Environmentalism as Religion [Archive]

View Full Version : Environmentalism as Religion

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 10:02 PM

From the pen of genius-

I have been asked to talk about what I consider the most important challenge facing mankind, and I have a fundamental answer. The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age (or as I think of it, the disinformation age) it takes on a special urgency and importance.

We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we're told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems. Every one of us has a sense of the world, and we all know that this sense is in part given to us by what other people and society tell us; in part generated by our emotional state, which we project outward; and in part by our genuine perceptions of reality. In short, our struggle to determine what is true is the struggle to decide which of our perceptions are genuine, and which are false because they are handed down, or sold to us, or generated by our own hopes and fears.

As an example of this challenge, I want to talk today about environmentalism. And in order not to be misunderstood, I want it perfectly clear that I believe it is incumbent on us to conduct our lives in a way that takes into account all the consequences of our actions, including the consequences to other people, and the consequences to the environment. I believe it is important to act in ways that are sympathetic to the environment, and I believe this will always be a need, carrying into the future. I believe the world has genuine problems and I believe it can and should be improved. But I also think that deciding what constitutes responsible action is immensely difficult, and the consequences of our actions are often difficult to know in advance. I think our past record of environmental action is discouraging, to put it mildly, because even our best intended efforts often go awry. But I think we do not recognize our past failures, and face them squarely. And I think I know why.

I studied anthropology in college, and one of the things I learned was that certain human social structures always reappear. They can't be eliminated from society. One of those structures is religion. Today it is said we live in a secular society in which many people---the best people, the most enlightened people---do not believe in any religion. But I think that you cannot eliminate religion from the psyche of mankind. If you suppress it in one form, it merely re-emerges in another form. You can not believe in God, but you still have to believe in something that gives meaning to your life, and shapes your sense of the world. Such a belief is religious.

Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.

Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.

There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued.

These are issues of faith.And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism.

Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.

Am I exaggerating to make a point? I am afraid not. Because we know a lot more about the world than we did forty or fifty years ago. And what we know now is not so supportive of certain core environmental myths, yet the myths do not die. Let's examine some of those beliefs.

There is no Eden. There never was. What was that Eden of the wonderful mythic past? Is it the time when infant mortality was 80%, when four children in five died of disease before the age of five? When one woman in six died in childbirth? When the average lifespan was 40, as it was in America a century ago. When plagues swept across the planet, killing millions in a stroke. Was it when millions starved to death? Is that when it was Eden?

And what about indigenous peoples, living in a state of harmony with the Eden-like environment? Well, they never did. On this continent, the newly arrived people who crossed the land bridge almost immediately set about wiping out hundreds of species of large animals, and they did this several thousand years before the white man showed up, to accelerate the process. And what was the condition of life? Loving, peaceful, harmonious? Hardly: the early peoples of the New World lived in a state of constant warfare. Generations of hatred, tribal hatreds, constant battles. The warlike tribes of this continent are famous: the Comanche, Sioux, Apache, Mohawk, Aztecs, Toltec, Incas. Some of them practiced infanticide, and human sacrifice. And those tribes that were not fiercely warlike were exterminated, or learned to build their villages high in the cliffs to attain some measure of safety.

How about the human condition in the rest of the world? The Maori of New Zealand committed massacres regularly. The dyaks of Borneo were headhunters. The Polynesians, living in an environment as close to paradise as one can imagine, fought constantly, and created a society so hideously restrictive that you could lose your life if you stepped in the footprint of a chief. It was the Polynesians who gave us the very concept of taboo, as well as the word itself. The noble savage is a fantasy, and it was never true. That anyone still believes it, 200 years after Rousseau, shows the tenacity of religious myths, their ability to hang on in the face of centuries of factual contradiction.

There was even an academic movement, during the latter 20th century, that claimed that cannibalism was a white man's invention to demonize the indigenous peoples. (Only academics could fight such a battle.) It was some thirty years before professors finally agreed that yes, cannibalism does indeed occur among human beings. Meanwhile, all during this time New Guinea highlanders in the 20th century continued to eat the brains of their enemies until they were finally made to understand that they risked kuru, a fatal neurological disease, when they did so.

More recently still the gentle Tasaday of the Philippines turned out to be a publicity stunt, a nonexistent tribe. And African pygmies have one of the highest murder rates on the planet.

In short, the romantic view of the natural world as a blissful Eden is only held by people who have no actual experience of nature. People who live in nature are not romantic about it at all. They may hold spiritual beliefs about the world around them, they may have a sense of the unity of nature or the aliveness of all things, but they still kill the animals and uproot the plants in order to eat, to live. If they don't, they will die.

And if you, even now, put yourself in nature even for a matter of days, you will quickly be disabused of all your romantic fantasies. Take a trek through the jungles of Borneo, and in short order you will have festering sores on your skin, you'll have bugs all over your body, biting in your hair, crawling up your nose and into your ears, you'll have infections and sickness and if you're not with somebody who knows what they're doing, you'll quickly starve to death. But chances are that even in the jungles of Borneo you won't experience nature so directly, because you will have covered your entire body with DEET and you will be doing everything you can to keep those bugs off you.

The truth is, almost nobody wants to experience real nature. What people want is to spend a week or two in a cabin in the woods, with screens on the windows. They want a simplified life for a while, without all their stuff. Or a nice river rafting trip for a few days, with somebody else doing the cooking. Nobody wants to go back to nature in any real way, and nobody does. It's all talk-and as the years go on, and the world population grows increasingly urban, it's uninformed talk. Farmers know what they're talking about. City people don't. It's all fantasy.

One way to measure the prevalence of fantasy is to note the number of people who die because they haven't the least knowledge of how nature really is. They stand beside wild animals, like buffalo, for a picture and get trampled to death; they climb a mountain in dicey weather without proper gear, and freeze to death. They drown in the surf on holiday because they can't conceive the real power of what we blithely call "the force of nature." They have seen the ocean. But they haven't been in it.

The television generation expects nature to act the way they want it to be. They think all life experiences can be tivo-ed. The notion that the natural world obeys its own rules and doesn't give a damn about your expectations comes as a massive shock. Well-to-do, educated people in an urban environment experience the ability to fashion their daily lives as they wish. They buy clothes that suit their taste, and decorate their apartments as they wish. Within limits, they can contrive a daily urban world that pleases them.

But the natural world is not so malleable. On the contrary, it will demand that you adapt to it-and if you don't, you die. It is a harsh, powerful, and unforgiving world, that most urban westerners have never experienced.

Many years ago I was trekking in the Karakorum mountains of northern Pakistan, when my group came to a river that we had to cross. It was a glacial river, freezing cold, and it was running very fast, but it wasn't deep---maybe three feet at most. My guide set out ropes for people to hold as they crossed the river, and everybody proceeded, one at a time, with extreme care. I asked the guide what was the big deal about crossing a three-foot river. He said, well, supposing you fell and suffered a compound fracture. We were now four days trek from the last big town, where there was a radio. Even if the guide went back double time to get help, it'd still be at least three days before he could return with a helicopter. If a helicopter were available at all. And in three days, I'd probably be dead from my injuries. So that was why everybody was crossing carefully. Because out in nature a little slip could be deadly.

But let's return to religion. If Eden is a fantasy that never existed, and mankind wasn't ever noble and kind and loving, if we didn't fall from grace, then what about the rest of the religious tenets? What about salvation, sustainability, and judgment day? What about the coming environmental doom from fossil fuels and global warming, if we all don't get down on our knees and conserve every day?

Well, it's interesting. You may have noticed that something has been left off the doomsday list, lately. Although the preachers of environmentalism have been yelling about population for fifty years, over the last decade world population seems to be taking an unexpected turn. Fertility rates are falling almost everywhere. As a result, over the course of my lifetime the thoughtful predictions for total world population have gone from a high of 20 billion, to 15 billion, to 11 billion (which was the UN estimate around 1990) to now 9 billion, and soon, perhaps less. There are some who think that world population will peak in 2050 and then start to decline. There are some who predict we will have fewer people in 2100 than we do today. Is this a reason to rejoice, to say halleluiah? Certainly not. Without a pause, we now hear about the coming crisis of world economy from a shrinking population. We hear about the impending crisis of an aging population. Nobody anywhere will say that the core fears expressed for most of my life have turned out not to be true. As we have moved into the future, these doomsday visions vanished, like a mirage in the desert. They were never there---though they still appear, in the future. As mirages do.

Okay, so, the preachers made a mistake. They got one prediction wrong; they're human. So what. Unfortunately, it's not just one prediction. It's a whole slew of them. We are running out of oil. We are running out of all natural resources. Paul Ehrlich: 60 million Americans will die of starvation in the 1980s. Forty thousand species become extinct every year. Half of all species on the planet will be extinct by 2000. And on and on and on.

With so many past failures, you might think that environmental predictions would become more cautious. But not if it's a religion.

Remember, the nut on the sidewalk carrying the placard that predicts the end of the world doesn't quit when the world doesn't end on the day he expects. He just changes his placard, sets a new doomsday date, and goes back to walking the streets.

One of the defining features of religion is that your beliefs are not troubled by facts, because they have nothing to do with facts.

So I can tell you some facts. I know you haven't read any of what I am about to tell you in the newspaper, because newspapers literally don't report them. I can tell you that DDT is not a carcinogen and did not cause birds to die and should never have been banned. I can tell you that the people who banned it knew that it wasn't carcinogenic and banned it anyway. I can tell you that the DDT ban has caused the deaths of tens of millions of poor people, mostly children, whose deaths are directly attributable to a callous, technologically advanced western society that promoted the new cause of environmentalism by pushing a fantasy about a pesticide, and thus irrevocably harmed the third world. Banning DDT is one of the most disgraceful episodes in the twentieth century history of America. We knew better, and we did it anyway, and we let people around the world die and didn't give a damn.

I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.

I can tell you that the evidence for global warming is far weaker than its proponents would ever admit.

I can tell you the percentage the US land area that is taken by urbanization, including cities and roads, is 5%.

I can tell you that the Sahara desert is shrinking, and the total ice of Antarctica is increasing.

I can tell you that a blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century.Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief.

Most of us have had some experience interacting with religious fundamentalists, and we understand that one of the problems with fundamentalists is that they have no perspective on themselves. They never recognize that their way of thinking is just one of many other possible ways of thinking, which may be equally useful or good. On the contrary, they believe their way is the right way, everyone else is wrong; they are in the business of salvation, and they want to help you to see things the right way. They want to help you be saved. They are totally rigid and totally uninterested in opposing points of view. In our modern complex world, fundamentalism is dangerous because of its rigidity and its imperviousness to other ideas.

I want to argue that it is now time for us to make a major shift in our thinking about the environment, similar to the shift that occurred around the first Earth Day in 1970, when this awareness was first heightened. But this time around, we need to get environmentalism out of the sphere of religion. We need to stop the mythic fantasies, and we need to stop the doomsday predictions. We need to start doing hard science instead.

There are two reasons why I think we all need to get rid of the religion of environmentalism.

First, we need an environmental movement, and such a movement is not very effective if it is conducted as a religion. We know from history that religions tend to kill people, and environmentalism has already killed somewhere between 10-30 million people since the 1970s. It's not a good record. Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical. To mix environmental concerns with the frantic fantasies that people have about one political party or another is to miss the cold truth---that there is very little difference between the parties, except a difference in pandering rhetoric. The effort to promote effective legislation for the environment is not helped by thinking that the Democrats will save us and the Republicans won't. Political history is more complicated than that. Never forget which president started the EPA: Richard Nixon. And never forget which president sold federal oil leases, allowing oil drilling in Santa Barbara: Lyndon Johnson. So get politics out of your thinking about the environment.

The second reason to abandon environmental religion is more pressing. Religions think they know it all, but the unhappy truth of the environment is that we are dealing with incredibly complex, evolving systems, and we usually are not certain how best to proceed. Those who are certain are demonstrating their personality type, or their belief system, not the state of their knowledge. Our record in the past, for example managing national parks, is humiliating. Our fifty-year effort at forest-fire suppression is a well-intentioned disaster from which our forests will never recover. We need to be humble, deeply humble, in the face of what we are trying to accomplish. We need to be trying various methods of accomplishing things. We need to be open-minded about assessing results of our efforts, and we need to be flexible about balancing needs. Religions are good at none of these things.

How will we manage to get environmentalism out of the clutches of religion, and back to a scientific discipline? There's a simple answer:

we must institute far more stringent requirements for what constitutes knowledge in the environmental realm.

I am thoroughly sick of politicized so-called facts that simply aren't true. It isn't that these "facts" are exaggerations of an underlying truth. Nor is it that certain organizations are spinning their case to present it in the strongest way. Not at all---what more and more groups are doing is putting out is lies, pure and simple. Falsehoods that they know to be false.

This trend began with the DDT campaign, and it persists to this day. At this moment, the EPA is hopelessly politicized. In the wake of Carol Browner, it is probably better to shut it down and start over. What we need is a new organization much closer to the FDA. We need an organization that will be ruthless about acquiring verifiable results, that will fund identical research projects to more than one group, and that will make everybody in this field get honest fast.

Because in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past. So it's time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.

Thank you very much.

That man is a genius. No wonder people buy his books in the millions.

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 10:14 PM

That's from Michael Crichton, for anybody wondering.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Crichton did not cite his sources, making his first paragraph incredibly ironic. Please exercise critical thought.

He's making huge claims without providing evidence. If his work wasn't copyrighted, I would have submitted parts of it to www.FSTDT.com.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 10:18 PM

That's from Michael Crichton, for anybody wondering.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html

Crichton did not cite his sources, making his first paragraph incredibly ironic. Please exercise critical thought.

Ok, I'll be the first to "exercise critical thought". Crichton did not offer his opinion as an encyclopedic entry. He is offering his personal analysis which you are entitled to disagree with... but if you're going to disagree, disagree with substance.

When you're having a plain conversation with someone, do you ask them to "cite sources"?

I can hear it now.....

Friend: What's for lunch?

BiphobiaFighter: Wendy's!

Friend: I like Wendy's, but Fatburger is far better!

Biphobiafighter: AHA! You didn't cite your sources! That's ironic!

:cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh

vittoria

Feb 14, 2008, 10:19 PM

:banghead:

Crichton did not cite his sources, making his first paragraph incredibly ironic. Please exercise critical thought.

Amen, Brother!

:bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown::bowdown:

V

TaylorMade

Feb 14, 2008, 10:24 PM

He DOES have a point...Like it or not, he DOES have a point.

If you want sources...

Try Penn & Teller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw)'s Bullshit. . .or "The Great Global Warming Swindle" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYlbvJEZA_4).

They are making the same point at the OP... and did their homework.

*Taylor*

vittoria

Feb 14, 2008, 10:24 PM

Tsk,tsk! If Crichton only knew his words were being used in such a way...

damn... what's his number again?:cool::smilies15

V

vittoria

Feb 14, 2008, 10:26 PM

'Tis best to do one's own research before depending upon the analyses of fiction authors and magicians, IMHO:flag1::2cents::rolleyes:

My personal opinions arent facts, but I certainly would like to based them on some FACTS....

not someone else's personal opinions. But that's just speaking for myself...

LL&P,

V[

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 10:31 PM

Ok, I'll be the first to "exercise critical thought". Crichton did not offer his opinion as an encyclopedic entry. He is offering his personal analysis which you are entitled to disagree with... but if you're going to disagree, disagree with substance.

When you're having a plain conversation with someone, do you ask them to "cite sources"?

I can hear it now.....

Friend: What's for lunch?

BiphobiaFighter: Wendy's!

Friend: I like Wendy's, but Fatburger is far better!

Biphobiafighter: AHA! You didn't cite your sources! That's ironic!

:cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh :cutelaugh
I expect people giving lectures on scientific topics to give their sources. Yes, even when claiming that between 10 and 30 million people have died because of environmentalism since the 1970s.

You desperately need to grow up.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 10:32 PM

'Tis best to do one's own research before depending upon the analyses of fiction authors and magicians, IMHO:flag1::2cents::rolleyes:

Last I checked, it's environmentalists who are unable to prove their religion of Global Warming. So unable to prove it, they even changed the name.

"Global Climate Change"

TaylorMade

Feb 14, 2008, 10:32 PM

'Tis best to do one's own research before depending upon the analyses of fiction authors and magicians, IMHO:flag1::2cents::rolleyes:

I have... they were a good starting point, ironically enough.
This also helped me out - - - >The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/).

At the very least. . .human caused global warming is not settled science.

Anyone noticed they changed the term to "climate change" , and even started to dig up "global cooling". . .? Make up your minds.

*Taylor*

TaylorMade

Feb 14, 2008, 10:34 PM

I expect people giving lectures on scientific topics to give their sources. Yes, even when claiming that between 10 and 30 million people have died because of environmentalism since the 1970s.

You desperately need to grow up.

Do research on "Silent Spring (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34823.html)". . .the report on DDT that prohibited it's manufacture, leading to millions of people starving and potentially dying, before it was revealed that DDT was not as damaging as we thought.

*Taylor*

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 10:34 PM

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 10:52 PM

Global Cooling was their FAITH in the 70's. Now they changed their minds... and probably will again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Look at what you cited. In the first paragraph: "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support [...]". In addition, many claims in your source don't have their sources given.

Do research on "Silent Spring". . .the report on DDT that prohibited it's manufacture, leading to millions of people starving and potentially dying, before it was revealed that DDT was not as damaging as we thought.
Sources are what I was looking for for those claims. Thank you. The mistake should not be made, however, that it is true (not that it is not) just because you can find a sources for it (heaps of sources say that bisexuality doesn't exist, for example). That source doesn't show me any studies (that I saw), let alone peer-reviewed ones. Thank you for the article.

About The Great Global Warming Swindle (the wikipedia article gives sources):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception.2C_crit icism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms

TaylorMade

Feb 14, 2008, 10:56 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
Look at what you cited. In the first paragraph: "This hypothesis never had significant scientific support [...]". In addition, many claims in your source don't have their sources given.

About The Great Global Warming Swindle (the wikipedia article gives its sources):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Reception.2C_crit icism_and_changes_made_due_to_criticisms

Did you read the official website I gave you? Or the Reason Article? (both have sources as well)

If nothing else, it should give you pause to the validity of the claims we are being asked to alter our lives for.

*Taylor*

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 10:57 PM

And here's what their religion, science, said before.

Notice the parallels

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

Another Ice Age?

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest......

....Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F......

....they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered....

......Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling :upside: :upside: trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.....

....Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.... (That doomsday paragraph sounds a lot like the Book of Revelation from the bible, apocalyptic and scary).....

.....Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced.(Ahhhhhhhhh!! Head for the hills!)

...."I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.".... (And yet, here we are, ever polluting and ever fucking.) :tongue:

I think we all can agree. Science knows very little.

Repent, reuse, recycle ye energy sinners!
Lest ye burn!!!!

http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/06.06.15.HolySmokeMir-X.gif

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 11:07 PM

EDIT: I don't know what happened here but some of my previous post appeared here.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 14, 2008, 11:14 PM

EDIT: I don't know what happened here but some of my previous post appeared here.

The Illuminati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 11:17 PM

If nothing else, it should give you pause to the validity of the claims we are being asked to alter our lives for.

*Taylor*
Think about that a little. :)

I did look at the websites you gave.

The only point I wanted to make was that Crichton didn't supply his sources in what is supposed to be a lecture on a scientific subject.

The Illuminati

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat
:rolleyes:

TaylorMade

Feb 14, 2008, 11:24 PM

Think about that a little. :)

I did look at the websites you gave.

The only point I wanted to make was that Crichton didn't supply his sources in what is supposed to be a lecture on a scientific subject.

And I do think about it. . .

But at least let's not deny the sources are there. . .and what Crichton is driving at is the dogmatic attitude some Environmentalists are having to those who oppose them. In Canada, one scientist is talking about JAILING people who disagree! Jailing people- - (http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=d8d435aa-ef76-41a4-bb75-7daebeb155dd) Like this is Tehran or something.

Doesn't that worry you? Doesn't that trip some sort of radar? We are quick to point at Phelps, Dobson and others... They worry me, but so does this.

*Taylor*

BiphobiaFighter

Feb 14, 2008, 11:29 PM

And I do think about it. . .

But at least let's not deny the sources are there. . .and what Crichton is driving at is the dogmatic attitude some Environmentalists are having to those who oppose them. In Canada, one scientist is talking about JAILING people who disagree! Jailing people! (http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=d8d435aa-ef76-41a4-bb75-7daebeb155dd) Like this is Tehran or something.

Doesn't that worry you? Doesn't that trip some sort of radar? We are quick to point at Phelps, Dobson and others... They worry me, but so does this.

*Taylor*
A single scientist wanting to put people who disagree in prison doesn't concern me since there are many more people with more ludicrous ideas such as those you mentioned but it certainly isn't a good thing in my opinion.

My only point was that Crichton didn't supply sources during what was meant to be a lecture on a scientific topic. I may have given people the impression that I am an extreme environmentalist but it is not true.

vittoria

Feb 14, 2008, 11:42 PM

Last I checked, it's environmentalists who are unable to prove their religion of Global Warming. So unable to prove it, they even changed the name.

"Global Climate Change"

Anything that goes against "the grain" is religion.

Star Trek must be a religion.

So must eating vegetables (Vegan).

Doing something else isnt religion.

Its opinion or point of view.

Giving a damn about the environment is no more religion than buying Sea Monkeys, IMHO.

But, no one said I agreed with environmentalists either, tirades be damned :)

LL&P,

V

vittoria

Feb 14, 2008, 11:54 PM

And by the way..

I have a job.

They change the rules everyday. They change their menus every two months!!

I go to that form of employment.

Its my job.

Not my religion.

The "environmentalists" ( everything is an -"ist" or -"ism" to people these days!!) have a job. Its in the root word... "environment" .

Like biologists... biology.

Scientist... science.

artist... you get my point.

And go on about anarchists, and apologists, and egotists, if you want to--dont be trite. The people who are actually STUDYING and doing research arent trying to make molotov cocktails for the sake of anti-government.

Hate environs if you want to... hell, write them a letter... send them a postcard... that may help.:2cents:

And what happened to not liking political posts? :rolleyes:

V

bisexualinsocal

Feb 15, 2008, 12:05 AM

Anything that goes against "the grain" is religion.

Talk about strawman arguments. Yours takes the cake.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 15, 2008, 12:21 AM

Not2str8

Feb 15, 2008, 12:23 AM

bisexualinsocal

Feb 15, 2008, 12:31 AM

Not going to address the Global Warming debate any more than I'm going to debate whether or not there is a God. It's pointless and no one's opinion is likely to change one way or the other. But I don't think there's any debate that the world will be a much more livable place when we make an effort not to pollute it like we're renting the place, and can just move somewhere else when it gets too toxic. There are a thousand little things we all can do every day that will reduce the damage we do to the world.

This I agree with about 96%. No need to be a pig about it and at the same time, no need to share in scarcity because of alleged "past sin".

If the Global Warming proponents are wrong and we clean up our act a bit anyway, what harm will befall us ?

Sounds like a decent natured point. The danger here is that religious environmentalists want to use environmentalism as a political tool to put not only business, but people themselves under the thumb of the nanny state. Here in California, the state wants to control HOME THERMOSTATS! Get that! Because they don't want nuclear power and they don't want wind power (in the name of beautiful horizon views), they want to be able to control when you can and can't use your A/C and heater in your own home.

They also want to tax business back to the stone age and when the taxes lead to massive unemployment, they'll blame "past sins of excess". You have to keep their religious monkeys in check when it comes to environmentalism.

Realize their true intent. To stop commerce and cripple business.

If they are right, we might just save the world. Either way, it's gonna be a safer, cleaner place.

Whether they are right or wrong isn't what this is about. This is a power grab by the rich to keep people poor. They know damn well that the poor people in this country won't be able to afford their so called "Carbon offsets" and "biofuel". It's the corporate greenies at it again.

Can the poor afford a Toyota Prius? End of debate.

Oh, and when Notty becomes King and we find ourselves going to war with some country that has more oil than we do, you Hummer owners are gonna be on the first troop transport to the front lines.

We already won in Iraq. We got the oil.

nothings5d

Feb 15, 2008, 2:00 AM

Last I checked, it's environmentalists who are unable to prove their religion of Global Warming.

Environmentalists are scientists and therefore they prove nothing. That's the nature of science.

The scientific method, hypothesize, test. View the results to see what differed from the hypothesis, and test again. There is no proof involved, that's for mathematicians, not scientists.

wolfcamp

Feb 15, 2008, 2:11 AM

I have... they were a good starting point, ironically enough.
This also helped me out - - - >The Great Global Warming Swindle (http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/).

At the very least. . .human caused global warming is not settled science.

Anyone noticed they changed the term to "climate change" , and even started to dig up "global cooling". . .? Make up your minds.

*Taylor*

Who are these guys and what are their credentials? Are they real scientists or do they just play scientists on the internet? Can they get peer reviewed and published in credible scientific journals, or is their only publication option to put up a website and publish their opinions. I would rather get a consensus of a group of scientists who all have expertise on a subject than to believe one random guy publishing on the internet.

This guy don't tell the whole story, Taylor. The Milankovitch cycles, which is what he is talking about, have operated for the last seven hundred thousand years on an earth CO2 system where the concentrations ranged from 180 to 280 parts per million. The greenhouse effect was going on all that time but it was operating within a stable and narrow CO2 range. The Milankovitch cycles would bump temperatures up a little or down a little, but they stayed in the stable range. The earth would slip into an ice age, photosynthesis would shut down, the CO2 would build up, and things would warm up again. But in the last 30 years we have blasted the CO2 range up to almost 400 parts per million today, and it's increasing at an exponential rate. It's expected to surpass 550 parts per million easily within my lifetime, and I'm old. It's certain at this point to go higher. In the past the Milankovitch cycles were the driver of temperature change because they perturbed the temperature/CO2 interaction. Now the paradigm has shifted and CO2 is the driver. CO2 levels are projected to surpass the levels from the Paleocene-Eocene maximum when alligators lived in the arctic. That was about 50 million years ago. Another part of this problem is that as the atmosphere heats up it holds more water vapor. Water vapor is an even bigger greenhouse gas than CO2, so this causes a positive feedback system. Water vapor will increase the increase in temperature.

I could go on and on and on, because I just took a college class on this stuff. We are dumping so much fossil carbon into the atmosphere that we are changing the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14. An increase in atmospheric CO2 is changing the pH of the ocean and making it more acid. Shell forming ocean critters like coral and clams are losing their ability to process calcium as the water becomes more acidic. We are already losing reefs in a major way, and the process is accelerating. Once the fossil fuels are used up and we stop pumping CO2 into the air, it will take 100,000 to 1,000,000 years for natural processes to sequester the carbon and bring levels back to normal levels. One very lucky thing for us. There isn't enough fossil carbon in the ground to burn and use up all the available oxygen in the air. We did that calculation in class. At least we can't do ourselves in that way.

My suggestion is to read the real scientific studies before you really make up your mind.

Cheers, Wolfcamp

TaylorMade

Feb 15, 2008, 2:41 AM

bisexualinsocal

Feb 15, 2008, 3:01 AM

Who are these guys and what are their credentials? Are they real scientists or do they just play scientists on the internet? Can they get peer reviewed and published in credible scientific journals, or is their only publication option to put up a website and publish their opinions. I would rather get a consensus of a group of scientists who all have expertise on a subject than to believe one random guy publishing on the internet.

That's your problem. Consensus is enough for you. Just like religion.

Some people have a consensus group called a Church. Believers come from miles around to worship and affirm, by consensus, the unprovable God.

Much like you worship and affirm unproven science.

That fact that man-made global warming is unproven does nothing to challenge your faith. Facts mean nothing, especially when the consensus worshippers start pinning scholarly metals on themselves.

I question what your thresholds are for accepting information as "Fact".

12voltman59

Feb 15, 2008, 4:24 AM

There are some good points in Crichton's essay and some bad--as far as the banning of DDT was concerned---there were other reasons for its ban as well that were more compelling than its link to cancer--the chemical was causing birth defects and abnormalities in many species of animals--like making the shells of birds very thin and causing them to prematurely break before hatching almost making some species like the American Bald Eagle nearly extinct---in other birds such as some species of gulls--it caused excess numbers of female birds and low numbers of male gulls being born. It caused problems in reptile and amphibian reproductive systems and also even caused trouble in mammalian estrogen levels including humans that had potantial negative health effects.

DDT had very direct hamful effects on fish--which lead to many widespread fish kills in many areas of the world.

Its link with cancer was not one of the main reasons that DDT was banned, in the US--DDT was banned because the chemical was found to be: "...accumulating in the food chain, posing a risk to public health and the environment.”(1)

As far as global warming is concerned---I defer to a friend of my sister and her husband who is a Phd and works for NIOSH--the National Institutes of Safety and Occupational Health---a US federal agency--I don't know exactly what he does do for that agency--but in conversations I have had with him---he says that to him--there is no doubt that global warming and the resulting climate change--as best as science can tell at this point---is very real and mankind is playing a big role----other things I have read and seen on this subject lead me to believe this is so as well----

As far as Michael Crichton is concerned--he has in recent years largely come out on the "right" end of the scale---and thus---he has his version of what 'is--is."

I guess I will follow my view of what "is-is" too---as far as buring of oil and fossil fuels are concerned----say that there is no global warming at all--we are going to run out of oil at some point---now even faster that China, India and other large nations of the world are rapidly industrializing----they are going to fast burn up the finite--dwindling supply of oil----all the strawman arguments of "those damn environmentalist types want to hinder economic growth and have us live in the dark again" is just more of that mythmaking and smokescreen stuff that those who don't believe in global warming/climate change like to throw up.

No--if we don't get off our collective asses and find some viable energy alternatives----it will be a moot point at some point in the not too distant future---economic growth will be stopped dead in its tracks when the power plants shut down and we will be back to living in the dark again----so I say--let's smell the damn coffee---start weaning ourselves from the oil titties and develop viable energy alternatives---all the while creating new economic opportunity and also allowing us to still keep the technological society we so love with things like central heat and air conditioning!!!! And also using energy sources that don't muck up the planet to boot!!!!!

We cannot keep up the pace of burning through every resource on the planet as we have done thus far and hope to somehow avoid hitting a big proverbial brick wall!!

As far as Crichton's obfuscations regarding the banning of DDT--it makes the rest of what he says in the essay suspect --he is a smart man--and for him to get a fundamental fact wrong was no accident----so that lessens his credibility on the whole essay.

Besides--his notion that environmentalism is simply nothing more than his expression of an opinion and I am sure that there are many who can and probably did refute his assertions point by point by point.

Here is a link to a paper on DDT and its negative affects on wildlife:

http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm

Also--a link from the US Fish and Wildlife Service:

http://www.fws.gov/contaminants/Info/DDT.cfm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nature/disrupt/sspring.html

and a link to a recent study that links DDT to human breast cancer--in light of proposals to begin using DDT again:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009082406.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/goulburnmurray/stories/s2054547.htm

http://www.kenyaimagine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=666&Itemid=88

In the interest of "fairness" and such--I post this from the "JunkScience" website on the subject--but then--the tobacco companies had evidence for years that smoking was bad for us but they had their "scientists" who provided "evidence" that smoking was perfectly safe: http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html

wolfcamp

Feb 15, 2008, 9:58 AM

Global Cooling was their FAITH in the 70's. Now they changed their minds... and probably will again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

You pick and choose your facts (and non-facts), which is common strategy for the sceptics. We've had almost a 40% increase in CO2 since the 70's. That's totally out of the range of everything we can find for the last million years. How can you use numbers from almost 40 years ago? If you want to argue your cause then use REAL NUMBERS. Use numbers from today! Oh wait, that might blow big holes in your argument. Hmmmm Your numbers are bogus. You propose getting back to real science and then you pull your numbers out of a hat. That's BS! You claim the the ice pack is thickening??? Whose numbers did you use, Shackleton? Some glaciers are thickening in some localized areas because of changes in precipitation patterns. But are glaciers on the whole gaining mass? NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT. Show me where I am wrong. Again, you are using numbers to fit your position. Have you been watching the news in the last year? The northwest passage is open for the first time in recorded history. Greenlanders are losing their old hunting traditions because there IS NO ICEPACK TO GO OUT ONTO ANYMORE.

wolfcamp

Feb 15, 2008, 10:05 AM

Many of those studies WERE attached/referenced at the website...

It sounds more like you're repeating exactly what they told you in class w/o even looking at what I had to offer.

College, scmallege. Academia is a capricious gatekeeper when it comes to truth.

*Taylor*

Ok Taylor. I respect your opinion. What is it that you doubt, and why? Give me an argument of what YOU think. I'll listen.

WC

TaylorMade

Feb 15, 2008, 12:11 PM

Ok Taylor. I respect your opinion. What is it that you doubt, and why? Give me an argument of what YOU think. I'll listen.

WC

Science has been wrong before...numbers can say whatever you'd like them to say and when science marries politics, it worries me just as much as when religon does the same.

This isn't to say I pollute for the hell of it, but I'm not going to buy into the hysteria because there is a "consensus". . .just like politicians, academics can be bought or sold for a cause.

There is enough evidence that the threat is overblown. . .we can't even decide what it is- - Global warming? Climate Change? Laugh at Global Cooling now, but I HAVE heard an Oceanographer at UofMiami say it.

I have a fuel efficient car, but that's because it saves me money.

*Taylor*

the mage

Feb 15, 2008, 2:23 PM

What a load.......

you have allowed your self to be bamboozled by the words of and excellent SciFi writer. his profession is to mix fact and fiction into a good tale.

The basic premise is incorrect and fictional.
Religion promises you an after life of conscious glory in heaven ,,along with a financial donation..... praise the lawd....

Environmentalists offer your childrens children a place to live.

Both ask for sharing of resources.
Natural balance will be achieved. No one said nature is cute. Its dangerous and nasty as we will find out when it takes down society, which is the entire point.
Humans will survive an altered atmosphere. society as you know it wont.

wolfcamp

Feb 15, 2008, 3:02 PM

Science has been wrong before...numbers can say whatever you'd like them to say and when science marries politics, it worries me just as much as when religon does the same.

This isn't to say I pollute for the hell of it, but I'm not going to buy into the hysteria because there is a "consensus". . .just like politicians, academics can be bought or sold for a cause.

Yes, science has been wrong, but those theories and ideas are only changed by constant observation and testing. If someone comes along with reproducible evidence to refute an idea, then that idea is adjusted or thrown out in favor of the newer idea, which is then tested some more. Science is only validated when a hypothesis is tested and reproduced by many people. That is the consensus. Scientists don't just say 'I believe it' or 'I don't believe it'. They do their own testing and they validate. The results are published in the public domain for everyone to scrutinize. If a scientist publishes something that can't be reproduced and validated, their reputation is shot to hell. Remember the fiasco on cold fusion a few years ago? Those guys rushed to publish, but when when their results couldn't be duplicated they became a laughing stock of everyone. Their reputations as scientists were ruined. Most real scientists are very careful to publish work that can be reproduced. Scientific method is not very forgiving.

I don't think there is any reason to get hysterical, but I do think there is reason to be concerned. Are you confident enough in your stand to buy a retirement property on the beach in Florida? Something you will want to keep for the next 50 years?

There is enough evidence that the threat is overblown. . .we can't even decide what it is- - Global warming? Climate Change? Laugh at Global Cooling now, but I HAVE heard an Oceanographer at UofMiami say it.

Global warming? Climate Change? Taylor, Cmon! That's like saying "First you say you're bisexual and then you say you like both sexes! Which is it??? You can't even make up your mind!" They're two terms for the same thing. The term global warming became politicized so groups started using the term climate change. They are two ways to say the same thing.

Just what is your take on global cooling? What do you think the term really means? Why do you believe that it's evidence against global warming?

I can say I almost froze my ass off when I walked outside this morning (which is true), but that isn't real evidence against the theory that the climate is warming. Everyone talks about this vague evidence, but nobody has really said anything concrete. What is it? Where is it?

I have a fuel efficient car, but that's because it saves me money.

*Taylor*

That's great! I wish mine was better but I'm stuck with it for the time being.

P.S. Taylor, I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you. I chose you to argue with because you seem to be more reasonable than some who post here. I don't presume that I'll change your mind, but I do think that in the back of your mind, you're listening.

TaylorMade

Feb 15, 2008, 5:47 PM

Yes, science has been wrong, but those theories and ideas are only changed by constant observation and testing. If someone comes along with reproducible evidence to refute an idea, then that idea is adjusted or thrown out in favor of the newer idea, which is then tested some more. Science is only validated when a hypothesis is tested and reproduced by many people. That is the consensus. Scientists don't just say 'I believe it' or 'I don't believe it'. They do their own testing and they validate. The results are published in the public domain for everyone to scrutinize. If a scientist publishes something that can't be reproduced and validated, their reputation is shot to hell. Remember the fiasco on cold fusion a few years ago? Those guys rushed to publish, but when when their results couldn't be duplicated they became a laughing stock of everyone. Their reputations as scientists were ruined. Most real scientists are very careful to publish work that can be reproduced. Scientific method is not very forgiving.
I don't think there is any reason to get hysterical, but I do think there is reason to be concerned. Are you confident enough in your stand to buy a retirement property on the beach in Florida? Something you will want to keep for the next 50 years?
Global warming? Climate Change? Taylor, Cmon! That's like saying "First you say you're bisexual and then you say you like both sexes! Which is it??? You can't even make up your mind!" They're two terms for the same thing. The term global warming became politicized so groups started using the term climate change. They are two ways to say the same thing.
Just what is your take on global cooling? What do you think the term really means? Why do you believe that it's evidence against global warming?
I can say I almost froze my ass off when I walked outside this morning (which is true), but that isn't real evidence against the theory that the climate is warming. Everyone talks about this vague evidence, but nobody has really said anything concrete. What is it? Where is it?
That's great! I wish mine was better but I'm stuck with it for the time being.

P.S. Taylor, I'm sorry if you think I'm picking on you. I chose you to argue with because you seem to be more reasonable than some who post here. I don't presume that I'll change your mind, but I do think that in the back of your mind, you're listening.

I'm not as much arguing as explaining where I'm coming from and how I see it. Nothing more.

Of course you can make the 50-year bet due to the fact that either way, you or I can't collect. The earth has been warmer than this before this species walked the earth, and it will get warmer after we're gone.

Global Warming handles change in ONE direction. . .Cliamate change handles it no matter which way the mercury goes. It stikes me as semantic-ass covering...if it's gonna warm, say so, damn what people like me say. It's like saying you're bi sexual, then pansexual ... they're similar, but NOT the same thing because being pansexual tosses the binary system of gender all together, while bisexual more or less keeps it in place.

Global cooling was one theory to explain "climate change"... I didn't say it was evidence- - but that science can change its mind, and it wouldn't surprise me if they changed it again...push away the numbers, but people believed it. Enough people believed it to freaking put it in Time Magazine.

Science is about to marry politics and I'm objecting to the wedding. That's all.

I'm done here.

*Taylor*

The Barefoot Contess

Feb 15, 2008, 6:52 PM

Those "arguments" resemble Anne Coulter's pathetic notion of "the church of liberalism", and they deserve no more credit.

chulainn2

Feb 15, 2008, 7:06 PM

Let's do a reality check. There is more verifiable facts that the tooth fairy exists than man is creating global warming.
Carbon-footprinting is a politician's wetdream, you cant prove it but you sure as hell can tax it. Let's not overlook the (footprint) of these enviro-loonies guru Gore has, he would make bigfoot green with jealousy.
You global warming nuts make me laugh and also tremble from fear of the 'sheep' factor the ignorant masses have become. You are told what to believe, what to say, how to vote but don't ever question the liberal dogma.

In the 70's it was man made ice age, I guess every generation we need to create a mass of Chicken Littles.
My New Yrs resoultions include doubling my carbon foot print.
Ohh, and the meteroligists cant tell me if it is really going to rain in three days, where do you get off telling me what the climate will be in 40 yrs.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 1:38 AM

Let's do a reality check. There is more verifiable facts that the tooth fairy exists than man is creating global warming.
Carbon-footprinting is a politician's wetdream, you cant prove it but you sure as hell can tax it. Let's not overlook the (footprint) of these enviro-loonies guru Gore has, he would make bigfoot green with jealousy.
You global warming nuts make me laugh and also tremble from fear of the 'sheep' factor the ignorant masses have become. You are told what to believe, what to say, how to vote but don't ever question the liberal dogma.

In the 70's it was man made ice age, I guess every generation we need to create a mass of Chicken Littles.
My New Yrs resoultions include doubling my carbon foot print. (:tongue:)
Ohh, and the meteroligists cant tell me if it is really going to rain in three days, where do you get off telling me what the climate will be in 40 yrs.

That's brilliant. And for every moonbat who insists that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... or that greenhouse gas itself is not voodoo science, I offer them one challenge.

STOP BREATHING!

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2915&d=1203316706

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 1:42 AM

You pick and choose your facts (and non-facts), which is common strategy for the sceptics.

What facts did I pick and choose on? I'm interested in reading that.

MetaSexual2

Feb 18, 2008, 3:39 AM

12voltman59

Feb 18, 2008, 12:20 PM

The levels of ignorance displayed in this thread are truly stunning. These are the facts:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

Intellectual laziness is not an excuse for spreading lies and disinformation. If you don't understand what you are talking about, please go educate yourself before you engage on the topic. Simply regurgitating the brainwashing you are receiving from media sound bites helps no one.

Crichton does not have a deep understanding of this material, and the Great Global Warming Swindle is simply a collection of lies and half-truths, edited together cleverly to hoodwink the uninitiated. Gore has overhyped some of the data, but the majority of his presentation is factually accurate. The same can not be said of those opposing him.

The scientists working in the trenches to figure this stuff out have no political agenda, they simply want to get at the truth. Only true correspondences with reality are valuable in science. All new ideas get viciously pounded on by other scientists until only the core of real understanding is left. When scientists do agree on a consensus position, that is a very powerful statement.

The consensus position is that global climate is changing faster than has been recorded in human history, and likely faster than in any other geologic period we have studied. Something different than previously observed is happening and humanity is the root cause of it. What we do about it is up for debate. That it is happening is inescapable if you take an honest look at the data.

Great post Meta--I could not agree more---

The thing is in science---the majority of the scientific community--based on the best science currently available which is part and parcel of what science is all about--says that global warming or whatever one choses to call it----is very real and presents a very real danger to most of the life on the planet--from plankton up to and including human beings.

From all that I have read thanks to books, articles and the like; from the numerous documentaries I have seen and from actually getting to meet and talk to a few people who are scientists working on in some fashion on global warming----it is very real and not some figment of our imagination.

Scientists will admit they have gotten things wrong in the past and will get things wrong in the future and if such is the case---they will change their positions---that is why over time---what they talk about does change as their knowledge base increases.

Science is never static---at one point the scientists of the day did think they had found all that was knowable---primarily in the very early stages of what has become modern science back in the 18th and 19th centuries----modern scientists will very clearly say the following: "the more we know--the more we know we don't know!"

That is why the "quest for knowledge" continues and never ceases.

On this subject--like others---there is not ever going to be 100 percent consensus about everything---the best we do have is that most of the scientific community does say that global warming/climate change or whatever you care to call this--is indeed very real---that core fact is agreed upon by well over 90 percent of scientiists--beyond that--you have people following all kinds of things and such so it is on the edges where a great deal of the debate on this issue takes place.

There are those scientists who don't believe in this whole thing and they run the gamet from being very stubborn skeptics--which is a good thing--such people keep the debate honest and add a bit of leavening to the mix--all the way to:THE WHORES

The whores, as I call them--are the scientitsts who in their heart of hearts do know the evidence is ---but they have chosen, primarily out of the personal profit motive, instead of working to stretch science and increase knowledge----they ---like so many others are all about "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" So they go out to promote the views of their corporate masters and not only do they not extend science--they try to either hide or deny what the evidence indicates.

The vast majority of scientists tend to be people of modest means--they work for some government agency or at a university--they are not about making money---they want to work for "the good of mankind" and to help increase what we know.

Since everything for so many comes down to a discussion of money---what is in it for people who say make $75,000 a year going out in the field to some of the harshest environments on the planet living in tents and other non-prime living conditions for days, weeks, months or every years to gather sampels, make observations and the like to work on global warming related areas in order to try to find out what is going on???

Or what is in it for some scientist who argues that global warming is all bunk--but he or she works for EXXONMobil, etc--working in some nice comfy, climate controlled lab, filled with all of the latest high technology equipment; parking their Mercedes S class in a private parking space; going home to a multi-million dollar mansion in a gated community; getting to take the corporate jet to symposiums all over the world in places like Geneva where they present papers saying that all of the other research that indicate global warming is alll wrong or the like and pulling down a few mill a year????

So--you do have to look at where the people are at---me--I am going to believe the men and women who are not getting rich---working and living in less than optimal conditions, far from family and friends in the quest of trying to find out what is up.

I am not going to give much shrift to the guy who works for some organization like "Citizens for Fair Play" or some sort that when you scratch the surface----find that the organization is an oil or other industry front organization funded by big oil, pharma or whatever to the tune of millions of dollars a year.

Look at this issue objectively---a handful of scientists who don't believe in global warming are rogue holdhouts and real, pure skeptics--but the vast majority of them are either working for corporate interests and the like---

The vast majority of scientists do think that global warming is real and that is what they are working on today---a great deal of modern scientific research is working in some fashion, in many if not most disciplines, on the global warming issue.

But ---it does seem that people are going to believe as they will--I for one---go with the consensus of science such as it is today and the consensus is--global warming is real and that the actions of mankind do bear an impact on this.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

http://www.environmentaldefense.org/documents/381_FactSheet_globalwarming_timeline.pdf

This is a very good article on this whole topic--"the controversy over the controversy of global warming"

http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

what is interesting about the above article--it shows that the national academies of science of eleven top nations, including the US, UK, China and Russia have all held that global warming caused in part by human acitivies is real....if global warming is all bunk--well--based on this article---most of the worlds governments, scientists and even corporations including some of the top oil companies have it all wrong guys!!!! Go read through this --its a few years old---but the science has not changed much--except to show that the world temps are rising and other things negative are going on.

And if ya think it ain't about money for those who are critics of global warming--check this out:
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/01/oil-lobby-payments/

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 2:24 PM

The consensus position is that global climate is changing faster than has been recorded in human history

Consensus? LOL

Is that how you conduct your science? By popular vote? LOL

No wonder no one takes you people seriously.

wolfcamp

Feb 18, 2008, 4:40 PM

That's brilliant. And for every moonbat who insists that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... or that greenhouse gas itself is not voodoo science, I offer them one challenge.

STOP BREATHING!

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2915&d=1203316706

That's a stupid statement, and you know it.

It's funny how some people are totally accepting of certain scientific principles and methods without even realizing it, and at the same time insist that they aren't true. You might as well take down any carbon monoxide detector in your house and throw it away because it's based on exactly the same principle as the greenhouse effect, the absorption of light energy. There seems to be enough "consensus" about these principles that companies use them to make handy little gadgets that we all buy.

I think it's amusing that people who try to make an argument about something they don't know anything about will resort to name calling, and will offer more and more ludicrous arguments. If the above statement is the best you've got, then you obviously don't have any idea what you are talking about.

vittoria

Feb 18, 2008, 6:48 PM

vittoria :yawns:

Come on humans.

Give my poor eyes a break.

There's some people who give reasonable background information in the forms of links to reputable sources...

Then there's people who's only sources are Sci-Fi writers and a PICTURE for goodness sake!

Come on please.

"Well you're a dirty liberal!!" (A relic from the "hippie" movement? A "Dead Head" ?? My exhusband who wont take a BATH?????)

"Well you're a wingnut!" ( I've seen wingnuts before... they come in handy for making sure bolts arent loose on certain objects... What kind of a name call is THAT???)

"Well...(stuttered pause)well... you're a MOONBAT!!!"

(Ummm.... WTF is a moon bat? A character created by Douglas Adams??? Is it ANOTHER science fiction created creature? At least call people names based on something REAL)

This schoolyard yada-yada is all fun and games...until someone dredges up a quote from the non too distant past...It seems theres some one in here who doesnt like political threads; this person has been pissing everywhere (damn trail of urine!!! Reminds me of the song "Dont Whizz on the Electric Fence" from Ren&Stimpy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RsPMyGIjXk) and seems to be on a secret (not anymore!!! HAHA) mission to booby trap intelligent speech with boring news quotes from various Fox "Noise" reporters and their radio cohorts....

Yes, someone, whom, upon all outward appearances is a hypocritical individual. A "Tartufe" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tartufe, a "whited sepulchre" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whited+sepulchre (look it up people...its an ACTUAL term!!), if you will....

Here's the forum quote... and see if I'm correct..
"http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93430&postcount=1"http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93430&postcount=1

Now, for someone who professes disdain for political threads, I have noticed nothing more than constant "swagger"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/swagger, "browbeat"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/browbeat, "maunder"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/maunder and "hokum"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hokum. Let's not forget BLARNEY~~it IS that time of year!! :tong:

If you REALLY want to insult someone, come up and see me sometime... the archives are full of eloquent and benign ways to do it... "smarmy git"...either that or listen to some Janis Joplin "Ball and Chain" (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Ball-and-Chain-in-album-Joplin-in-Concert-lyrics-Janis-Joplin/8BBEEAFB100CBB9548256959002C9054)...but oh, wait... she was a "dirty liberal"--DAMN!! :cool:

Just my :2cents:

LL&P,

V

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 7:04 PM

That's a stupid statement, and you know it.

It's not stupid and your attempts to obfuscate the discussion are in vain. If you believe that carbon dioxide is some sort of environmental satan, then let's throw down the gauntlet and take off the gloves.

I challenge you not only to stop breathing, but you are also forbidden to reproduce because by reproducing, you are INCREASING your carbon footprint.... how will you live with yourself? Cease all your operations immediately and cease existing after that. YOU can affect climate change positively. Repent, reuse and recycle! Praise the dirt!

http://main.bisexual.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2916&d=1203379438

vittoria

Feb 18, 2008, 7:09 PM

see above post number 46.....

Told ya so :tong:

12voltman59

Feb 18, 2008, 7:58 PM

Some articles from today's edition of USA Today regarding areas and communities of the US taking steps to deal with climate change, irrespective of any discussion of what role mankind plays in such change:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-17-local-action_N.htm

12voltman59

Feb 18, 2008, 8:45 PM

Consensus? LOL

Is that how you conduct your science? By popular vote? LOL

No wonder no one takes you people seriously.

The term "consensus" in science is not something that is simpy something determined by popular vote---it is a general agreement that certain primary facts and evidence are true or do appear to be---it is not something set in stone but it gives scientists a general starting point from where they set out to do their research and investigation to both prove or disprove many of those assumptions, observations, etc.

As is so often the case with science--many of those consensus points are proven or disproven over the course of time.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 9:29 PM

As is so often the case with science--many of those consensus points are proven or disproven over the course of time.

Bingo.

And that's the problem no one wants to face when it comes to the left's attempts to legislate private individuals behavior.

Global warming is UNPROVEN.

Scroll up and read that again. Global warming is UNPROVEN.

I know the paranoid will rush right in with a fresh batch of statistics and analysis but none of that is conclusive and thus, Global warming is only a theory.

And because it's a theory, we can now get back to limiting the power of government to dictate lives, commerce and beliefs.

Which is what this really is about. Dictating who gets to do business, how much business gets to be done, who gets to reproduce, who gets to live where etc etc. Global warming is only their cover.

Zeston

Feb 18, 2008, 9:54 PM

Wasn't Global Warming/Climate Change already proven as fact a year or so ago?

I think most environmentalists are nutjobs, personally, but when you have chunks of ice the size of various states breaking off; Greenland turning green again; and a hole in the o-zone that can be easily spotted with both UV and Infra-red imaging, well I think there's some credence to the views of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Also, isn't Crichton's "Environmentalism Is A Religion" article, like, ten years old? Back when no one really took environmentalism that seriously; but now the majority of the world says, "yes, it's real", including "He Who Doesn't Believe In Reality", Pres. Bush.

I mean, come on, I thought we already had all our reality checks cashed around here?

bisexualinsocal

Feb 18, 2008, 10:28 PM

Wasn't Global Warming/Climate Change already proven as fact a year or so ago?

No. It has never been proven.

wolfcamp

Feb 19, 2008, 12:23 AM

Also, isn't Crichton's "Environmentalism Is A Religion" article, like, ten years old?

Crichton got burned by the wheels of science. Right about the time Jurassic Park was going to press, a study came out that said DNA couldn't last more than 100 thousand years, even if it's sequestered in amber. It kinda blew the credibility on his book. The book was interesting, but not feasible. The story I read was that he was a little bitter.

DiamondDog

Feb 19, 2008, 12:33 AM

Crichton got burned by the wheels of science. Right about the time Jurassic Park was going to press, a study came out that said DNA couldn't last more than 100 thousand years, even if it's sequestered in amber. It kinda blew the credibility on his book. The book was interesting, but not feasible. The story I read was that he was a little bitter.

It's a pop fiction book, who took it seriously?

I remember being in elementary school and reading it with my friend and we thought that the book was a lot more cool than the movie since they had rocket launchers and other bad ass weapons in the book that were not in the movie.

nothings5d

Feb 19, 2008, 12:34 AM

Wasn't Global Warming/Climate Change already proven as fact a year or so ago?No. It has never been proven.

As much as I disagree with him on most things, on this bisexualinsocal is actually right. But only because nothing scientific has ever been proven, not gravity, not that the human body requires oxygen, not even that applying heat to hydrogen and oxygen will create water. There's plenty of evidence for all these things, as well as global warming, but no proof. That's the nature of the scientific method.

12voltman59

Feb 19, 2008, 12:54 AM

No. It has never been proven.

Let us get this clear--do you hold that there is no kind of climatic change now taking place????

Or do you agree that something is going on, but that you don't think human activity plays any role??

And as nothing does say--global warming has not been proven beyond an absolute shadow of a doubt--have you not read my posts carefully??? Science works on the basis of "the best evidence we have at this point indicating something is such--but it can never ever--be fully demonstrably proven"

It is sort of like the standard for law in civil court--the standard there is "the preponderance of evidence" as opposed to "guilt established beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases.

Science goes with the preponderance standard and if you hold to this sort of logic---then religion is total bunk since it cannot be proven even to the level of preponderance of evidence--religion would never rise to the level of being "proven" to the standard of criminal law--of "evidence beyond reasonable doubt."

If this was the standard of where we hold science- we would still be back in the caves---for Christ sake--I head a story the other day that the common explaination about how the wing of an airplane works that we've taught in school all these years was totally wrong---but that has not kept aeronautical engineers from desiging new planes or prevent us from riding in them...it sure as hell does not prevent them from flying!!!

Like I said---medical researchers developed ways to do heart surgery that went on to save many lives even though they still had some questions about all the ways things work in the heart, but that did not stop them from doing those operations or they developed radiation and chemotherapy treatments for cancers without fully understanding the mechanisms involved--they just knew that certain treatments provided relief.

One more analogy: By your standard--no one could ever win a football game because when they got the ball down into the end zone--you would move the zone down another 20 yards and not let them have any more downs to get there!!!

Jesus freaking christ man!!!!

bisexualinsocal

Feb 19, 2008, 1:11 AM

Let us get this clear--do you hold that there is no kind of climatic change now taking place????

Or simply that something is going on and human activity plays no role??

The climate changes undoubtedly. The Roman's ran vineyards on the land now known as Libya. People say it has to do with the magnetic reversal of the poles. Some people say it's the sun. That facts are that mankind knows very, very little about himself and the world/galaxy/universe he lives in. People who think they know what's going on with the change are entirely full of shit. Science knows squat and science worshipers are sheep.

We'll never know why the climate changes. Guaranteed 100% or double your money back. We will never know. We'd be better off trying to find ways to be a better species and turn ourselves around from the nuclear destruction we are headed into.

12voltman59

Feb 19, 2008, 1:23 AM

Whatever---we are never going to agree--the best is a draw and say we agree to disagree---

I am not changing your mind and you can't change mine----I won't even respond to some of the other things in your post---

I am done---this is just pissing into the wind-----if thought any purpose would be served by posting anything else I would do it--but this thread is really going nowhere---

I have made my point very clearly in as many ways as possible----and I will just go on and do what I feel I can do in some small way to get things to change---even if they are to no avail---but you do have to try to act based upon your convictions and beliefs.

wolfcamp

Feb 19, 2008, 1:46 AM

Bingo.

And that's the problem no one wants to face when it comes to the left's attempts to legislate private individuals behavior.

Global warming is UNPROVEN.

Why do you keep injecting politics into this? I'm trying to give you science and you keep coming back with politics. Wasn't that the Crichton's main complaint, that political and religious factions were corrupting the science? There's really no reason to keep pulling out evidence if you refuse to even acknowledge it.

Hey, I know. You could join the Flat Earth Society. They haven't changed their views in 1500 years. They'll have nothing to do with this foolish notion of a spherical earth. They just ignore every bit of evidence. I think you would fit right in.

I'm not really clear about something. Are you claiming that carbon dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas? Because that IS proven. Are you disputing the laws of physics. Nobody disputes that CO2 adsorbs infrared radiation at 1.5 and 1.9 microns. Imaging satellites like Landsat and all the others, including the spy satellites are set up to skip those bandwidths because the light is adsorbed by the CO2 in the atmosphere and they can't see anything. If you ever took a basic chemistry class, you would know that when a molecule adsorbs a photon of light it heats up. That's one of the most basic rules of chemistry. It's not just a theory, it's testable and observable. So what are you saying, exactly? Without any greenhouse gases, the earth would be an uncomfortable 0 degrees F, or -18 degrees C, because it NEEDS a blanket of greenhouse gases to stay at a livable temperature. That can be easily calculated by measuring the radiation from the sun, and by comparing our planet to the moon and the other planets. And there is no controversy that the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is rising, unless you think there is a conspiracy at thousands of sampling stations around the world where they are all turning in the same numbers. So, is that what you are claiming? Are you claiming that there is no greenhouse effect, because that's what I think I've been hearing you say.

vittoria

Feb 19, 2008, 6:32 AM

poor 12 volt and wolfcamp...

keep trying to tell everyone this stuff but no one listens...

how does it feel?

I'll try to reach the masses yet ONCE again :tong: :

vittoria :yawns:

Come on humans.

Give my poor eyes a break.

There's some people who give reasonable background information in the forms of links to reputable sources...

Then there's people who's only sources are Sci-Fi writers and a PICTURE for goodness sake!

Come on please.

"Well you're a dirty liberal!!" (A relic from the "hippie" movement? A "Dead Head" ?? My exhusband who wont take a BATH?????)

"Well you're a wingnut!" ( I've seen wingnuts before... they come in handy for making sure bolts arent loose on certain objects... What kind of a name call is THAT???)

"Well...(stuttered pause)well... you're a MOONBAT!!!"

(Ummm.... WTF is a moon bat? A character created by Douglas Adams??? Is it ANOTHER science fiction created creature? At least call people names based on something REAL)

This schoolyard yada-yada is all fun and games...until someone dredges up a quote from the non too distant past...It seems theres some one in here who doesnt like political threads; this person has been pissing everywhere (damn trail of urine!!! Reminds me of the song "Dont Whizz on the Electric Fence" from Ren&Stimpy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RsPMyGIjXk) and seems to be on a secret (not anymore!!! HAHA) mission to booby trap intelligent speech with boring news quotes from various Fox "Noise" reporters and their radio cohorts....

Yes, someone, whom, upon all outward appearances is a hypocritical individual. A "Tartufe" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Tartufe, a "whited sepulchre" http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whited+sepulchre (look it up people...its an ACTUAL term!!), if you will....

Here's the forum quote... and see if I'm correct..
"http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93430&postcount=1"http://main.bisexual.com/forum/showpost.php?p=93430&postcount=1

Now, for someone who professes disdain for political threads, I have noticed nothing more than constant "swagger"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/swagger, "browbeat"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/browbeat, "maunder"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/maunder and "hokum"http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hokum. Let's not forget BLARNEY~~it IS that time of year!! :tong:

If you REALLY want to insult someone, come up and see me sometime... the archives are full of eloquent and benign ways to do it... "smarmy git"...either that or listen to some Janis Joplin "Ball and Chain" (http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Ball-and-Chain-in-album-Joplin-in-Concert-lyrics-Janis-Joplin/8BBEEAFB100CBB9548256959002C9054)...but oh, wait... she was a "dirty liberal"--DAMN!! :cool:

Just my :2cents:

LL&P,

V

from what i remember, someone reminded this bisocal person that he doesnt know anyone on this site well, and since he's only been on here since january of this year that the best way to get people to want to be bothered with him is not to try running around picking fights...

but i guess there's some deaf ears :)

darkeyes

Feb 19, 2008, 1:01 PM

V..yas miffed..me can tell... kissie:tong:

12voltman59

Feb 19, 2008, 2:49 PM

poor 12 volt and wolfcamp...

keep trying to tell everyone this stuff but no one listens...

how does it feel?

I'll try to reach the masses yet ONCE again :tong: :

from what i remember, someone reminded this bisocal person that he doesnt know anyone on this site well, and since he's only been on here since january of this year that the best way to get people to want to be bothered with him is not to try running around picking fights...

but i guess there's some deaf ears :)

Vittoria--you don't have to feel sorry for me--I feel sorry for ya'all--just because you don't see the train coming fast and furious down the track --as long as you stay on the track --it doesn't mean the damn thing is not gonna crunch ya---its a two mile long run of coal cars loded to the gills--coming 'round the bend and down out of the mountains--so that baby is really cranked up!!!

I just no longer see any sense in trying to talk sense to ya'all since it is obviously---"don't confuse me with the facts---my mind is made up!!"

At this point--there is no longer any point in trying to get any sort of agreement on this---like I said--we are both just preaching to our respective choirs----and continuing this conversation no longer serves any purpose---and the idea that some people have deaf ears---goes both ways.

Like I have said many times before--as Bill Clinton said--"It all Depends upon what your definition of IS-IS!!"

My definition of is in this case is that global warming is very real--and is going to exact profound changes on human society and frankly----being at nearly 50 years of age--it is a moot point for me--since most of the bad shit is going to go down after I am pushing up daisy's in the old bone yard----I still feel that I have to do what I can in my limited way to try to at least alleviate the coming problems---it comes from my notion of "leaving the place nicer than the way I found it"

Thankfully----there are now an ever increasling number of people working on efforts that will at least deal with the effects of those changes---and global warming is one of those situations---you prepare for the worst but hope and pray for the best---

I actually hope that the scientists have it all wrong on this--but I don't think that they do--it may not be as bad as their worst case scenarios or it could be worse----

It is a good thing that we do have people who don't just hold up there hands and say either "nothing I can do about it or it ain't real"---hell--and for the capitalists among us---I hope that there are some really smart, bright creative entreprenurial types who go out there and become the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of the "global warming mitigation industry" that is bound to grow up.

There are plenty of people out there who are working in this area---thankfully they are----

So go ahead guys---believe as you will----live with your version of what "IS-IS"--I will live with my definition too!!!

12voltman59

Feb 19, 2008, 3:58 PM

I did want to congratulate you guys too----the money you spent on your Rush Limbaugh/Ann Coulter/Sean Hannity coorespondence course---"How To Deal With Stupid Liberals"---was money well spent because you held your ground and never conceded an iota on any points at all----you did not even recognize even a minimum degree of information had any worthy value at all and you also did a good job of bringing up all kinds of ancillary and changing elements--like I said---the ball got into the red zone and ya kept moving the goal posts----Rush and Company would be proud of ya!!!

This little lively discussion does reflect in our small way--the way that such discussions are done in the bigger world----it is a wonder we get anything done at all anymore----

nothings5d

Feb 19, 2008, 6:19 PM

And for every moonbat who insists that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas... or that greenhouse gas itself is not voodoo science...

Venus statistics
Mean distance from Sun -- 108.2 million km (67.3 million mi., 0.723 AU)
Atmospheric composition -- 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen
Surface temperature (mean) -- 464 °C (867 °F)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/Venus.html

Mercury statistics
Distance from Sun (mean) -- 57.9 million km (35.9 million miles, 0.387 AU)
Max. temperature (day) -- 427 °C (801 °F)
Min. temperature (night) -- -183 °C (-297 °F)
Mercury has no atmosphere
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/Mercury.html

note the temperatures. Venus, average temperature of 467°C. Mercury, maximum temperature 427°C. Venus, though almost twice as far from the sun, has a higher AVERAGE temperature than Mercury's MAXIMUM temperature. Venus has an atmospheric composition of ~96.5% carbon dioxide. If that isn't evidence that greenhouse gases exist and that carbon dioxide is one of them, I don't know what is.

And that whole "Stop breathing thing" the average human through breathing produces roughly 2100 pounds of CO2 in an 80 year lifetime, if the numbers I looked up are correct. And based on some other numbers I have the average car produces that much every roughly 9250 miles. My current car, which happens to be my first car, is just a little over 15 years old and has 202,754.95 miles on it, I went outside to check the exact number. That car has already produced almost 22 times the amount of carbon dioxide that my body will have IF I live to be 80. Now, I wasn't the original owner of the car, but when I started driving it, it only had roughly 180,000 miles on it. I've put 20k miles on that car, by driving I am personally responsible for over twice what breathing for 80 years will do. So breathing does VERY little in comparison, since I've only been driving a little over a year now.

Oh, and please stop insulting people you don't agree with.

12voltman59

Feb 19, 2008, 8:00 PM

Nothings--there is no sense in trying to reason with a person who posesses not one shread of reason at all---time to let this thread die the death it now deserves---you would have better luck cutting a diamond out of a ten ton block of rock with your head than to get through to this guy----and if I am pissed at anything--it took me so long to realize the fact that he is a total blockhead.

Time for me to go kick my own ass for being so damn stupid!!!:bigrin::bigrin:

(Smack) ummphhhh!! (Thud) ugghhhh!!! (Crash, boom bang)

bisexualinsocal

Feb 19, 2008, 8:58 PM

Keep throwing the words around. "Fact", "information", "study".... "consensus". Especially the last 2 words. Empty minds hear those words and their empty heads run wild. I'll say it again. There are very few conclusive facts about the voodoo that is global warming.

Let me toss this bone out there.

What controls did science use in measuring temperature in the 1850's and how are those controls, or even, how are methods different today?

Come on I can't wait! Someone's bound to come in here citing a "study" as "fact" or a consensus of studies as "Fact".

Come on and fire up the brains, PLEASE! Someone in this very thread actually said these words-

"There is no proof that the human body needs oxygen to survive".

How's that for a mind fuck? :tongue: I challenge any ambitious science worshipping scholar to conduct a study. The study is this. Tie a plastic bag around your head and try suffocating. Then come back and tell us if you died. Don't take to long, though, we might draw the wrong conclusion. :tongue:

William F Buckley said, "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the 2000 members of the faculty of Harvard University."

Cripes that man is a genius!

nothings5d

Feb 19, 2008, 10:00 PM

Come on and fire up the brains, PLEASE! Someone in this very thread actually said these words-

"There is no proof that the human body needs oxygen to survive".

How's that for a mind fuck? :tongue: I challenge any ambitious science worshipping scholar to conduct a study. The study is this. Tie a plastic bag around your head and try suffocating. Then come back and tell us if you died. Don't take to long, though, we might draw the wrong conclusion. :tongue:

What I said was, science has yet to prove it. And that is true. Examine the scientific method...

1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test : Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent.

What the scientific method says to do is to examine what seems to be happening and test to see if you're wrong, not if you're right. We have never found any evidence that the human body doesn't need oxygen, but since we cannot be sure that our knowledge of chemistry or any other science is correct we cannot prove that our bodies need oxygen. We do have very strong evidence that indicates it.

Since our knowledge of chemistry is incomplete for all we know it might be the lack of nitrogen that kills us. Remember that when you put a bag over your head you're depriving yourself of more than oxygen, ~78% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and only ~21% is oxygen.

The only way we will ever be able to prove anything scientifically is if god him/herself were to come down to earth and hand us a tome containing all the rules of how things work in the universe. But since that's not very likely to happen, we will never be able to prove anything scientifically, we can only find evidence that things work the way we think they work.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 19, 2008, 10:27 PM

nothings5d

Feb 19, 2008, 11:51 PM

What I said was, science has yet to prove it. And that is true. Examine the scientific method...Nah, I'd rather examine something called "Common sense". Like I told you in private message, you're complicating a very simple thing.

No oxygen= Your dead.

Sometimes life is simple like that.

If you refuse to take the scientific method into account in a thread about science then you shouldn't post in the thread.

Although you make a very good point there. It is "Common sense" that "No oxygen= Your dead." However, oxygen wasn't discovered until the 1772 and it wasn't known that we needed it to live until 1777. So even when Oxygen was originally discovered the common sense was "No air= you're dead." Common sense has changed because of science since then. Right now the common sense is that there are climate changes. Who knows what common sense will be in 230 years, until then the only thing we have to go on is the scientific findings in regards to climate. Right now the scientific findings are that humanity has raised the temperature of the earth through excessive CO2 output.

In this thread the term global warming has been used widely, global warming itself should not be the subject though. Anthropogenic global warming is what we've really been talking about, anthropogenic meaning human created. I say this because I want to be more specific from now on.

Greenhouse gases were discovered in 1824, no quantitative tests were done until 1896. Our effect on the atmosphere has changed since then and though I can't find the exact date anthropogenic global warming was hypothesized a few decades ago. But we have yet to find enough evidence that it doesn't exist to discredit it. It took us 5 years, without any previous evidence of it at all, to notice that we required oxygen to live. We've had plenty of time to research anthropogenic global warming, and yet there has not yet been enough evidence to indicate that it is not likely.

The nature of being a scientist means accepting that you don't, and never will, know exactly what's going on. I admit the possibility that we might be wrong about anthropogenic global warming, but at this date that does not seem very likely based off the evidence.

Unless you change your mind and take the scientific method into account, I'm not going to respond to anything more you say in here about any kind of science. And any thread I see you post in where you mention science I will either ignore you there or post that you don't take science seriously and should be ignored. Which one will be determined by the level of intentional scientific ignorance that you show.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 20, 2008, 1:04 AM

If you refuse to take the scientific method into account in a thread about science then you shouldn't post in the thread.

Ahhh, now you want to play language fascist and exclude those who have the gall to question voodoo with 'common sense'? Let me know when you come up with some science before you call this a "thread about science". There's no science. The only thing here is 'I feel pretty' statistics and bad science.

See here's where the disconnect is. You actually think there's science involved here when if anything there's just opinions about statistical interpretation. That's not science, that's jaw jacking.

wolfcamp

Feb 20, 2008, 2:04 PM

If you refuse to take the scientific method into account in a thread about science then you shouldn't post in the thread.

nothings5d you might as well give it up. The only thing he can do is call you names and stubbornly make claims he doesn't know how to defend. By his own logic he can't prove his own claims. He couldn't even prove who his mother is, let alone his father. Ha ha ha.

In order to make a strong argument against an opponent's position, you have to know something about that position. It's pretty obvious that isn't the case. I was really hoping for more. I like to debate because I usually learn something, but this has been a little disappointing. I was hoping for something to really make me think...to give me pause. When I hear someone make an argument that I should kill myself and then report back to him, I know the conversation has deteriorated far enough. I have other things to do.

nothings5d

Feb 20, 2008, 5:52 PM

nothings5d you might as well give it up. The only thing he can do is call you names and stubbornly make claims he doesn't know how to defend. By his own logic he can't prove his own claims. He couldn't even prove who his mother is, let alone his father. Ha ha ha.

In order to make a strong argument against an opponent's position, you have to know something about that position. It's pretty obvious that isn't the case. I was really hoping for more. I like to debate because I usually learn something, but this has been a little disappointing. I was hoping for something to really make me think...to give me pause. When I hear someone make an argument that I should kill myself and then report back to him, I know the conversation has deteriorated far enough. I have other things to do.

If you look at the end of my post, I HAVE given up. That was just my one final attempt to get him to see reason instead of just saying the same pointless thing over and over. And he says that we're the ones who should open up our minds.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 20, 2008, 8:06 PM

If there's anything you both should give up it's your attempts to misrepresent weather analysis as proof of global warming.

One need only read 2 or 3 of your posts to see that you're trying to take this discussion into weather analysis and that, my friends, is not proof of global warming.

Let me restate that last part:

you're trying to take this discussion into weather analysis and that, my friends, is not proof of global warming.

You might want to reread that maybe 15 times.

The best minds in the climate business have yet to prove this voodoo so i'm not sure why you're so ready to bite right into it other than "It makes me feel good".

I'm all for recycling and all that stuff that makes religious environmentalists feel better about themselves, but don't force your religion down my throat.

nothings5d

Feb 21, 2008, 12:22 AM

You might want to reread that maybe 15 times.

...don't force your religion down my throat.
Hypocrite.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 21, 2008, 3:14 AM

Hypocrite.

There's nothing hypocritical about it. I just don't want the nannies you want to empower knocking at my door or digging through my trash to make sure I recycled my plastic allowance.

Keep your religion out of my life.

vittoria

Feb 21, 2008, 8:39 AM

go to sleep

take a nap

12voltman59

Feb 21, 2008, 12:19 PM

go to sleep

take a nap

That's right Vi--this guy needs to take a major chill pill----

Dude--if ya don't chill on this---you are gonna stroke out!!!!!

Drop it already--we all know you have a closed mind----nothing anyone says is going to change your mind and it is obvious that you are all knowing and that the rest of us are fucked up because we see a problem and want to do something about it---well--all I can say is that thank god we are not as enlightened as you are!!!

nothings5d

Feb 21, 2008, 4:56 PM

There's nothing hypocritical about it. I just don't want the nannies you want to empower knocking at my door or digging through my trash to make sure I recycled my plastic allowance.

Keep your religion out of my life.

Wrong thread... You're a hypocrite for forcing your ideas down our throats while demanding that we not force ours down yours.

EvilDoctor

Feb 21, 2008, 6:07 PM

Venus statistics
Mean distance from Sun -- 108.2 million km (67.3 million mi., 0.723 AU)
Atmospheric composition -- 96% carbon dioxide, 3.5% nitrogen
Surface temperature (mean) -- 464 °C (867 °F)

Interesting you should bring this up. It was a theory that was developed in the 1950's (co-authored by Carl Sagan) that first hypothesised that the exteme temperatures observed on Venus could be due to the fact that atmosphere is mostly carbon dioxide. Thus laid the foundation of much of the Global Warming speculation today. However you can not use Venus as an example, for one thing it's atmosphere is 90 times denser than that of Earths, another thing is that it lacks and iron core, thus no magnetic field, thus it get bombarded by 100% of the solar radiation it gets tossed it's way, instead of the tiny fraction that Earth gets. Add to the fact that Mars has similar percentage of carbon dioxide in it's atmosphere and is essentially a frozen ice cube certainly suggests that the importance of carbon dioxide in climate change is greatly over rated.

Is climate change real? Duh, of course it is, there is thing that is constant on Earth and that is change. The Earth has ranged from being ice free to being half ice-covered, neither state is more natural than the other. Is the Earth warming up? Probably. Is it man-made? Maybe in part, but it is still undetermined despite the pronouncements of some politicos, and probably not in the way most think.

First off, melting sea ice is a symptom not a proof. It is interesting to note that observations of melting sea ice were made during the 1960's which shown by the global temperature charts was period of global cooling. If the sea is melting despite falling temperatures, shows that it's less a natural product of a temperate Earth, and more a relic of time of extreme cold, and that with or without our help the ice caps will melt away. Now considering that ice fields reflect a high percentage of sunlight, the more ice caps melt, the more the Earths albedo drops, the more sunlight is absorbed the higher the Earth's temperature becomes. Thus it could be said that ice caps are not melting because the Earth is getting warmer but the Earth is getting warmer because the ice caps are melting. You can add to this that the forested area of North America has increase by 30% in the past 35 years which further drops the albedo of the Earth, and you a more plausable explaination of why the Earth is warming up.

The fact that the carbon dioxide rate in our atmosphere is at record levels is irrelevent for the most part because it still represents a tiny percentage of overall volume of the Earth's atmosphere. Does it really matter if the percentage of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is 0.03% or 0.04%? Of course not! It's insignificant! So obviously there is a political agenda at work. We saw a part of it at the latest climate change conference, where Canada (responsible for about 2% of the worlds CO2 output) ask to make significant cuts to it's production while China (responsible for 25% of the worlds CO2 output) was not asked to make any. Is there different types of carbon dioxide? Is the Canadian variety somehow more dangerous than the Chinese variety? It's all a puppet show...

It is obvious that it is in the interests of such organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierre Club to paint picture of the enviroment in as negative light as possible. The amount of money these "charities" receive is in the billions of dollars, they are essentially Fortune 500 companies, and they need to keep the money rolling in. How much money do you think they get if they told the truth and said that our air and water is cleaner then it has been at anytime in our recent history and things will continue to improve? They would cease to exist within a year from all their donations drying up.

So 'Enviromentalism as Religion'? I'm convinced...

DiamondDog

Feb 21, 2008, 11:43 PM

http://www.bustedtees.com/bt/images/BT-thisiswhyimhot-gallery_artwork_thumb-2316.jpg

wolfcamp

Feb 22, 2008, 1:41 AM

nothings5d

Feb 22, 2008, 7:07 PM

However you can not use Venus as an example, for one thing it's atmosphere is 90 times denser than that of Earths, another thing is that it lacks and iron core, thus no magnetic field, thus it get bombarded by 100% of the solar radiation it gets tossed it's way, instead of the tiny fraction that Earth gets. Add to the fact that Mars has similar percentage of carbon dioxide in it's atmosphere and is essentially a frozen ice cube certainly suggests that the importance of carbon dioxide in climate change is greatly over rated.

The comparison I was making was between Venus and Mercury, not Venus and Earth. Mercury only has 1% of our magnetic field so that is almost negligible in that comparison. Though you do make a good point about the atmosphere being denser, in the case of comparing Venus to Mercury Venus' atmosphere is infinitely denser, but since Venus is almost twice as far from the sun it should be getting far less solar radiation than Mercury, and yet holds onto it's heat to the point that it's average temperature is greater than Mercury's high.

As wolfcamp said, Mars has a very thin atmosphere, so taking density into account it actually has less carbon dioxide, by mass, than we do. I just did the math on it.

wolfcamp

Feb 23, 2008, 3:08 AM

However you can not use Venus as an example, for one thing it's atmosphere is 90 times denser than that of Earths,

Why would you not use Venus as a comparison? The reason Venus has such a heavy atmosphere is because all the water that would be in oceans has vaporized because of the heat and is now mixed with the atmosphere. If earth were heated to the temperature of Venus, our oceans would vaporize and our atmosphere would be even heavier. I think the comparison is valid.

It is interesting to note that observations of melting sea ice were made during the 1960's which shown by the global temperature charts was period of global cooling.

Yes that is very interesting. Who reported it? How long did it last? How extensive was the melting? Was it a local melting? Regional? Where was it? I would like very much to read about it? Could you send me a reference?

If the sea is melting despite falling temperatures, shows that it's less a natural product of a temperate Earth, and more a relic of time of extreme cold, and that with or without our help the ice caps will melt away.

Wait a minute. That just doesn't sound logical. Why would ice melt during times of falling temperatures? If I turn my refrigerator warmer, my ice cubes melt. If I turn the dial colder, they freeze and stay frozen. Any reasonable person would verify that observation. I could understand a local melting event caused by an underwater volcano, or an errant under-ice current. But, for ice to just start melting on large scales when temperatures were cold and getting colder just doesn't make sense. What you are suggesting goes against the laws of thermodynamics. The ice caps have been in place for 35 million years. Why would the ice caps just start melting for no reason?

Now considering that ice fields reflect a high percentage of sunlight, the more ice caps melt, the more the Earths albedo drops, the more sunlight is absorbed the higher the Earth's temperature becomes. Thus it could be said that ice caps are not melting because the Earth is getting warmer but the Earth is getting warmer because the ice caps are melting.

You could say that, but I personally believe that the majority of the evidence points the other way. Albedo is only one of many earth feedback systems. It's very important, but so is thermohaline circulation of the oceans which helps distribute heat from the equator to the poles. I'm just saying that albedo is not the only driver here.

You can add to this that the forested area of North America has increase by 30% in the past 35 years which further drops the albedo of the Earth, and you a more plausable explaination of why the Earth is warming up.

But total global deforestation is increasing. You can't just look at North America.

The fact that the carbon dioxide rate in our atmosphere is at record levels is irrelevent for the most part because it still represents a tiny percentage of overall volume of the Earth's atmosphere.

This is your opinion, and a lot of people would disagree with you.

I can understand skepticism, and I appreciate the fact that you are trying to make a reasoned argument, but I think some of your reasoning is off track. Spontaneously melting ice caps just don't make sense. There is no known natural mechanism that would drive something like that.

chuck1124

Feb 23, 2008, 1:02 PM

nothings5d

Feb 23, 2008, 4:08 PM

This seems like the most appropriate current thread to post this in. In an e-mail sent out last night my school just announced that Bill Clinton is going to be on campus Monday to campaign for Hillary. I wonder if he's going to try to work something into his speech about global warming.:rolleyes:

wolfcamp

Feb 23, 2008, 5:21 PM

I can easily agree, that cleaning up the environment is important, that polution is a problem. But I also agree, that environmental extremists are more interested in power than in clean environment.

For all the scientific studies and findings concerning how man is causing global warming, none have answered the question, "why is there evidence of climate change on Mars?" That is a scientific fact. Goodness, those Mars Rovers sure must be putting out lots of greenhouse gases.

I can't continue to debate about other planets. You guys are wearing me out. Each planet is different. Mars has no plate tectonics for one thing. On earth a huge (HUGE) portion of the carbon is sequestered in carbonate (limestone) rocks. They are subducted, and they are recycled through volcanism. That process stopped long ago on Mars. Here on earth the cycle is slow and takes millions of years. The next largest reservoir for sequestered carbon is coal, and we are digging it up and throwing it up into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can.

Go look for the answers yourselves. That's what I did. It's one big reason I went back to school. It's a lot of friggin' work to separate the real answers from the myth. It's easy to stand on the sidelines and speculate and try to act like some kind of expert. And by the way, science is really an overall term for math, chemistry, and physics, which are all difficult and a lot of work, but they can be learned by anyone if they put their minds to it. It's not voodoo.

I'm not sure why you are all claiming that the mathematicians, the chemists, the physicists, the geologists, the climatologists and the other scientists are politically biased. The school that I attend has strong colleges of science and engineering. A large portion of the funding comes from the oil and mining industries. Sierra Club? I think there is a student branch of the Sierra Club on campus. I think I've seen a booth set up in the union a time or two, but I've never seen an executive representative on campus, and I am almost positive that there is no wing of any building on campus that was funded by the Sierra Club. I don't know of any funding or grants or scholarships provided by the Sierra Club. I don't know where you guys are getting your information.

We get grants from Marathon, Exxon, BP, Peabody, and others. These are the companies that will provide the jobs for most of my classmates when they graduate. Coal and oil drive my state's economy. Just a few days ago an executive from Marathon Oil was on campus speaking about energy independence and advocating that we open up drilling in all of Wyoming.

You would think that the bias would be toward the skeptic side of carbon buildup. After all, these companies are providing our educational funding and our paychecks when we graduate. They even provide funding for research. They have a big stake in seeing the skeptics win this debate. This is one of the most conservative schools around. Dick Cheney went to school here for cripes sakes! Yet, every professor that I've encountered so far sees carbon buildup as a big concern. Why is that? It's because they are the ones who are studying the problem, and they are the ones seeing the numbers.

It's the oil companies and the mining companies and the car manufacturers who are stuffing money in the pockets of the politicians. That's where the bias is.

bisexualinsocal

Feb 25, 2008, 11:20 PM

Global Warming?

Someone better tell the snow!

Welcome to the new Ice Age

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early:tongue:, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

paukenplayer

Feb 25, 2008, 11:37 PM

OK, I've had enough of this......

Most of you are missing the forest for the trees. Mr. Chricton's article is more about the POLITICS of environmentalism than the actual science. And, The original posters point was the same.

I really think that the main issue here is that many politicians (and some scientists) have hijacked this issue into the political realm.

Do I think that climate change or global warming or whatever the current term is exists? I don't know.

Does that mean that one should not try to be a good steward of the earth and it's resources? Of course not. Reducing pollution and searching for better ways to meet our energy needs than using fossil fuels is good no matter what.

The point that is being missed here is that this notion of being a good steward of the environment is being hijacked for political purposes - and I do most definitely have objections to that! I do not want to be told what I can and cannot do with my own property. I do not want to be told how I can set my thermostat, or what kind of car I am allowed to drive, or get involved in this "purchasing carbon offsets" bullshit.

Keep the politics out of it and let science plod along until it uncovers something useful.

darkeyes

Feb 26, 2008, 1:35 PM

OK, I've had enough of this......

The point that is being missed here is that this notion of being a good steward of the environment is being hijacked for political purposes - and I do most definitely have objections to that! I do not want to be told what I can and cannot do with my own property. I do not want to be told how I can set my thermostat, or what kind of car I am allowed to drive, or get involved in this "purchasing carbon offsets" bullshit.

Keep the politics out of it and let science plod along until it uncovers something useful.

Ya wer doin ok tillya came 2 this bit hun.... wetha ya likes it or not..ya r told wotya can an cant do wiv ya property every day of ya life... ther a million an 1 regulations wich stopya doin jus that...plannin laws jus for starters... but in principle me has sympathy wivya point...but do accept me share of responisibility as a human bein 2 act responsibly wiv wot me dus wiv me house.. an consider the effect me livin ther, an how me uses it on the world about me..not jus me immediate neighbours... Same goes for ya car.. an ne otha thing we use 2 make our life we hope, betta...

But ther is as prob wiv the climate...warmin is happenin..that aint in dispute in many quarters... natural or man induced or both?? No 1 is quite sure tho think ther sum evidence that human kind bears at least summa the responsibility. Sea levels r risin...an in the pacific certain countries may cease 2 exist beacuse they will b uninhabitable and/or submerged as as a result... Human pollution is appallin an huge tracts of our world r poisoned because of our waste an our strippin of the planets resources... Summa that contributes 2 global warmin... Question is..do we wanna b roasted or poisoned 1st?? Or asphyxiated??? Fun..me likes livin...an think this is still a beautiful world for all the damage we hav dun 2 it...

It aint politics thats the prob...not as such..party politics 2 a gr8 degree mayb.. the politics of greed an self interest mayb.. politics is, in theory at least, the science of gettin stuff dun... party politics the science of delay, self interest an stoppin gettin stuff dun. We know ther is a prob wiv the climate..we know ther is a prob ova pollution..science an politics hav ther parts 2 play... we all hav our part 2 play..an its bout time we undastood that we do face a serious prob..an started actin as if we reely cared bout dealin wiv it an makin things betta as far as we can.. 2 sum degree...this means..or shud mean, ther will b sum things we don like wich we r gonna havta put up wiv for the gud of the community of life on earth.. in many ways we havta do a bitta that ne way.... thats wy nations hav laws... the main thing is for the world 2 get it right wen it cums 2 climate change an planetary conservation.. Can humanity do it?? Sure..if it reely wanted 2...an we all accepted we r gonna hav 2 make serious sacrifices.. will it??? ahhhh now thers a question...

nandysha

Feb 16, 2020, 1:02 PM

http://cvs-com.jouwweb.nl/
https://sites.google.com/view/cvsmmyhr/home
https://mmyhrcvs.blogspot.com/2019/12/cvs-caremar.html
https://employeelogin.business.blog/2019/12/22/cvs-online/
https://telegra.ph/achievement-articulations-12-21