Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T - Archive
  Global Warmongering - Blog style

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


Global Warmongering - Blog style by Patrick's Dad
Started on: 01-20-2007 09:00 AM
Replies: 28
Last post by: G-Nasty on 01-23-2007 03:36 PM
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 09:00 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageClick Here to Email Patrick's DadSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
Original blog entry, with links to responses

In a nutshell:

Dr. Heidi Cullum, of "The Weather Channel," recommends AMS decertification of broadcast meteorologists who do not agree that Global Warming is a manmade phenomenon (or that we are, in large part, to blame).

James Spann, an ABC-TV broadcast meteorologist from Alabama, disagrees, saying that in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in GW.

TWC, for its part, is supporting Dr. Cullum and has not backed off her suggestion to strip dissenters of their credentials.

Is this a political fight?

Are "Global Warming Doomsayers" receiving huge grants to hype this story, as Mr. Spann suggests? (The same as has been suggested in relation to Exxon/Mobil, but for "the other side")

Does this increase/decrease your opinion of TWC?

Does this change your mind at all?

Discuss:
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
NEPTUNE
Member
Posts: 10199
From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places.
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 09:57 AM Click Here to See the Profile for NEPTUNESend a Private Message to NEPTUNEDirect Link to This Post
Apparently the right is no longer in lock step denial of mans role in accelerating the warming process. Evangelicals are beginning to take mans stewardship of planet earth to heart::
[QUOTE]
Slumbering giant awakens on global warming

Alan Farago | Special to the Sentinel
Posted January 20, 2007


On global warming, the American public is slowly rising to attention. Congress and the White House cannot be far behind.

The occasion for optimism is a first-of-its-kind collaboration between evangelical and scientific leaders who met in December to find common ground in the greatest threat to humanity: global warming and climate change.

These are no longer unlikely allies. On Wednesday, the nation's leading scientists and evangelicals joined in Washington, D.C., to urge action to reverse rapidly escalating environmental problems, including global warming and species extinction....[SNIP]
"We agree that our home, the Earth, which comes to us as that inexpressibly beautiful and mysterious gift that sustains our very lives, is seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen throughout the natural world, including a cascading set of problems such as climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, and species extinctions, as well as the spread of human infectious diseases, and other accelerating threats to the health of people and the well-being of societies.

Each particular problem could be enumerated, but here it is enough to say that we are gradually destroying the sustaining community of life on which all living things on Earth depend. The costs of this destruction are already manifesting themselves around the world in profound and painful ways. The cost to humanity is already significant and may soon become incalculable. Being irreversible, many of these changes would affect all generations to come."
[QUOTE]
Interesting, isn't it?
Heads are being removed from the sand all over the place.
Sources (among others): http://www.orlandosentinel....rl-opinion-headlines
AND
http://www.washingtonpost.c.../A1491-2005Feb5.html

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-20-2007).]

IP: Logged
TorqueWench
Member
Posts: 768
From: SilverSpring, MD
Registered: Jul 2005


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 10:42 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TorqueWenchSend a Private Message to TorqueWenchDirect Link to This Post
"in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in Global Warming"

empirical observation aside, which in this case is completely discountable,
i wonder when the tv weathermen found the time to do the exhaustive research that would lead them to their consensus - was it in between visits to the cosmetic dentist?
was it during the lengthy stints in the tanning booth?
or during the reflective moments spent in the makeup chair?
i'm sure they squeezed in some heavy-duty report reading in there somwhere.
tv weathermen. the last word in climatology. i am humbled.
IP: Logged
ray b
Member
Posts: 10002
From: miami
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 304
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 10:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ray bClick Here to Email ray bSend a Private Message to ray bDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:

Original blog entry, with links to responses

Is this a political fight

Discuss:


it is a fight between science and the flat earthers
line up is very close to the creation science fight
with nuts and denighers fighting againts the facts
there is no room for conned people in true science
you eathor prove your points or shut up

while throwing people out is a extream act
some standerds need to apply
and crackpots removed who will not see reason
and it is a sugestion at this point not a practice

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

IP: Logged
connecticutFIERO
Member
Posts: 7695
From:
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 224
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 11:05 AM Click Here to See the Profile for connecticutFIEROSend a Private Message to connecticutFIERODirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TorqueWench:

"in his nearly thirty year career as a TV weatherman, he has yet to find a fellow meteorologist of the airwaves that beleives that we are a factor in Global Warming"

empirical observation aside, which in this case is completely discountable,
i wonder when the tv weathermen found the time to do the exhaustive research that would lead them to their consensus - was it in between visits to the cosmetic dentist?
was it during the lengthy stints in the tanning booth?
or during the reflective moments spent in the makeup chair?
i'm sure they squeezed in some heavy-duty report reading in there somwhere.
tv weathermen. the last word in climatology. i am humbled.



LOL
IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 12:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageClick Here to Email Patrick's DadSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:

http://www.orlandosentinel....rl-opinion-headlines
[/url]


This is an opinion piece.

 
quote
http://www.washingtonpost.c.../A1491-2005Feb5.html


This one is interesting, because, in the realm of Judeo-Christianity, the tone is correct. We are responsible for how we treat the gifts that we have been given, and the Earth and its ability to sustain us, is one of the greatest (after Salvation).

For my part, my family of six now uses half the water that we did when we were a new family of five. But I still don't like how those compact flourescent lamps look.

TW, what is your occupation? How does it allow you deep reflection on the subject? How does Dr. Callum's research (Her degree is in Near Eastern Religions) differ from Mr. Spann's? Are [i]you[\i] more qualified than Mr. Spann?

ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side? Or are they not extremists becasue they agree with your particular dogma?

Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?

Is one active volcano a far greater contributor of greenhouse gasses than we ever have been since we discovered fire?
IP: Logged
Wichita
Member
Posts: 19028
From: Wichita, Kansas
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 319
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 12:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for WichitaClick Here to Email WichitaSend a Private Message to WichitaDirect Link to This Post
IP: Logged
NEPTUNE
Member
Posts: 10199
From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places.
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 12:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for NEPTUNESend a Private Message to NEPTUNEDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


1) Ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side?

2) Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?

?


1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health."
In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion.
Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.

2) There are so many cows, because you, me and our families eat so many cheesburgers. So, yes, it IS our own by product..

------------------
"What I'm tryin' to say Is, don't they pray
To the same God That we do?
Tell me How does God choose?
Whose prayers does he refuse?"
-Tom Waits

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-20-2007).]

IP: Logged
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 01:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageClick Here to Email Patrick's DadSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:


1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health."
In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion.
Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.


So, the people in the government who's job it is to create, legislate, litigate and enforce environmental regulations, have no agenda when giving out grants regarding climate issues.... If only we'd listened to the government and driven 55mph. All this misery would never have materialized.
IP: Logged
ray b
Member
Posts: 10002
From: miami
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 304
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 01:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ray bClick Here to Email ray bSend a Private Message to ray bDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:

ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame? Are these scientists simply extremists from the other side? Or are they not extremists becasue they agree with your particular dogma?

Are cow emissions (from both ends) greater contributors of greenhouse gasses than we are?

Is one active volcano a far greater contributor of greenhouse gasses than we ever have been since we discovered fire?


cow gas release [methane] doesNOT last as long in the air as CO2
what is released today from a cow
is gone in ten years vs more the 500 years for CO2
volcanos cause cooling by the dust lessening the total effect of other gases released
and NOTHING CAN BE DONE ABOUT VOLCANOS WITH CURRENT TECK ANYWAY

WHAT IS THE PRAYER/SAYING
GRANT ME THE POWER TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN
AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE THINGS I CANNOT CHANGE

if that is applyed
CO2 is the thing eazyest to change
and other stuff the sun, volcanos, ect
goes into the beyond our current powers group
why is that so hard to understand?
doing what can be done NOW
before it is too late is the eazy answer
costs will only go up the longer the
wait and see people control the crises by inaction

worst case if the global warming people are wrong
what is the cost vs floods and famine and resulting loses
if we wait too long to act?

saving of pennies today vs lost dollars and lives tomorrow
does not seem wise

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

IP: Logged
ray b
Member
Posts: 10002
From: miami
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 304
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 02:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ray bClick Here to Email ray bSend a Private Message to ray bDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


So, the people in the government who's job it is to create, legislate, litigate and enforce environmental regulations, have no agenda when giving out grants regarding climate issues.... If only we'd listened to the government and driven 55mph. All this misery would never have materialized.


well if we still had 7+ liter 2 ton 10 mpg cars
the arabs would be far richer
and have a tighter grip on our lives

the neo-conned have controled spending and environmental regulations
from 1994 to date
without real changes in the basic laws
that were created under nixon rule

I would like speed limits based on mpg
limit suv's and other gas hogs to lower speeds
and let econo boxes go as fast as they can!!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Patrick's Dad
Member
Posts: 5154
From: Weymouth MA USA
Registered: Feb 2000


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 108
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 07:28 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Patrick's DadClick Here to visit Patrick's Dad's HomePageClick Here to Email Patrick's DadSend a Private Message to Patrick's DadDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by ray b:
...

I would like speed limits based on mpg
limit suv's and other gas hogs to lower speeds
and let econo boxes go as fast as they can!!!!!



And the safety crowd would just love you.
IP: Logged
jstricker
Member
Posts: 12956
From: Russell, KS USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 08:45 PM Click Here to See the Profile for jstrickerClick Here to Email jstrickerSend a Private Message to jstrickerDirect Link to This Post
If you think that doesn't happen with government grant money YOU are the one with your head in the sand.

John Stricker
 
quote
Originally posted by NEPTUNE:


1) Yes. Its called scientific method. Research goes in an opposite direction. The Exxon scientists are paid to bolster the company mantra. Pure research continues as long as data is produced, no matter which hypothesis the data seems to support. See "Creationism VS evolution", "smoking vs health."
In other words, with the scientific method, first comes data, then the conclusion.
Some other people start with the conclusion, then selectively "find" data to support it.



IP: Logged
NEPTUNE
Member
Posts: 10199
From: Ticlaw FL, and some other places.
Registered: Aug 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 288
Rate this member

Report this Post01-20-2007 10:59 PM Click Here to See the Profile for NEPTUNESend a Private Message to NEPTUNEDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:

If you think that doesn't happen with government grant money YOU are the one with your head in the sand.

John Stricker


Well I do happen to know a couple of research scientists. Its a big thing, here y'know.
But heaven forbid pure science should stand in the way of firmly held, preconceived notions.
There's no sand in MY ears, pal.
Nice to have you back, John.
This argument comes up every couple of weeks here on the old forum.
I doubt that anyone has changed their stand based on what they've read here.
It'll be interesting to see if you still believe mans contribution to global warming is all a fraud a year from now.
With the church people behind Kyoto - like ideas, will you still ignore the issue?

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:01 AM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Patrick's Dad:


TW, what is your occupation? How does it allow you deep reflection on the subject? How does Dr. Callum's research (Her degree is in Near Eastern Religions) differ from Mr. Spann's? Are you more qualified than Mr. Spann?


interesting bait and switch. ask for opinion, only to reject opinion when it dosn't agree with your own... on grounds which, if they were to be taken seriously, would moot the entire discussion, since no one here, let alone yourself, is an expert.

anyway, i rather like the swipe taken at marc morano by the scientific american blog.


edit:

 
quote
ray, you, IIRC, brought up the money trail from Exxon/Mobil. Is this any different than the money trail of grants from the government (i.e. the EPA, etc) to scientists who say that we are to blame?


when a single scientist actually receives $400 million in personal compensation for his or her work on climate change, i might give this suggestion some credence.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20834
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:29 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterClick Here to Email ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:

since no one here, let alone yourself, is an expert.



Which does not invalidate the opinions the poster asked to be expressed. Let's face facts, the Global Warming issue is mroe about politics than it is about saving the planet. NO ONE disagrees with the idea of reducing pollution. Bush has in fact signed dozens of bills limiting the production of pollutants from a host of manufacturing and other industires. That is not the point. The arguement began like ALL scientif arguements do with one group interpreting data one way and another group interpreting the data differently. Low and behold, the politicians get hold of it and you have a gloriously powerful mind control tool to ensure your party returns to power.

The DNC is falling out of favor with the American people due to it's extreme radical ideology of centralized government control of everything we do. In order to win votes the Democrats have been forced to take drastic action. In 2006 they took the drastic step of recruiting conservative candidates to run for Congress to ensure a chance of taking back control of the House and Senate. In addition they exploited GOP ineffectiveness in getting meaningful legislation passed on important issues like Immigration reform, etc. and barely won a majority. These conservative candidates however are ALL on the outside of the power structure with dangerous people like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and other convicted felons taking control of Congress. But they know it can't last. In order to HOLD onto power they need to terrify the American people and lead with fear. Instead of leading with optimism like Bush, who wishes to extend freedom through-out the world in order to improve the lives of all Americans by establishing peaceful and prosperous trading partners, the Democrats have taken the terror approach claiming the Mid East is a hell hole and our only chance for safety is to run and hide and lock down every port and terminal in America under military control and let the world go to hell because "we'll be safe here"...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, tell that to the 9/11 families. Since that plan is not working they have latched onto global warming claiming that only THEY have the solution to saving us all from, not the mid east bad guys, but OURSELVES! Yes, we are all lazy, overindulgent, consumaholics who can't control our impulse spending urges if our lives depended on it. And I can actually see why they think this since they all live in New York City and San Francisco where such people are attracted to move. The rest of the country however is the hardest working group of people in the world, efficient, and thrifty. They are called "conservatives" for a reason, they conserve. They waste nothing, they recycle, they til the soil and use it again and again, they have compost heaps, they make home made pies from apples they grow themselves, and they sort through their paper and plastic for collection day. How do I know? because I am "they". I can't help but find it terribly ironic that the liberal narcisists who tell us we are all going to hell globally for our consuming habits are teh worst consumers of all, Babs and her 6 mansions, Michael Moore and his hat...and Park Avenue Penthouse, yes it is all so inspiring to see these pillars of virtue telling me that I consume too much after squeezing my glass of OJ from my own oranges off my own orange tree that I water with well water. Yep, I'm really convinced.

The tragedy is that Golbal Warming IS an interesting phenomenon that I want to know the cause of and if the polticians will just shut the **** up so science can reveal the reality without the bias of agenda driven slobs like Al Gore, I may actually get to discover the truth. But as long as fools like Ray B and others run around with their foam fingers and blue numbered jerseys yelling "we're #1" and the rest of you are "flat earthers", I have little optimism about ever learning the truth.

Wouldn't it be ironic if global warming is really man made and the Al Gores of the world CAUSED us to fail to take action by politicizing the issue.
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:38 AM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:

Which does not invalidate the opinions the poster asked to be expressed.


aha. so you actually agree with the point. very good.

as for the rest of your inevitably irrelevant lecture...TL : DR.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20834
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:41 AM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterClick Here to Email ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
aha. so you actually agree with the point. very good.


If by that you are referencing the point that the discussion of global warming should be taken seriously by serious people with open minds then yes. I do agree with you.

Whcih leads one to question the value of your contribution with THIS close-minded remark....

 
quote

as for the rest of your inevitably irrelevant lecture...TL : DR.


IP: Logged
jstricker
Member
Posts: 12956
From: Russell, KS USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:47 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jstrickerClick Here to Email jstrickerSend a Private Message to jstrickerDirect Link to This Post
Regardless of one theory's validity over another, how is calling for the decertification of anyone that holds a contrary view fostering debate? In spite of what rayb(id), you, or anyone else might BELIEVE, there is still a lot of question on what's causing the warming of the last two DECADES, and that really is what it amounts to. That should be examined, analyzed, and viewed from many angles and not just from the angle that man is the cause of everything.

Calling for the decertification IS a call to silence contrary opinion, and you darn well know it.

John Stricker
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:


when a single scientist actually receives $400 million in personal compensation for his or her work on climate change, i might give this suggestion some credence.



IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 11:59 AM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:
aha. so you actually agree with the point. very good.


If by that you are referencing the point that the discussion of global warming should be taken seriously by serious people with open minds then yes. I do agree with you.

Whcih leads one to question the value of your contribution with THIS close-minded remark....

 
quote

as for the rest of your inevitably irrelevant lecture...TL : DR.



that's a real trope of yours... "open discussion", "free inquiry", "open minds"...

i've noticed that the people who most frequently trot out that little rhetorical gesture are the ones who are in fact themselvews the most hidebound ideologues, far more given to reinforcing their sense of their own authority, than actually... you know... discussing anything, let alone asking any questions or taking any input that doesn't fit that tiny little window in their head.

you're not the only conservative on this board, todd. you're just one of the two most reliably paranoid and arrogant. i've said elsewhere that i can get pretty much the same essential arguments that you might provide (when not spluttering off into the ozone) from many other people here, with far less of the chaff.
IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20834
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:04 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterClick Here to Email ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:

i've noticed that the people who most frequently trot out that little rhetorical gesture are the ones who are in fact themselvews the most hidebound ideologues, far more given to reinforcing their sense of their own authority, than actually... you know... discussing anything, let alone asking any questions or taking any input that doesn't fit that tiny little window in their head.


If by this post you are trying to convince us that you have an open mind I can only say, work on it.

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:21 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:

Regardless of one theory's validity over another, how is calling for the decertification of anyone that holds a contrary view fostering debate? In spite of what rayb(id), you, or anyone else might BELIEVE, there is still a lot of question on what's causing the warming of the last two DECADES, and that really is what it amounts to. That should be examined, analyzed, and viewed from many angles and not just from the angle that man is the cause of everything.

Calling for the decertification IS a call to silence contrary opinion, and you darn well know it.

John Stricker



now that's a different question than the one i was addressing.

if you haven't read it, here's the original post, about which marc morano went batshit.

actually, outside of the immediate context, i agree with the basic premise. there has been a lot of fake "controversy" about basic scientific process and findings (remember that ridiculous to-do about the age of the grand canyon? i mean, come on). i don't think that people who can't tell the difference between actual, informed inquiry (and disagreement) and the tossing back and forth of ideological buzzwords, should not be certified as scientific investigators or communicators.

however, in the context of the state of present-day argument, saying outright that "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval," was just asking for it.

"silencing"? maybe. if that's how you want to see it, i won't quibble. personally, i think there's a lot of it about these days, and a lot of dishonesty to boot. and even though i am currently persuaded that global warming does have a significant anthropogenic component, i am also far more open to the substantive counter-arguments based on quantitative thinking and sound theory (some of which have even been provided to me by members of this forum), than i am to the useless flailing of someone like marc morano.

in short, i'm just not going to get all that exercised about it.
IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:23 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post

Euterpe

878 posts
Member since Nov 2006
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:


If by this post you are trying to convince us that you have an open mind I can only say, work on it.


"i know you are but what am i?"
IP: Logged
jstricker
Member
Posts: 12956
From: Russell, KS USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for jstrickerClick Here to Email jstrickerSend a Private Message to jstrickerDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:

"silencing"? maybe. if that's how you want to see it, i won't quibble. personally, i think there's a lot of it about these days, and a lot of dishonesty to boot. and even though i am currently persuaded that global warming does have a significant anthropogenic component, i am also far more open to the substantive counter-arguments based on quantitative thinking and sound theory (some of which have even been provided to me by members of this forum), than i am to the useless flailing of someone like marc morano.

in short, i'm just not going to get all that exercised about it.


Your attitude surprises me.

Is Marc Morano flailing any more uselessly than Dr. Cullum? I don't see it.

I know you're an analytical thinker. You've also said in the past that while you feel the facts are leaning you towards the idea that man is a major cause of global warming you're still open to new data and could go the other way, given enough evidence. I have no problem with that idea. I'm pretty much in the same boat, just leaning the opposite direction of you. But let me ask you this.........

How are you going to get any evidence of any other theory if this type of behavior is accepted as normal? If people that have a contrary opinion are decertified in their field, where will the opinions come from?

I've been trying to find Dr. Cullum's education credentials and her experience, trying to figure out if she's even qualified to make such a recommendation, and that information is apparently a little hard to find. Having "Dr." in front of one's name hardly qualifies them to speak about things authoritatively if they haven't been trained in that field, particularly if her doctorate is in Near Easter Religions as PD stated in his post.

John Stricker

edited to add that I finally found a partial bio for her. The reason I couldn't find it is the original post mis-spelled her last name. She's listed as a "severe weather expert" and there is no mention of her phd in Near Eastern Religion, although there is mention here of a doctorate in climatology.

Dr. Heidi Cullen
Climate Expert

Dr. Heidi Cullen has joined The Weather Channel as climate expert and will have the key responsibility of adding explanation, depth and perspective to climate stories.

Dr. Cullen most recently was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, CO. She has done research in the U.S. Southwest and the Middle East, publishing on domestic and international climate topics.

As a post-doc, she received a NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship and spent two years working at the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction. She received a B.S. in Engineering/Operations Research from Columbia University in NYC and went on to receive a Ph.D. in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Her dissertation focused on trying to understand the impacts and dynamics of the North Atlantic Oscillation, an important climate influence.

Dr. Cullen joins a staff of experts at The Weather Channel who are each renowned in their own fields. Led by Senior Meteorologist and Director of Weather Communications Stu Ostro, the 'severe weather alley' at The Weather Channel includes: Dr. Steve Lyons, hurricane expert and Dr. Greg Forbes, tornado expert.

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
jstricker
Member
Posts: 12956
From: Russell, KS USA
Registered: Apr 2002


Feedback score:    (11)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for jstrickerClick Here to Email jstrickerSend a Private Message to jstrickerDirect Link to This Post
I must be getting too old for this internets/interweb thingie.

John Stricker

[This message has been edited by jstricker (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
Euterpe
Member
Posts: 878
From:
Registered: Nov 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 87
Rate this member

Report this Post01-21-2007 12:50 PM Click Here to See the Profile for EuterpeClick Here to Email EuterpeDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jstricker:

Is Marc Morano flailing any more uselessly than Dr. Cullum? I don't see it.


considering his own resume, yes, i think so. but...

 
quote
How are you going to get any evidence of any other theory if this type of behavior is accepted as normal? If people that have a contrary opinion are decertified in their field, where will the opinions come from?


point taken, and agreed in principle.

as a meta-comment, by the way, i'd like to point out that this discussion, and many others we've had, is a good example of how an exchange between people with significantly opposed worldviews (in some areas), but actual commitment to discourse, usefully proceeds.

[This message has been edited by Euterpe (edited 01-21-2007).]

IP: Logged
Toddster
Member
Posts: 20834
From: Roswell, Georgia
Registered: May 2001


Feedback score:    (41)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 503
Rate this member

Report this Post01-22-2007 10:37 PM Click Here to See the Profile for ToddsterClick Here to Email ToddsterSend a Private Message to ToddsterDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Euterpe:


"i know you are but what am i?"


I get enough of this sort of retort from ray b. Come on Euterpe, I expected more from someone who can spell venal. Just don't give yourself a papercut thumbing through that thesaurus.

[This message has been edited by Toddster (edited 01-22-2007).]

IP: Logged
Steve Normington
Member
Posts: 7663
From: Mesa, AZ, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 156
Rate this member

Report this Post01-23-2007 10:56 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Steve NormingtonClick Here to Email Steve NormingtonSend a Private Message to Steve NormingtonDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Toddster:
with dangerous people like Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, and other convicted felons taking control of Congress.


What felonies have Pelosi, Murtha, and Reid been convicted of? In fact, which current members of Congress (either party) are convicted felons?

 
quote
But they know it can't last. In order to HOLD onto power they need to terrify the American people and lead with fear. Instead of leading with optimism like Bush,


BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You ought to take that routine on the road.
IP: Logged
G-Nasty
Member
Posts: 2099
From: woodlands,TX,USA
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 225
Rate this member

Report this Post01-23-2007 03:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for G-NastyClick Here to visit G-Nasty's HomePageClick Here to Email G-NastySend a Private Message to G-NastyDirect Link to This Post
Dont listen to Terdster-that guy is an idiot.
He may know R/E but thats it.
Doesnt know up from down anymore since his president is a proven dirty POS.

Hey when the market crumbles in CA (you know it will).
Go sell dogs on the side of the road asswipe.
-See if you'll still be a Repug
OUT>

IP: Logged



All times are ET (US)

T H I S   I S   A N   A R C H I V E D   T O P I C
  

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock