No- are you two years old? Take your toys and go home? It's not about my opinions oposing or otherwise -- never stated that. Try voicing your opinions- less. I'm not saying never- I said in a more respectful- mindful - gracious - thoughtful - inclusive - varied - way. Less of a laser beam of negativity focused on the climate- Al Gore- Obama - health care reform - and liberals. It's beyond redundant and when you join forces with others - it leaves no room and creates an unwelcoming enviroment for other - very diverse members of a board not run for political discourse.

[garyrulez]

I understand your position, although calling me 2 years old is slightly below the respectful, gracious discourse you'd like to see here.

[Kellylight]

I understand your position, although calling me 2 years old is slightly below the respectful, gracious discourse you'd like to see here.

You really like to argue don't you. I'm sure this had no effect on you. Done.

[Lacey]

I'd say yes, Gary really, really likes to argue haha

[garyrulez]

You really like to argue don't you. I'm sure this had no effect on you. Done.

How about that 24? Starting in a couple of weeks!

[Amicustoall]

Well said gary. I am in total agreement that humans should take care of Mother Earth, and hopefully improve it for generations to come. But I don't think that we should do those things because the climate is an ever changing thing, and we think we can control it. Humans should learn one big lesson from Mother Earth, she is in control not us. We can continue to build houses on the edges of cliffs, and she will continue to progress which occasionally makes those house slide down the slopes. We will continue to have hurricanes, tornadoes and earthquakes. Why? Because Mother Earth is in control

I also want to point out that I highly suspect that the band members would be all in favor or good lively debate on this topic or others. From my discussions with them, and from what I read and hear from others, they do not seem the type that thinks because this forum is on a site they control that all opinions expressed ought to be in line with theirs. Until someone that runs the board tells me that discussions of topics not related to the band, or which might disagree with they viewpoints are not welcome, I will continue to discuss topics that interest me. I would be extremely shocked if that happens, and would be disappointed. I really can't fathom a board that is composed solely of discussions of your favorite song, your least favorite song, etc. I think of BNL fans as more worldly conscious than that myself.

[Kellylight]

I never incinuated that varied opinions weren't allowed.Nor that the band would want it that way. I pointed out that it is not being thoughtfully done. I pointed out that repetitious postings of strong opinions over and over that are usually poiltically polarizing - can be aggressive - and that there are boards out there to discuss those topics if you want to get into heated discussions about that.

I will reference the thread in which a few people skewered another board member about his posts from another board and one here- about his personal music sharing:

This is not a continuation of other boards.

BNl fans are worldly concious- so why should they not be concious of a fellow BNL fan?

[just blame craig]

Gosh darn it, I missed the test! Now I NEED to know what was said. (curiosity killed... oh never mind)


Huh.
If I go to dinner at a friend's house and we get into a discussion about politics should I agree with him carte blanche because he made the steaks?


Gary, why do you have to exclude vegans from your inner circle? Don't you know they have feelings, too?

Seriously: In your analogy, you are debating with your friend with whom you most likely have similar beliefs. If they were the same beliefs there would be no debate, just conversation. When debating with opposing viewpoints, at some point the debate will come to an impasse before it angers one of the participants. When you sit down to dinner with friends you can see the frustration and change or alter the topic as needed to remain friends. Here you can't. And I think that's what's happening.


Me defending myself: I would like to point out that my mocking of Al Gore was in his tactics, not in his message. I retain my rights to be wishy washy on the topic as needed to fit my sarcasm.

[Lacey]

I'd like to suggest using the "report post" function if you don't like a post and moving on to let whoever's in charge deal with it the way they see fit.

[Kellylight]

I wouldn't do that without trying to work it out first. Maybe people would re-think their actions and not do it again.

[Kellylight]

Gosh darn it, I missed the test! Now I NEED to know what was said. (curiosity killed... oh never mind)




Gary, why do you have to exclude vegans from your inner circle? Don't you know they have feelings, too?

Seriously: In your analogy, you are debating with your friend with whom you most likely have similar beliefs. If they were the same beliefs there would be no debate, just conversation. When debating with opposing viewpoints, at some point the debate will come to an impasse before it angers one of the participants. When you sit down to dinner with friends you can see the frustration and change or alter the topic as needed to remain friends. Here you can't. And I think that's what's happening.


Me defending myself: I would like to point out that my mocking of Al Gore was in his tactics, not in his message. I retain my rights to be wishy washy on the topic as needed to fit my sarcasm.
I think you are correct- that's why I am speaking up. I think it can be done differently.

[Lacey]

Yeah you'd think that'd work. But on other boards (to be clear, not BNL OR cruise related) that simply seems to stir up more drama sometimes. Sometimes it's just best to report and then ignore.

[Kellylight]

I will most likely ignore- but if I said nothing- nothing changes. If I say something- probably nothing changes - but I know I was not a party to it.

[Amicustoall]

Now my curiosity is raging............kelly please explain just how you think a discussion over such a topic should be different?

[Kellylight]

Now my curiosity is raging............kelly please explain just how you think a discussion over such a topic should be different?

I already explained it.

[WeedMage]

Man-oh-man, I get really frustrated with board police. With people who will "report a post". With people who can't just ignore a post or a thread if they don't like it.

I daresay this board would die off without letting folks discuss what they want to discuss. I come here to keep up with BNL news AND get involved with whatever topic interests me. I admit that those are usually the political topics. Once it reaches the dead horse stage, I can choose to discontinue reading/posting to it. Let the floggers keep flogging - by that point they are usually just repeating themselves or agreeing on what they already believe in, and possibly thinking that they've won their point.

I don't mind arguing with people - most of the time I don't take it personally. When someone gets personal, I just consider the source. When I lose respect for that person, they lose my consideration of any point they are trying to make. That's their loss. :D I just try to not be dragged down to their level - it doesn't always work.

I do like to hear opinions from a wide variety of people - I like to learn what others are thinking.

I don't participate in boards that are monitored with a heavy hand - they bore and frustrate me. For those who like things all fluffy and rosy, stay with those kinds of topics. You have a choice. If the powers that be on this board decide they want things all fluffy and nice, so be it. I can join discussions elsewhere. But it's not up to me to tell people how they should act/post on a message board.

Here is what I always try to follow:

Be compassionate
Don't post when something lights me up - count to 10 or 20 or just step away for a while.
Don't swear - we're typing here - it's VERY easy to filter
Don't be a hater
Self censor
If I don't like a topic, think it's ridiculous, dead, or mean-spirited - no one's forcing me to participate, so just stay out of it.
Be conscious of "tone". If confused, ask.

ENJOY THE BOARD! Who cares if people want to post about their favorite song or their religious beliefs. That's what a message board is for. Look how diverse we are - we're going to gravitate toward those who share the same interests.

Well, now ... remember - this is MY philosophy when it comes to message boards. I'm sure you all have your own. That's what makes the world go 'round.

[garyrulez]

Awesome stuff, Weed. And I just want to point out, that it was Weed's post I was responding to when this whole thing started. If SHE'S not offended then, well...there you are I guess.

[Amicustoall]

Well stated Weed.

You know I don't tend to gravitate toward people that think like me, that would be boring with little to talk about. My friends all share some interest with me on some level (like love of music, or love of theatre, or love of dogs but often not the same types of any of these), but certainly not our belief structure. I like to be challenged intellectually, spiritually, emotionally and it definately is what keeps the world a place worth exploring.

[Kellylight]

Everyone can take or leave what I had to say. Saying it doesn't make me anything and I haven't reported anyone- tho somehow... I have "reputation" now.

I respect the diversity- made a statement to please allow a little more when it comes to polarizing topics- but I have no expectations that anyone will listen.

[Kellylight]

Awesome stuff, Weed. And I just want to point out, that it was Weed's post I was responding to when this whole thing started. If SHE'S not offended then, well...there you are I guess.

I'm the "SHE" you're referring to - and you're the guy who is sad that I think you are intelligent.

I do- because I do - thought I could find some common ground.

I never said only like mindedness was what I hoped for.

[Amicustoall]

Kelly I believe that the SHE gary's post refers to is WeedMage

[Kellylight]

oh- my mistake if that's the case

[garyrulez]

Kelly, I'm not sad that you find me intellegent- my point was that it's sad that it actually means something to me. Point being, you, a person I've never met before, have effected my self-opinion. For the better, but it's still sad (on my part) that I let that get to me.

For the record, it is NOT sad that you find me intellegent. It's very cool.

[Kellylight]

Kelly, I'm not sad that you find me intellegent- my point was that it's sad that it actually means something to me. Point being, you, a person I've never met before, have effected my self-opinion. For the better, but it's still sad (on my part) that I let that get to me.

For the record, it is NOT sad that you find me intellegent. It's very cool.

Yup- we never have met- that would be a big part of the different communication styles. Ok- well we can say that's all folks on this. I won't bring it up again.

[WeedMage]

Yup- we never have met- that would be a big part of the different communication styles. Ok- well we can say that's all folks on this. I won't bring it up again.

Kelly, feel free to bring it up again - just be prepared for those who disagree with you. That's part of my point. We can disagree without hating.

And yes, Gary was referring to me - we disagree on a lot of things but I don't believe we've ever offended or been mean to each other. And that goes to why I like message boards. I'm able to meet such a diverse group of people that I probably would never get the chance to speak/listen to out in the real world.

[garyrulez]

Kelly, feel free to bring it up again - just be prepared for those who disagree with you. That's part of my point. We can disagree without hating.

And yes, Gary was referring to me - we disagree on a lot of things but I don't believe we've ever offended or been mean to each other. And that goes to why I like message boards. I'm able to meet such a diverse group of people that I probably would never get the chance to speak/listen to out in the real world.


Totally- I really, really, really like Weed, and we've actually had some shared life experiences, with all the crap in the market last year. This is entirely possible, even though Weed and I may not even agree on what color the sky is (gray, by the way).

[WeedMage]

Totally- I really, really, really like Weed, and we've actually had some shared life experiences, with all the crap in the market last year. This is entirely possible, even though Weed and I may not even agree on what color the sky is (gray, by the way).

Just when you thought I'd never agree with you! YES! IT'S GREY! (tho note the different spelling)

[garyrulez]

Well played! And it's funny, because as I was typing that, I had no idea which way to spell that- I still don't in fact.

[WeedMage]

Yeah, it was either that or something on the line of:

He likes me! He really really likes me!

:p

[Amicustoall]

Hey Kinch
1. Show me the science that proves the statement you made in my reputation. In case you forgot "Global climate is changing at an accelerated pace due to human activity. Read a science book and stop watching Glen Beck"
2. It is fine to disagree with me, call me a fool, but why would you attempt to post Reputation because you don't agree with me on this point? I personally think that it is a misuse of the Reputation system.

[Lacey]

hahaha oh this reputation thing will be fun.

[Amicustoall]

Just another example of why I think that the Reputation system is not a good thing for the board. It will only serve to further polarize and divide the members of BNL fan base.

[Lacey]

awww, 3 people have rep'ed me! I feel loved. Even the negative one was funny!

[Amicustoall]

None of mine have a light on so I can't be certain whether negative, but I could make relatively accurate educated guesses.

[garyrulez]

I'm still trying to figure out where I can get my hands on this science book that Glenn Beck wrote.

[Lacey]

I've decided to give reps out like candy!

[Amicustoall]

Lacey do your reps have a red or green colored light next to them or are they blue like mine?

Lacey your comment made this picture flash...........you standing in a dark alley in a trench coat, and as people walk by you offer them reps!

[Lacey]

ha, that sounds about right.

the good ones are green, like the little thing about our posts. the negative one is just blue, not red. I assume good ones are "lit up" green and negative ones are just not lit up.

[Amicustoall]

Lacey all of mine are blue, and from the answer the thales gave me before on the board, if they are not blue or green it means something like the person giving them did not have the right yet.

[Lacey]

well I gave you a positive one so you could tell the difference. apparently I'm no able to yet? How is gary able to give a green one and I'm not? (pout)

[garyrulez]

well I gave you a positive one so you could tell the difference. apparently I'm no able to yet? How is gary able to give a green one and I'm not? (pout)

I think because I have a bazillion posts? And, hey, don't complain about me giving you positive reps!!!

[Lacey]

ha I thought my 45 was pretty good for a couple day's work. And I'm not complaining, just whining ;)

[Amicustoall]

Lacey your rep on my profile is green, the rest are blue. I know that two of them are negative but not sure about some others.

[Lacey]

awesome, that must mean I'm in the cool kids club now

[Amicustoall]

Better you than me Lacey

[WeedMage]

What's this "reputation" thing and how can I know if I have one?

[Amicustoall]

Weed to see yours click on User CP on the left side of the orange bar near the top of the page. They should show there. To add reputation................in a post in the top right hand side you will see a scales of justice..........click on it. You can add positive or negative reptutation.

[garyrulez]

Add another bullet point to the growing list of misconceptions about global cl-warming-mate change: global climate change has NOT been shown to increase national disasters.

The Sunday London Times today reported that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (also linked to the email scandal a few months ago) used flawed and limited data in determining that climate change had effected the severity of natural disasters.

Their evidence was one unpublished report, which was unpublished due to a giant lack of backing in the scientific community. Nonetheless, the UN's benchmark report on climate change in 2007 contained the phrase the world "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s".

Just one year later, the Times found, the UN's only source of evidence to make that statement WAS published, in a slightly different form than you would be led to believe by the UN: it was released with the conclusion that the climate had NOT effected the weather. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Needless to say, the United Nations has never retracted its original claim. Both President Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown are on record as saying that climate change has and will worsen the effect of natural disasters.

[Ellen from Saint Louis]

But more important, I thought the "glow" had to do it the user is online right now.

[garyrulez]

More new info: according to a report published today in the UK's Daily Mail, one of the scientists who wrote the IPCC's UN report on climate change in 2007 (mentioned above) has admitted that claims in the report were bogus.

Dr. Murari Lal acknowledged that the IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted by 2035 was not based on scientific research, and was included in the report strictly to put pressure on political leaders.

The source of the glacier info according to Dr. Lal? A non-peer-reviewed magazine article written in 1999 and re-published in 2005 by the World Wildlife Fund. The 2005 update included a mathematical error greatly increasing the rate of glacial melt. Their claim that the glaciers were retreating at a rate of 134 meters per year should have read 21 meters per year. The WWF last week admitted the error.

One glacial scientist said that the IPCC's claim of glacial melt is about 25 times greater than the reality. Another glacial scientist, Dr. Haley Fowler from Newcastle University, said that the IPCC ignored another claim- this one a peer-reviewed claim- that some glaciers in the Himalayan chain were GROWING rapidly. In fact, many scientists (according to The Daily Mail) are now claiming they've pressured Dr. Lal for years to explain the IPCC's findings and he has simply ignored them.

The IPCC- as mentioned above- is the UN's official panel on climate change. In the last month, they have been linked to the email scandal, erroneously stated that climate change had increased the severity of natural disasters, and now the above mentioned admittance of using unverified data.

The IPCC share a 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.

[Amicustoall]

Yea well so what gary? I mean the edict was handed down by a infamous global warming expert, Kinch, that: "Global climate is changing at an accelerated pace due to human activity. Read a science book and stop watching Glen Beck" There really is nothing else to discuss. I mean what would one of the scientists that helped author the report know? And what difference would it make that they have admitted that some of their data was bogus? Who the hell needs data when you have kinch telling you it is so?

[Amicustoall]

Ahhh the Nobel prize, that is whole different controversy.

[garyrulez]

Wow.

Well, look, all I do is report- you decide.

[Amicustoall]

Well, look, all I do is report- you decide.


Well believe me, I have decided. :D

[garyrulez]

Okay, I’m actually starting to have a hard time believing this, but there is ANOTHER report discrediting the 2007 IPCC Global Warming report. I swear, it’s actually getting hard to believe. So, we had the emails, we had the glaciers, we had the natural disasters, now we have…rain forests.

In the landmark study (and I use “landmark” with no irony- it’s a “landmark” study for all the wrong reasons), the IPCC reported that 40% of the Amazon rain forest was endangered by global warming. To quote, "up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation".

Well, it turns out- you ready for this???- that assertion was discredited this week when it emerged that the findings were based on one article written by an environmental activist. I know- the IPCC turning one biased, non-peer-reviewed piece into scientific fact: it’s hard to believe.

But wait, there’s more! (In fact, it occurs to me that there’s ALWAYS more with these people): the article- which was turned into a World Wildlife Fund study- WASN’T EVEN ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING!!!! It was about the threat of forest fires in the area. And the conclusion was that the increased threat of forest fires was due to logging. In fact, the 40% figure said NOTHING about precipitation at all- it was used to quantify the amount of rain forest that was susceptible to forest fire due to LOGGING. Logging, which according to Harvard University professor Lubos Motl, “helps the people who live in Latin America”.

So, in conclusion: a report that links logging to the increased threat of forest fires- and never once mentions global warming- is used by the UN as evidence of the threat of global warming. The exact % of the threat used by the UN is from a figure used in the study for something totally different. It’s an outright, boldface lie- one of several that have been revealed just in the past week!!!

But, in fairness, and since I believe both sides should have an equal say, here’s Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice chairman of the IPCC: "I would like to submit that this could increase the credibility of the IPCC, not decrease it. Aren't mistakes human?”

I’ll just leave it at that. Oh- one more thing: yeah this is the UN report that won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Amicustoall]

It is pretty hard to believe that something so apparently full of problems was relied on so heavily by so many for so long. Unfortunately from my perspective it is merely evidence that the "global warming activists" did not care about the science, they only wanted to terrorize people into doing what they wanted.

[garyrulez]

More fun stuff today: The UK's Guardian is reporting today yet another manipulation of climate change research.

Part of the (you guessed it) IPCC 2007 climate change report was a section dealing with the theory that temperatures are rising in big cities due to the amount of people and heat being generated in them, but that in nearby rural areas, temperatures have remained steady.

Needless to say, the IPCC poo-pooed this theory, using a study from the journal Nature, in which 42 climate sensors were set up in China's major cities and 42 were set up in surrounding rural areas. The study, of course, showed the temperature changes were similar whether in the city or in the countryside. The IPCC's statement was that this proved that "any urban related trend" in global temperatures was small.

Here's the problem: during the course of the study, some of the sensors were moved. Anyone with any science knowledge will tell you that an act like that ruins the validity of the study and eliminates any conclusions that could be drawn from it- it's tampering with the evidence in the purest form.

The lead authors of the report though- Professor Wei-Chyung Wang and Dr. Phil Jones (might sound familiar)- did not mention this fact in their final report.

Now, since the Guardian has learned the info, Jones and Wang have both said they would provide all data and that they could prove the study was not flawed. The Guardian has filed 110 requests for the data under the equivalent of England's Freedom of Information Act, but to date, they've been ignored.

This might explain why: in one of the leaked CRU emails, the former director Tom Wigley emails Phil Jones asking him about the rumor that the sensors had been moved. He wrote to Jones: "Were you taking W-CW (Wang) on trust? Why, why, why did you and W-CW not simply say this right at the start?"

Question- if global warming actually IS caused by man, why are the most critical and important studies so full of lies, cover-ups, and bad research?

UPDATE: at least 18 of the climate stations were moved and one was moved 5 times and up to 41 kilometers from its original location.

[Amicustoall]

Unfortunately at this time, this just seems par for the course. I am sure there will be people that will attempt to write it off and say it had no impact on the study, or the reliance on it!

[garyrulez]

A study on rising sea levels that predicted sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the 21st century has been retracted- by the scientists who wrote the paper.

The paper, which highlighted that it reinforced the conclusions of the UN's 2007 IPCC report, was originally published in Nature Geoscience journal.

The authors, Drs. Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker, and Peter Clark, acknowledged that they made mistakes in time intervals and that they inaccurately applied statistics. They admitted in the retraction that the mistakes were enough to undermine the overall conclusion of the study.

Siddall commented on the retraction by saying "It's one of those things that happens...science is a complicated game".

[Amicustoall]

While I would agree some sciences are complicated, that does not explain using defective data, or applying statistics inappropriately.

[garyrulez]

Amicus, it's one of those things that happens.

[Amicustoall]

Yep, of course with a doctor or attorney or engineer or stock broker or the like that would mean a malpractice action! What I find the most outrageous is that really expect people to believe that it took this long for their "innocent and simple" error to be discovered for them to retract the conclusions built upon them.

[Stephanie]

I love this thread. Thanks for looking up all of this data and sharing it, Gary. I'm so glad that FINALLY the public may be starting to realize that global climate is more complicated than "CO2 increase = global temperature increase". And while the "media" is inevitably going to turn everything into a giant conspiracy theory, at least some actual facts are coming to light. Gotta start somewhere. :)

[garyrulez]

According to a report today from a British environmental non-profit group, the carbon credit policy enacted in the EU in 2008 is succeeding...in making a ton of money for the richest companies in Europe.

The way the policy works is, all companies are issued a certain number of carbon credits, allowing them to expend carbon up to the amount they have credit for. If they go over their allotted amount, they get heavily taxed. But, if they're under their allotted amount, they can sell their unused credits to other companies.

An example of how this would work in practice is company A is issued 10 credits and uses 8. Company B (a smaller but growing company) is issued 4, but needs 6. So, they buy the two credits from company A and they don't have to pay the penalty- because now they have credits equal to the amount of carbon they've used.

Well, for a variety of reasons, it's worked out that the biggest companies aren't using anywhere near the amount of credits they've been issued and they are selling them to smaller companies like crazy. So, not only are they comfortably emitting just as much carbon as they've always been, they are going to make a projected 4.3 billion dollars by 2012.

The Obama administration would like to enact a similar policy here.

[Stephanie]

That hurts me.

[stoam]

Although i know most of you climate change skeptics are not going to change your mind on this but i just thought i'd make some quick points on this:

1 Weather and Climate are two completely different things. A bad winter or hot summer, even some hot summers in a row doesnt mean climate is changing one way or the other. Climate is long term and global. Weather is seasonal and local.

2 Global Warming - if it gets significant - will effect different areas in different ways. A lot will get hotter but some will get colder (due to things like the gulf stream, el nino etc changing). Some just because it aint getting hot where you are doesnt mean its nothing to worry about!

3 There are 1000s and 1000s of reports on this issue, so picking out bad bits of science is easy... it doesnt mean the rest are bad too.

4 Saying the truth can not be reported due to a conspiracy of scientists / environmentalist / businesses is also not true. There are many many rich and powerful climate change skeptics out there who would gladly fund and promote this research and even, dare i say it, make a lot of money like it.

5 Even if the change of catastrophic climate change is small, the risk of not doing nothing is too big!!! I'd much prefer to make these changes now (which creates jobs and wealth as much as any other economic activity), and find it was all an over reaction then do nothing and find us all in deep trouble!!

That's all!

[garyrulez]

Great post, Stoam. Good observations, although I would disagree strongly with your last point: I think the cost of fighting something that might or might not exist is trillions and trillions of dollars we can't afford to spend.

For example, if we implement major carbon restrictions in the US (and I've seen a large number of studies that show what an insubstantial part of the environment carbon actually is, human involvement included), we lose substantial competitive advantage to countries like China, which won't implement any environmental restrictions of their own.

[stoam]

Thanks Garyrules. Well i suppose it depends what our priorities are. We've all (i'm from the UK) spent loads on banks and wars recently. We could have put some restrictions on the bank finance stipulating that they invest it in jobs and these kinds of technologies for example.

As for China, they're always cleverer than they seem and they'll wake up to this soon - especially if there's money to be made, which there is.

About carbon restrictions, i guess its easier for us over here as we dont have much manufactring industry left! There probably arent any easy solutions to this once you decide that the risk is enough to do something about it. That's the key question i suppose.

[garyrulez]

Good points, Stoam.