castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

Yes I do, Tish.

But don't consider me a flag waver just because a CEO says I should be one.

I just haven't seen much quality science from the other side of the argument until Maus found some for me. The "pro-warming" side is still glutted with hype and histrionics sent out for public consumption. Whether correct or not, the "anti" side has made a better effort to display their arguments in a more scientific format.

But Maus has given me some better sources that are worth adding to my internal debate.

I have never liked when supposed authority figures tell me their side is right, that I must listen, and then get flooded with wild visual hyperbole. Al Gore's movie alone was enough to push my bullcrap meter into the red zone. I seriously doubt that the more respected scientists that Maus has shown me appreciate Gore's efforts on their behalf.

Once he said he invented the internet a decade ago, I began to view anything he supports with extreme skepticism. You add Michael Moore's support to anything Gore supports and you will likely need a crowbar to get me to take anything they say seriously.

Fortunately, Maus knows the type of crowbar that works on me.

If I come to the conclusion that global warming is a serious threat then it will be in spite of these liberal nutjob histrionics.

[Morticcia]

JuntaJoe wrote: I have never liked when supposed authority figures tell me their side is right, that I must listen, and then get flooded with wild visual hyperbole.

Not sure I agree with you. I think most people resist registering hyperbole in statments when it's something they believe or are inclined to believe. It's much easier to see it when we disagree with the argument at hand. Just look at the links you posted for Maus to review. No hyperbole there? Eh?

Re: Al Gore
Quote: Once he said he invented the internet a decade ago, I began to view anything he supports with extreme skepticism.

Slurp, please. Just because the right wing press says it's so (over and over and over!), doesn't mean it is. Please take a moment to check out Snopes.com's entry on this urban legend. :Soapbox: Geesh, if only Shrub was held to the same standard regarding verbal mishaps!!!! :Soapbox:

Quote: You add Michael Moore's support to anything Gore supports and you will likely need a crowbar to get me to take anything they say seriously.

If only you and other partisans held up the Rush Limbaugh's and Michael Savages of the world to the same standard you hold Michael Moore this world would be a less dangerous one than it is.

I read the thread on the right wing media here on the "block." There seems to be a lot of support for right wing media even though time and again websites like Media Matters, run by a former right wing hitman David Brock, point out their lies and manipulations weekly. Yet Michael Moore who does exactly the SAME F'G thing, but exposes right wing malfeasance, rather than liberal malfeasance, is only a liberal nutjob histrionic to be totally ignored. Once again Slurp, you come across as 'what's good for the goose..uh...not so good for the gander. 8) All I wish in this world is for equal treatment. I know, I should be shot at dawn. :crazy: :shoot:

But more importantly, a sieve holds water better than your argument that Al Gore must be vilified and ignored because a) he said he invented the internet and b) has had Michael Moore throw him some kind of support, though you don't mention what kind of support. :think: Uh.. :think: ..good job? :think:

[JuntaJoe]

Tish, my hated of ridiculous hyperbole goes back to my grammar school days when they actually tried to shove Reefer Madness down my throat as gospel. While I am ultimately responsible for the multi-decade drug and booze binge that followed thereafter, you can bet this propaganda didn't help. However, it was a bald clinical explanation of the effects of intoxication that helped me to eventually dry out.

Don't go assuming that because I might lean a certain way politically that I favor what is handed to me by others that count themselves on my side of the fence. Don't you think I know that talk radio celebrities love to hype and harp on topics? I well know they will color a story to fit their agenda.

Rush has been listening to himself for too long. Michael Savage is a freakin' lunatic.

But so is Wolf Blitzer. And Al Gore. And Michael Moore.

The NY and LA Times are no better than the John Birch Society, but with better advertising revenue.

I listen to exactly none-of-the-above for my information.



I make up my own mind, Tish. No one camps there rent free in my head without my permission.

You however are guilty of what you just accused me of. Stereotyping my allegiances because of my spoken political location.

I'll bet you think I support Bush and the Iraq War because of what was fed to us by the administration. Far from the truth, I knew propaganda when I saw it. I screamed for the war before they came up with something to feed the media and UN. I'd would have been for the war if Bush said he hated Saddam's choice in a barber! Whatever, I said, let's roll out the gunships.

Now without letting this conversation sidetrack too far, you need to realize that I take my world view position many times in SPITE of what those who claim the same turf say.

Yeah, so I got mislead when several right wing radio jockeys pleaded for an honest debate on the environmental topic. I never saw the left media scream in response that they accept the challenge. Given that there are likely respected scientists out there with a pro-warming view, why didn't some lefty media honcho throw down the gauntlet saying they were ready?

It seemed clear from Maus' example that the scientists were ready to debate, but the demagogues didn't back them up. Instead they did follow the pattern that the shock jockeys accused them of. They rolled out popular "experts" quite alone on set piece planned interviews.


So far there hasn't been a well organized visible debate between the two points of view. Any serious debate has likely been performed in poorly exposed academic settings. Likely because the editorial oligarchy on both sides of the fence figure there won't be enough interest in dry scientific offerings and congenial debate.

Oh my god, they agree on some things! Kill each other, ferchissakes! We have ratings to consider here!

Wait! What were they talking about again? It made no sense to me...... :think:

[Morticcia]

JuntaJoe wrote: Tish, my hat[r]ed of ridiculous hyperbole goes back to my grammar school days

Just cuz you hate it doesn't mean you don't partake in it. Just look at your last post, Joe. You're not alone, I hate it too. But does that mean I don't sometimes lapse into it? No. Hotheaded types like you and I are prone to it. It's in our blood.

Please tell me what your false assertion about Gore inventing the internet is really, if it is not a prime example of a hyperbolic falshood?

Quote: Don't go assuming that because I might lean a certain way politically that I favor what is handed to me by others that count themselves on my side of the fence.

Hey, you did not treat right wing loud mouths in the other thread to the same level of passionate vitriol which you seem to have reserved herein for Gore and Moore. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce partisan orientation based on this and this alone. Joe I've been reading your posts on and off for almost six years (SIX!!!!) I think I have plenty to base my opinion on. You're stance on letting granny starve, rather than allowing government handouts because she failed to properly save for her retirement, alone, puts you far right of center.

Quote: I listen to exactly none-of-the-above for my information.

I make up my own mind, Tish. No one camps there rent free in my head without my permission.

Again, so your belief that Gore invented the internet was because you read (heard) the interview yourself and believed he actually thought he invented the internet?

I know I'm harping. I'm a frickin' nightmare, I am. I can't tell you how this discussion makes me ill. All last night the meat of this argument churned in my stomach, as well as my mind. The state of our media since the explosion of 24 hour cable news shows is a nightmare. I know they didn't start the tradition, in the ye olden days it was the numerous print media. Either way I'm too sensitive for the raw proclivities of humanity. I wish I could just learn to keep my eyes and ears shut. But I don't.

Hey, I can't say I haven't learned a thing or two from ya, Slurp. That's really why I've always come back. I'm lefty in some spots, righty on others. Really all I want is truth sans hyperbole. Can't blame me there, right? Once a fool, always a fool.

:)

[JuntaJoe]

Yes Tish, when you take the amalgam of me then I sit on the right side of the fence, but I got there on my own steam.

I did it with an open a mind as possible these days.

I also learned something along the way. The media wishes to push you along the path that they happen to favor at the moment. So you have to take in a varied mix of the news distributors (note that word for later) so you get a balance.

Then you also have to get the real news. Remember that distributor word I told you to note? Fox, Rush, Wolf, CNN, NY Times, etc. They don't get the news. They simply buy or borrow it from true news gatherers and use it as raw material to fluff and puff until it fits the editor's agenda and will likely grab ratings to sell advertising.

How many times have I told you to take what these guys say with skepticism? They have an agenda that is far more than giving you the truth.

You have to go get the basic research data yourself from the researchers. News wires, business news, and trade journals is where the real answers lie.

Use this link, Tish. It will curb your angst with better info:

http://www.castledoom.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=204


Now let's not derail this thread too much, ok?

I have stated that Maus has given me pause in my opinions about global warming. I'm more willing to listen to opposing views if they seem to be simply trying to present scientific facts to me.

But don't expect me to grab my flag and run in another direction at the first sign of intelligent rebuttal. That's not a sign of rational thinking.

If you think that Maus expected me to jump to the pro-warming side with one research paper then you don't know Maus to well either. And you can bet that Maus would be interested in seeing any anti-warming research that delivers solid evidence as well.

Science is a process of building lots of little blocks on top of each other. Taken individually, they contradict each other like crazy. It's only when you get a collective body of knowledge and burn it in the flames of relentless testing do you start seeing the true answers.

Frankly, this issue is too important for passion. I won't submit to it. Given the complicated nature of climate and my lack of formal training, I may never completely commit to either particular side in my lifetime. All that will happen is I will move up or down the sliding scale of my own opinion and keep asking for more facts along the way.

[JuntaJoe]

I saw this and just rolled! Too funny. :lol:

This is a guy making fun of pundits who use short time fractions of local weather data to champion global warming.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,22069080-5001031,00.html



I'm not putting this up as a rebuttal to the concept of global warming. Just laughing with this guy over people who use thin slices of weather data to "prove" something, which may take centuries to truly prove, and then it turns around to bite them in the ass.

Junk science = FTL! :roll:

[FrankyG888]

Quote: What we're dealing with, apparently, is weather.

That sums up the "science" of global warming quite well. It is the best I have heard anyone put it.

[JuntaJoe]

Don't be so rash, Franky. You might wish to read Maus' offerings.

There appears to be some good science behind the global climate change issue.

The problem is the additional junk science, hype, political agendas, and fear mongering in order to advance the "cause".

[Maus]

Oh come now, there's no body of peer-reviewed evidence so broad, varied and ever-increasing that it can't be poofed into non-existence with a drive-by sneer. :lol:

[FrankyG888]

How true, but you must remember that I am a political science major. I am trained to speak in soundbites. :lol:

[JuntaJoe]

Don't ask me if I'm buying this. Last I heard we were heading to an increase in solar activity. I'm not a solar physicist either so I don't get the trade newsletter. :wink:


But it seemed interesting enough to post and seems to come from a site that appears to cater to real science.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html


The Sunspot Enigma: The Sun is “Dead”—What Does it Mean for Earth?

Dark spots, some as large as 50,000 miles in diameter, typically move across the surface of the sun, contracting and expanding as they go. These strange and powerful phenomena are known as sunspots, but now they are all gone. Not even solar physicists know why it’s happening and what this odd solar silence might be indicating for our future.

Although periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, this current period has gone on much longer than usual and scientists are starting to worry—at least a little bit. Recently 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered to discuss the issue at an international solar conference at Montana State University. Today's sun is as inactive as it was two years ago, and solar physicists don’t have a clue as to why.

"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission, noting that it is at least a little bit worrisome for scientists.

Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. But so far nothing is happening.

"It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.

Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't weather forecasters and they can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity. In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period coincided with a little ice age on Earth that lasted from 1650 to 1700. Coincidence? Some scientists say it was, but many worry that it wasn’t.

Geophysicist Phil Chapman, the first Australian to become an astronaut with NASA, said pictures from the US Solar and Heliospheric Observatory also show that there are currently no spots on the sun. He also noted that the world cooled quickly between January last year and January this year, by about 0.7C.

"This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record, and it puts us back to where we were in 1930," Dr Chapman noted in The Australian recently.

If the world does face another mini Ice Age, it could come without warning. Evidence for abrupt climate change is readily found in ice cores taken from Greenland and Antarctica. One of the best known examples of such an event is the Younger Dryas cooling, which occurred about 12,000 years ago, named after the arctic wildflower found in northern European sediments. This event began and ended rather abruptly, and for its entire 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. Could something like this happen again? There’s no way to tell, and because the changes can happen all within one decade—we might not even see it coming.

The Younger Dryas occurred at a time when orbital forcing should have continued to drive climate to the present warm state. The unexplained phenomenon has been the topic of much intense scientific debate, as well as other millennial scale events.

Now this 11-year low in Sunspot activity has raised fears among a small but growing number of scientists that rather than getting warmer, the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period. The idea is especially intriguing considering that most of the world is in preparation for global warming.

Canadian scientist Kenneth Tapping of the National Research Council has also noted that solar activity has entered into an unusually inactive phase, but what that means—if anything—is still anyone’s guess. Another solar scientist, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, however, is certain that it’s an indication of a coming cooling period.

Sorokhtin believes that a lack of sunspots does indicate a coming cooling period based on certain past trends and early records. In fact, he calls manmade climate change "a drop in the bucket" compared to the fierce and abrupt cold that can potentially be brought on by inactive solar phases.

Sorokhtin’s advice: "Stock up on fur coats"…just in case.


Sources:

http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5982&log

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23584524-11949,00.html


Copyright 2008 Daily Galaxy

[s_stabeler]

yeah, i heard something a similar a few months ago. I think what people are saying is that we're going to have a colder period, but that it'll be warmer than historical mini-ice ages.