PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Petition



Gary Keedwell
07-08-2007, 12:06 PM
Since the media focus on one side of the issue only...I thought you might be interested in what over 17,000 scientists think about so-called global warming. 17,000 scientists signed this petition.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Gary K.

kevin loftus
07-08-2007, 12:14 PM
This is proof enough for me that global warming exists.
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j233/albyback/Warmings.jpg

Jim King
07-08-2007, 12:46 PM
Kevin: Now that is about the only real facts I have seen presented. IŽll bet old Al Gore is in long johns.

Art Mulder
07-08-2007, 10:18 PM
Since the media focus on one side of the issue only...I thought you might be interested in what over 17,000 scientists think about so-called global warming. 17,000 scientists signed this petition.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Gary K.

Less than two minutes of googling gave me some very interesting commentary on what this OISM place actually is, as well as plenty of commentary (http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_M edicine) on this "Oregon Petition".

"When questioned in 1998, OISM's Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists,
....
When the Oregon Petition first circulated, in fact, environmental activists successfully added the names of several fictional characters and celebrities to the list, including John Grisham, Michael J. Fox, Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (from the TV show M*A*S*H)"
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I'll take a pass on this one.

Greg Peterson
07-08-2007, 10:45 PM
On another related note, I've heard radio pundits of a certain bias talking about how Oregon's governor fired the state climatologist because the climatologist didn't believe global warming was real and was not shy about telling the public. These pundits go on to use this as a prime example of how the truth gets buried. Dissent and the environmentalists will fire you.


One little fact the pundits leave out is that Oregon doesn't have a state climatologist. An inconvenient truth? So much for fair, balanced and honest debate.

Gary Keedwell
07-08-2007, 11:40 PM
http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/07-09-07.jpg

Ryan Cathey
07-08-2007, 11:41 PM
...Oregon's governor fired the state climatologist...

...Oregon doesn't have a state climatologist...

Well duh...The governor fired him:D . Sorry couldn't resist.

Greg Peterson
07-09-2007, 1:10 AM
Oregon did not, nor does not, have an official state climatologist.
But I guess it helps generate outrage and keep ratings up.

Greg Peterson
07-09-2007, 1:12 AM
Not sure what your commentary is suppose to communicate. Hopefully you're posting that with appropriate copyright permissions.

Edited:
Nevermind. Just viewed the site you borrowed the cartoon from. It was intended in the spirit I originally thought.

Al Willits
07-09-2007, 8:57 AM
Personally I think our biggest problem is, to many people.
And all this global warming stuff is secondary.

Along with slow drivers in the left lane and the price of leeches going up...:)

Al

Randy Denby
07-09-2007, 10:41 AM
Personally I think our biggest problem is, to many people.
And all this global warming stuff is secondary.

Along with slow drivers in the left lane and the price of leeches going up...:)

Al

Leeches have gone up?.....:eek:

Al Willits
07-09-2007, 12:36 PM
12% over last time I bought a pound of them...but its been a while...:)

Al

James Carmichael
07-09-2007, 3:05 PM
Kevin: Now that is about the only real facts I have seen presented. IŽll bet old Al Gore is in long johns.

Hope so, I sure don't wanna see him in a thong:eek:

Per Swenson
07-09-2007, 5:25 PM
That would be this Frederick Seitz.


Go on clicky the link, you are gonna love it.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html


Per

Gary Keedwell
07-09-2007, 6:23 PM
This is an interesting read.....just keeping an open mind:;)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Gary K.

Mark Engel
07-09-2007, 6:32 PM
Geez, you guys must really like to read! :eek:

Tom Veatch
07-09-2007, 8:29 PM
This is an interesting read.....just keeping an open mind:;)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Gary K.


Very interesting. I particularily enjoyed the comment,

"This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Except I personally don't feel there is any question. I discount 90% of everything I read in the newspapers and 99% of everything I see on the broadcast media. If I want entertainment, I'll rent a movie or read a novel. At least then I know it's fiction.

Robert E Lee
07-09-2007, 9:03 PM
Tom, very well said.
Bob


Very interesting. I particularily enjoyed the comment,

"This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Except I personally don't feel there is any question. I discount 90% of everything I read in the newspapers and 99% of everything I see on the broadcast media. If I want entertainment, I'll rent a movie or read a novel. At least then I know it's fiction.

Art Mulder
07-09-2007, 9:12 PM
Go on clicky the link, you are gonna love it.

http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html


Wow, Per, that's a good one!

Gary Keedwell
07-09-2007, 10:49 PM
"This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Except I personally don't feel there is any question. I discount 90% of everything I read in the newspapers and 99% of everything I see on the broadcast media. If I want entertainment, I'll rent a movie or read a novel. At least then I know it's fiction.[/quote]


Isn't that a great quote? There is another qoute from a guy that has something to do about "useful idiots" Wonder who really controls the media? Hmmmmmmm;)

Gary K.

John Schreiber
07-10-2007, 12:06 AM
Very interesting. I particularily enjoyed the comment,

"This isn't a question of science. It's a question of whether Americans can trust what the media tell them about science."

Except I personally don't feel there is any question. I discount 90% of everything I read in the newspapers and 99% of everything I see on the broadcast media. If I want entertainment, I'll rent a movie or read a novel. At least then I know it's fiction.
I think I understand what you are saying. We get a lot of trash from the media. How do we know what is a meaningless sound bite and how do we know what is real science?

We also see propaganda from all sides. It's hard to tell what is propaganda and what is science. It seems that the only way to solve the problem would be to become a scientist yourself so you can understand what they are talking about. Of course you can't do that without going to school for years and years. What do we do then? How do we decide who to believe?

Do we choose to trust people who tell us everything is fine and we don't need to change anything, that what we are doing is what is meant to be and that we should keep on going that way? Or that we can't do anything about it anyway, so we may as well go there in our 12 MPG SUVs.

Or do we trust scaremongers trying to frighten us into submission? Do we trust people who want us to feel guilty for being the richest and strongest nation on earth? People who seemingly want us to go back to living in sod huts, eating nuts and berries while they keep jetting around the world.


I try to ignore the propaganda. I try to understand the science as much as I can. I watch for signs of bias. I look for authoritative voices. I look for voices that are speaking against their self interest. I look to see who is funding the research. I watch out for distractions from the real issues.


Like it or not, I am convinced that humans are changing the planet in a very big way. I think it is very possible that the increase in CO2 levels can and does cause an increase in the temperature of the atmosphere. I also think it is very possible that this change in temperature will be faster than any temperature changes in the past and that the people on this already over crowded world will suffer terribly as a result of that. I feel that I have to do what I can to decrease that suffering.

John Schreiber
07-10-2007, 12:30 AM
Since the media focus on one side of the issue only...I thought you might be interested in what over 17,000 scientists think about so-called global warming. 17,000 scientists signed this petition.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Gary K.
This petition was originally distributed in 1998. At that time, global warming was just beginning to be taken seriously. Since then more and more data has been collected which has made it mainstream science.

The original petition was deceptive. It appeared to be a statement from the National Academy of Sciences, it was not.

The author of the petition will not release who was asked to sign the petition, or provide any way of confirming that the names are legitimate.

The 17,000 names on the petition are not all scientists, some of them deny that they ever did sign it and at some points it included fictional characters such as the staff of the MASH 4077.

The OSIM is a one-man organization who's director has some other non-mainstream beliefs that raise questions about anything he says.

Petitions are a very poor way of judging if something is true.

It is hard to tell if global warming is real. I would prefer to listen to the academies of science of almost every advanced country instead of a nine-year old petition put out by an off beat organization in the hills of Oregon.

Greg Peterson
07-10-2007, 12:05 PM
"Wonder who really controls the media?"

One of the biggest media moguls is Rupert Murdoch, and after he buys the Wall Street Journal he'll become the de facto business news publisher.

There are many resources for news these days, yet paradoxically, ownership of media has been consolidated to a handful of corporations. With the FCC's relaxing of media ownership regulations, it doesn't appear that we will see an expansion in media ownership. Just more consolidation to the point where only a handful of corporations will control the message.

I don't watch news channels that purport to be news when in reality are obviously nothing more than a partisan tool. I can decide for myself, thank you very much.

Gary Keedwell
07-10-2007, 6:16 PM
:p
"Wonder who really controls the media?"

One of the biggest media moguls is Rupert Murdoch, and after he buys the Wall Street Journal he'll become the de facto business news publisher.

There are many resources for news these days, yet paradoxically, ownership of media has been consolidated to a handful of corporations. With the FCC's relaxing of media ownership regulations, it doesn't appear that we will see an expansion in media ownership. Just more consolidation to the point where only a handful of corporations will control the message.

I don't watch news channels that purport to be news when in reality are obviously nothing more than a partisan tool. I can decide for myself, thank you very much.
Actually Rupert Murdoch has been very good for the news industry. If it wasn't for him, Boston would be a one newspaper city.
Most of the main stream media has a liberal slant and even they will tell you that. Something like 80 percent of the employees of the media are democrats.
The New York Times (The old gray lady) and all the news sources it owns (like the Boston Globe) have been controlling the news for decades. As far as the TV news...ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS etc, are all slanted to the left. The only TV news that is even close to being fair is FOX NEWS.
( FOX beats CNN in viewers daily)
The only source of news that is mostly conservative is the radio, and the Democratic Congress tried to get a bill to control it....it failed miserably.:p
Gary K.

Per Swenson
07-10-2007, 6:57 PM
Gary wrote....."The only TV news that is even close to being fair is FOX NEWS."


And Balanced.


Per

Gary Keedwell
07-10-2007, 7:20 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/evsac/Video/Laughdog.gifWell, they have to sway a little to the right to offset CNN ( communist News Channel)

Gary K.

Greg Peterson
07-10-2007, 7:57 PM
I watch FOX news, and find it particularly partisan. Mind you, I probably watch it just waiting for them to slant something to the hard right as much as you watch CNN to see how hard they slant it to the left.

As for Murdoch, his stock in trade is tabloid journalism. It's a little hard to take a news cast seriously when they say "We Report, You Decide". I notice that there ticker tape along the bottom of the screen indicates the terror threat. Anywhere from medium to high, but with nothing specific. Are we just suppose to be terrorized?

If Murdoch is so good for printed media, why is the Bancroft family unwilling to give Murdoch full editorial reign over the editorial content of the WSJ? Ask Britian about what he's done to the crown jewel of their printed media, despite his promises. I suppose The New York Post is considered high journalistic integrity.

I hear lots of complaints about media bias, with no facts to back it up. I don't think that the NYT controls the news. And I certainly didn't hear any complaints about bias back in the 90's when every other headline was some salacious story about Clinton.

Regardless, your 'petition' link is revealing. I don't know that it qualifies as credible, but if it validates your belief system then I'm glad for you.

Gary Keedwell
07-10-2007, 8:47 PM
One would have to be naive to believe the Times isn't slanted. It is widely known that the gray lady has been on the edge of traitorousness on at least 2 columns.:mad:
I firmly believe that no matter which way you swing, your alliance should always be unquestionable.
Gary K.

Ben Grunow
07-10-2007, 8:59 PM
There are plenty of leeches around. Dont buy anymore!

Gary Keedwell
07-10-2007, 9:09 PM
There are plenty of leeches around. Dont buy anymore!


:confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes:

Gary K.

John Schreiber
07-11-2007, 12:54 AM
One would have to be naive to believe the Times isn't slanted. It is widely known that the gray lady has been on the edge of traitorousness on at least 2 columns. . . . .
Gary K.
This wide belief is held by many conservatives. And in fact, I'm sure there are many liberal thoughts expressed in the NYT. There are also many conservative thoughts expressed.

The wide belief that the media is liberal is also held by many conservatives. It is repeated so often that many don't question it.

It is natural for a person to think that their own ideas are the norm, and when they see a lack of support for their ideas in the media, they think it is due to a slant. Liberals think the media is conservative. Conservatives think the media is liberal. The media and the public move back and forth over time.

It is not hard to do a study of the media to see who's views are being expressed and what slant exists. Those studies are out there.

Al Willits
07-11-2007, 8:06 AM
There are plenty of leeches around. Dont buy anymore!



Ah...that would be leeches for fishing, not the political kind....:D

Unfortunately neither are all that cheap anymore, but at least with the fishing variety we get something for our money....

Al

Greg Peterson
07-11-2007, 11:18 AM
Good points John.

As I've said many times over the past decade, if you don't like the news you're getting, turn the channel or buy a different paper.

Conservatives hold up the Washington Times and FOX news as their ideal standard of journalism. The AP, Rueters, Kinght-Ridder, CNN and the major broadcasters (even though ABC, NBC and CBS are own by major corporations whose interests are anyhting but liberal) are bastions of liberalism.

If you repeat the message frequently enough and long enough, eventually the message becomes accepted as truth. And truth is one thing many pundits, who have hours a day access to a rabid audience via our free airwaves, with which they have little familiarity.

Glenn Clabo
07-11-2007, 12:44 PM
It's all been done before...
"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
"I use emotion for the many and reserve reason for the few."
"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed. "
"It is not truth that matters, but victory. "
"The great mass of people will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one. "
Hitler

Ken Fitzgerald
07-11-2007, 1:09 PM
Hey guys.......a little caution here.....Just a reminder....discussing politics is against the TOSs of SMC....

Gary Keedwell
07-11-2007, 5:23 PM
Hey guys.......a little caution here.....Just a reminder....discussing politics is against the TOSs of SMC....

:) I hear you Ken, but ya have to admit that the thread has been very civil.;)

Gary K.

John Schreiber
07-11-2007, 5:58 PM
Hey guys.......a little caution here.....Just a reminder....discussing politics is against the TOSs of SMC....
Here I go agreeing with Gary again :confused::D. I think we can have an intelligent discussion of issues here without dropping into politics.

I'm glad to have a place where I can participate in a civil discussion. Too much of the rest of the country is reduced to yelling slogans at one another. I appreciate the spirit of The Creek where we can respectfully discuss the issues.

Perhaps it's political to say so, but I wish more of America were like this place.

Greg Peterson
07-11-2007, 6:54 PM
It is possible to disagree without making it personal. It isn't always easy, but it is rewarding.

While I don't agree with some of the posts on climate change, I have an open enough mind to accept and appreciate their perspective. They bring up some good points. However, the other side of the argument has good points also.

I've known people that looked healthy, but their lifestyles were anything but healthy. It eventually caught up with them. There is no free lunch. And whether or not the climate is changing, there are many, many benefits to altering our consumption of energy and natural resources.

I think it would be really great to say Buh-bye to the whole middle east. But there is generations of inertia to overcome before we can wean ourselves off that teat. But it is inevitable that we minimize our national interests in the region.

Gary Keedwell
07-11-2007, 8:17 PM
.

"I think it would be really great to say Buh-bye to the whole middle east."



Can you say Nuclear?:D

Gary K.

Greg Peterson
07-11-2007, 10:13 PM
I think we've come to realize the limitations of might in the region.

Per Swenson
07-11-2007, 10:38 PM
Mr Keedwell,

You do realize you are advocating genocide with a smiley face.

P.

Gary Keedwell
07-11-2007, 10:43 PM
Mr Keedwell,

You do realize you are advocating genocide with a smiley face.

, Mr.Swenson
Genocide is their game...do we make the rules?
Gary K.

John Schreiber
07-11-2007, 11:15 PM
Genocide is their game...do we make the rules?
Gary K.
As an American of German descent, I guess genocide is my game too. It must seem as fair to gas me and my family as it is to nuke Iranian families. After all my people actually have a history of genocide.

Heck, try to see nuclear weapons from the point of view of people outside of the USA. Make a list of all the countries who have used nuclear weapons against civilians. Despite our good intentions, that list makes us look pretty bad to much of the world.

You also mention the 1970s. Don't forget that we were selling nuclear technology to the Iranian dictator back then.

Just trying to stir things up Gary? I can't agree with you there.

Gary Keedwell
07-11-2007, 11:29 PM
As an American of German descent, I guess genocide is my game too. It must seem as fair to gas me and my family as it is to nuke Iranian families. After all my people actually have a history of genocide.

Heck, try to see nuclear weapons from the point of view of people outside of the USA. Make a list of all the countries who have used nuclear weapons against civilians. Despite our good intentions, that list makes us look pretty bad to much of the world.

You also mention the 1970s. Don't forget that we were selling nuclear technology to the Iranian dictator back then.

Just trying to stir things up Gary? I can't agree with you there.
Well John, nuclear might be a little extreme...I just can't get the image of those poor people jumping out of the Twin Towers to avoid being burned to death. I also can't get the images out of my mind of the way the savages treated our POW's...slitting their throats and multilating their bodies.
And what really gets me is how a certain group of people complain that were not treating our prisoners right. They never had it so good, for crying out loud. We bend over backwards to give them everything they want.
I'm sorry for the rant, but did you know there is a ban on showing footage of alot of what happened to the Twin Towers. Seems a certain faction doesn't want alot of people to remember that day....they just want you to hear about the prison in Cuba.
Gary K.

Ryan Cathey
07-11-2007, 11:34 PM
Well John, nuclear might be a little extreme...I just can't get the image of those poor people jumping out of the Twin Towers to avoid being burned to death. I also can't get the images out of my mind of the way the savages treated our POW's...slitting their throats and multilating their bodies.
And what really gets me is how a certain group of people complain that were not treating our prisoners right. They never had it so good, for crying out loud. We bend over backwards to give them everything they want.
I'm sorry for the rant, but did you know there is a ban on showing footage of alot of what happened to the Twin Towers. Seems a certain faction doesn't want alot of people to remember that day....they just want you to hear about the prison in Cuba.
Gary K.




*Stands up and claps*. That's the best rant I've heard in a while. No joke.

Per Swenson
07-12-2007, 6:22 AM
And That is what it is. A rant.

A emotion filled diatribe against the other.

Gary, we are a country of laws.

It is what separates us from the rest of the world, or use to.

Gary, the issue is not the physical treatment, although torture is

suppose to be illegal, but the illegality of their detention and absence

of a court to to adjudicate them.

The Supremes are looking at this next.

No, this is a very slippery slope we are on, the erosion of the Constitution,

wholesale surveillance of our own citizens, the politicization of the

Dept. of Justice....and on and on.

Gary ma man, I am more terrified of the solutions then the problem.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36765.html


And one last little thought. Fighting "terrorism" not terrorists, is now a huge

business, with no incentive to get the job completed.

As George Orwell said, " We have always been at war with Oceania"

Per

Glenn Clabo
07-12-2007, 6:59 AM
Now THAT's worth standing up and cheering for!

Gary Keedwell
07-12-2007, 7:22 AM
Again,,,we are at war. Civilian rules are not always applicable during war time. I still find it so hard to feel sorry for a few POW's whan they torture and kill our soldiers. The fact is, compared to other wars in the past, our treatment of prisoners in Cuba, is excellent.

Gary K.

PS. Link above...That was the thinking after the FIRST bombing of the Twin Towers and again after the Bombing of the USS. COLE.

Per Swenson
07-12-2007, 8:16 AM
In order to remain in sync with the TOS I would ask someone

with better skills in civil discourse to chime in here.

Me? I am a key stroke away from banishment.

Ta Ta.

Per

Benjamin Dahl
07-12-2007, 8:45 AM
This thread does seem to have jumped away from the global warming topic to something quite different.
In any case, science evolves and accepted theories are sometimes validated, sometimes discredited. There are still people who think the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, that women have fewer ribs than men, and they will argue those points and not be convinced. You can have an overwhelming amount of evidence but not everyone will be agree. People can think and say what they want but, IMHO, it is not necessary to always try to give equal time to opposing views just to be PC.
In science, and I guess life in general, it is not ethically acceptable to present false data or arguments to prove a point. It does happen, but when exposed the researcher/organization loses credibility. Groups or causes I may have been sympathetic to lose my respect when they do this. I guess the best I can do is to think about the ideas being presented, question the assumptions and sources of data being referenced and try to make an informed decision.
Ben

Phil Thien
07-12-2007, 9:00 AM
In order to remain in sync with the TOS I would ask someone

with better skills in civil discourse to chime in here.

Me? I am a key stroke away from banishment.

Ta Ta.

Per

:)

Interesting topic.

But people, this is all old news. You're rehashing the same old newspaper and television news stories. You are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, when...

The real fear, as far as I'm concerned, are the super terrorists that are coming.

These are the muslim youth that watched as their parents and communities cheered the 9/11 attacks.

They were 8-12 at the time of the attacks, and deeply impressionable. A percentage (albeit small) of them will emerge as the next generation of terrorists that won't play by the rules of Osama Bin Laden.

In my opinion, we've got problems coming in a BIG way in less than 10 years.

Solutions anyone?

Dennis Peacock
07-12-2007, 9:01 AM
This HAS gone on far too long. Thread is locked.