 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
208.58.2.83
"An Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient -- to alarmists.
Follow Ups:
millions of tons of made made emissions pumped into the earth's atmosphere couldn't possible have any effect what-so-ever?
But I do believe that Mother Earth is a tough old bitch.clark
Tweaks that a lot of your fellow audiophiles believe you're nuts for even giving them a shot. I say good for you, having an open mind is a good thing. So why are you so closed minded when it comes to believing that man, just may have an effect on the delicate balance of nature? Your life is a walking countradiction.
...and largely rejected it.You see, if you disregard the media and film and government TV industry that bring most of us our beliefs, the earth is always warming and cooling. I repeat, the earth is always warming and cooling.
Now, were one to be actually scientific about it, one would investigate what caused such warming and cooling in the past. Once those operators were isolated, one could assess the additional degrees (as it were) that mankind may have contributed.
But without that base understanding, we have no basis to assign guilt to humanity. Computer models are not the predictors idolized in the press, they are mere scenarios. And never forget the scenario posited in the Seventies: Global cooling. Good thing we never spent $400 billion to warm up the earth huh?
I'm sure you'll still say I'm a "walking countradiction", but there it is.
clark
... and her offspring haven't shown her much respect as she's been displaying signs of increased fragility. Apparently, some folks like you feel favored, content to believe she's well off enough to support 'em for the rest of their unnatural lives even if poor Mom is forced into bankruptcy before her Will is probated. If things go badly for the rest of her relatives, that's tough luck; to hell with 'em, right? ;^)AuPh
8^/ (eyes rolling)
Science is science and not everyone agrees on every aspect. I have not seen the film but to really fully make a cogent argument one must do all of the work for themselves - and NOT be reading just the side that happens to support your preconceived notions. It is not that Gore can prove every point - no one can -- you ERR on the side of caution when you don;t have all the facts.You can;t prove the ecvolution theory either but it's interesting how people want to chuck out the 98% damn well close facts in favour of the ZERO% evidence of Religious creationism mumbo jumbo.
And attacking Gore over certain points is quite amusing -- George Bush would not even be able to UNDERSTAND what the hell anyone is talking about AT ALL with relation to these topics -- whatever nets him the highest payoff is whatever is the right choice. Gore is a bit of Robot beancounter lack of personality type but he can at least string sentences together in a coherent manner.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060601/REVIEWS/60517002/1001
bleep
well done, most expensive powerpoint in history.
To the unifromed and naive it makes a good case- if you can suspend belief that 200 years of burning fossil fuels can affect 200 million years of earth's existence.I still don't
Music is Emotion
...ever compiled by mankind before Gutenberg, your assertion becomes empty smoke (I am writing about the burning of that library in Alexandria, in the days of Julius Caesar...)And, to add salt to the wound, let me remind you that what makes the situation more worrying is that we, from our stupid, greedy behaviour, are just burning out, in a few years, what took millions of years to build up: an efficient way to remove CO2 from Earthīs atmosphere. Do you like the picture, once itīs been properly reframed?
Regards
BF
of years before any human walked the earth? In fact most scientists widely assume huge forest fires- bigger than anything we have ever seen were quite common. As well as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and horrendous lightning strikes (which caused the fires).More ash and CO2 was released into the atmosphere during the prvios 200,000,000 years than we could ever possibly hope to accomplish in the next 200 years.
Music is Emotion
...which has been removed from the atmosphere, letting one mollecule of O2 free.And now we are simply reverting the process, while pumping heat at the same time...
Arenīt we smart?
Regards
BF
But this joker doesn't have a leg to stand on. The forest fires is just grasping on straws, or is it tree trunks? Still, burning all the oil we can find is the equivalent of burning every last forest that ever lived (and within a very short period before natural cycles can intervene and even things out), because obviously not all of it is burned and a lot of it was just buried and composted. Also, how much of that biomass turned to oil is from animal matter that would rarely have burned before decomposing? Now, oxygen molecules, hmm, let me grap another cup of coffee.
a
.
nt
You rsik finding out that you are full of it.
.
Ex nihilo, nihil fit . . .
.
Ex nihilo, nihil fit . . .
a
The link below is to a solid review of Algore's new epic. Lots of good links in the text as well (particlulary "catastrophe or not").Enjoy.
*
"Oklahoma is the Cultural Center of the Universe." - Hoyt Axton
These libs are such sadsacks, always -- like Joe Blztpflk (sp?) -- walking around with a raincloud over their heads and yelling at the rest of us to get under it.Thanks for the article, by the way!
clark
Gore may have some resonant justification for eco-concern because of his 'wood-en' demeanor. BTW, the hippo beat the croc in their simulated one-on-one encounter on Mutual of Omaha's TV program: croc escaped with life but part of tail missing. ~AH
... chiefly the loading up of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels."Leaving aside this manīs poor understanding of how plagues propagate, and on how interdependent animal species, and plants, are, their life cycles being so tightly interwoven..., and how our lives depend on both, then itīs not the worst article Iīve read. Lacking any rigour, but not blatantly lying...
On the matter of the intrinsically cinematographic qualities of that film, he probably is right: I havenīt seen it, but his description seems to fit with the way most propagandistic films are made. And this film was made as an attempt to make people aware of the not so long in the future consequences of irresponsible, stupid, bratty, greedy behaviour.
All in all, not that unbalanced...
Thanks for bringing it here.
Regards
BF
Conclusion of the article:No matter what point you make, whoever's got the money, we want to the freedom to make more of it whichever way we want, future be damned.
If you read down in the article (actually, skip all the pseudo-science stuff and go straight for the policy -- if GW is not true, then why the discussion on policy anyway? -- just more contradictory argumentation), Gore's recommendation are not even sufficient to avert major climate change events. Well, hello: 1. It is not going to be easy. and 2. Every little bit does count, and a lot.
This is your introduction to 'libertarian' economic thought. Argue circles around anything, with ciruclar arguments, but make sure the top 1% get to bilk the rest of all their government, ownership and prosperity, not to mention to democracy.
You see, you should know better than to parade partisan websites as a source of unbiased analysis.
clarkjohnsen,I am amused by this thread- getting so far off the subject of the film and into an argument about the reality of global warming.
To simplify the global warming issue: the people who have been inculcated with the deep desire to protect oil industry profits will deny warming, and those who like the idea of conservation and mitigation of a possible environmental disaster will err on the side of caution and believe the fossil fuel set should look into it and possibly help try and look for alternative energy sources. In my view, given the World energy needs, there will be plenty of money for everyone in whatever energy business evolves, and trying to run down to the last drop all on petroleum is short-sighted. We can see the US scramble to protect ME oil supplies costs 100s of Billions and thousands of lives- think of what use these resources could be put. The spending millions by industry to oppose greenhouse gases mitigation does saves billion in reinvestment to alternate energy, but is a short-sighted view.
Clark, you're doing a good deed to try and save oil company profits but don't worry- ExxonTexacoMobilChevron will be fine and still make $9 billion profits per quarter. -I wonder if they care about you as much as you care about them ?
As an advocate of "subtle", unmeasurable technologies/effects like the Smart Rocks, obtuse polarity, Clever Clocks and so on- who insists that no criticism can be made of their effects unless one has tried to hear them with an open mind, you might apply your own critical principle to global warming and see Gore's movie. One line and a link to an opposition article does not seem to coorespond with the notion of responsible critcism. -Have you seen the movie at all?
A good topic, but in this forum, I would prefer to learn something about the content and merits of the film rather than lobbying for the oil companies.
Cheers,
Bambi B
...Dr. David Stodolsky, publishing in peer-reviewed IEEE Transactions on Audio, found incorrect polarity more audible than 11.5% IM distortion. Dr. Stanley Lipshitz, in the peer-reviewed JAES, found polarity audible to the 99% confidence level.These are measured numbers.
Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming. Not only that, you have descended into ineffective invective: "Clark, you're doing a good deed to try and save oil company profits." You can do better than that, c'mon! Leave the emotional stuff behind; that's for liberals.
clark
retain a shred of respect for you. A small one but--- what the heck--- I'm a Christian.
tinear,Well done ! I assume you're joking, as the reference to being a "small Christian" - gives away the comedy, but if not, should you have something to say to me, I would prefer you speak for yourself. I think Clark has enough self-respect and intelligence to respond- if he cares to at all- and does not need a discount apologist jumping in from out of nowhere.
But, surely you're funnin', because suggesting that Clark can't make a sufficient reply for himself, you do him the greater disrespect- it does however, make me suddenly feel I'm much luckier in my friends than poor Clark.
I am further perplexed by your comment, "retain a shred of respect for Clark"- I can't imagine- what makes you think there is only a "shred" remaining? Should you be serious, I think I could say I respect Clark far more than do you.
Tinear, I'm quite sure you're making a prank, but if not, this is not a gentlemanly thing to pull on our friend Clark, who we couldn't do without around here- look at this thread - 120 and counting must be one of the longest threads ever on Films, especially that had almost nothing to do with Films!
Joking aside, I hereby apologize fully to Clark as my comments were overreaction and disproportionate as to degree. It's just I was dissappointed that Clark seemed dismissive of Gore's love song to the Earth, "An Inconvenient Truth" - as Clark is a commentator on technologies, I would have liked to see him- if he's starting a thread on the topic on Films"- look into the content and merits of the film and further do so, with the the open and thouroughness he demands of others evaluating techmolgogies he advocates. This is where I was unfair as to degree with Clark, as I felt his avoidance of my comments were further dismissed by a diversion to "absolute polarity" but I must still insist I did not engage in any "invective" against him. I did prod Clark by jokingly renaming "absolute polarity" "obtuse polarity" and for that I apologise again- this was just heedless word-play. Of all the things Clark avocates, as a long-time Helmholz fan, I am especially open to psycho-acoustic effects of that nature- a lot of people say they hear it, and it does have a measurable, physical component- the polarity of the waveform and it's components can be either correct or inverted.
I'm afraid with the educated clocks and smart rocks, because I'm not convinced by the mysterious explanations of their effects- the personally subjective terminology- ("darker, more detailed, natural") is more akin in my view, to a subjective "poll", and since the effects are either unquantifiable or the makers obscure them proprietarily, I'm more skeptical and would have to try them while looking the makers in the eye. I understand the makers of these devices of "subtle" technology can not fully reveal what's going on as they might be sending business to diy or competitors, but I have a need to know what's happening- physically, and/or psychologically/perceptually.
And Clark, I was completely barmy and overblown to suggest that Clark was being critically hypocritical by starting a movie thread possibly without having seen the film. I was disspointed, but would rather restate this- if posting on "Films", I'd much more enjoy your considered insights and direct discussion of the movie you bring to our attention- than one line- and a link that strikes me as a not especially balanced view. But, you're busy, and I understand you may have done this more casually, and I and others took it too seriously.
But, again, I'm completely open to these devices, again, a lot of poeple make claims of dramatic effects in reproduced sound, and as almost none of my friends let me convince them that imaging is a real effect- I just want to shake them them by the shoulders it's so obvious to me. Would I could've taken my 300 closest friends to hear Ray Kimber's "IsoMike". -But we have to admit that the majority of people do not listen to sound analytically- they may like or dislike it, but they may not search for components and evaluate their aesthetic effect and technological origins. And yes, I do have components that can accomplish a rather strong imaging.
Finally, with Clark I just got off onto an inappropriate strict analytical and semantic fit- it's been fuckin' 100+ for three days- and the other thing is that people from cold climates suffer at over 80 F - as we automatically wear three-piece suits all the time where ever we are. But, finally this morning, it's cool and my overheated brain has cooled down. I hope Clark can write this one off as an abberation. I used poor judgment and word choice.
I'm just unfortunate I was born 3/4 Dutch and people from countries with centuries of poor weather -like the Irish, Scandanavians,and Russians, would rather sit around and forever tell stories, argue, and prod our friends, while the English quarter likes polite conversation. Sorry, Clark, I would dearly love to retract any kind of personal comment. Can I blame Global Warming? I should have never swayed from my prinicple not to make personal coments or inferrence.
As to Global warming itself, I'll post on "Outside" where I feel it's more appropriate, and I'll be somewhat serious. As a child of the oil industry myself- I think I'll surprise you.
-By the way, tinear, that you can publicly admit that youre small does you honour, many men do not have your courage. Thanks for posting !
-Hell, there I go again, and it's only 86..
Cheers,Bambi B
clarkjohnsen,You are again diverting the discussion at hand. The issue here is that you began a thread that intends to criticize Gore's movie about Global warming, by linking to an article that intends to refute the content, but so completely avoid actually discussing the movie, you use the merest excuse to divert attention and return to the polarity issue.
In this sequence, you're forgetting to apply your proclaimed principle of trying to understand technologies and experiences with an open mind before making a judgment. I agree with this completely, but do you feel you've applied your principle to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Have you seen this movie? The unfortunate appearance in this instance is that apply your principle only when it complies to your prejudice. And your comments come off as prejudice when you don;t explain your comments but instead change tthe subject.
And, I believe you are being more than a bit oversensitive to suggest that I engage in "invective", as I can't find a word in my post that is personally abusive in any way. I find this comment insulting, given my long history on this site of long-winded, poorly typed, and rambling care to attempt to calm hurt feelings and defuse personal squabbling. That you confuse gentle sarcasm with invective demonstrates ego-centrism, intense defensiveness, and lack of confidence.
Further, your statement to me, "Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming" is obtuse and slightly psychotic. I never made any statement concerning "absolute polarity"- or even mentioned the actual term, as I suspected that mentioning it would set you off in a diversion- just the way it did anyway.. [see P.S. below].
As for "fallacious assertions" on global warming, what is "fallacious"? [See P.P.S. below] If you were not so desperate to defend your own position and bring in the completely unrelated topic of polarity, you might notice the body of my post is mainly that those who support the oil industry hire those proven sysmpatheitc to an intended conclusion and convince the weaker-minded among the public to deny global warming while liberals point to studies that support it and raise the alarm. I am not even really commenting directly on global warming, except in the title: "Not only is global warming not true,industry is not responsible". My focus in this forum is to try and focus on considering the content and merit of movies- not political statement or arguing science that you automatically gainsay anyway.
Not to be patronising, but in the past several years, Ive had great respect for your taste in music and recordings and I agree with many of you're comments on reproduced sound, but I suggest that you undermine your overall credibility as a critic to criticise a movie which you've not mentioned actually seeing- nor even really address directly at all. Further, by denying the facts, methods, and conclusions of the analyses of a highly complex global atmospheric system only by casual association, and by returning to absolute polarity, is a signal of a rather strong ego-centrism and associated "selectiveness" as to the facts you will accept. This kind of thread does not have to become a refferendum on your opinions and critical methods, but like the polarity thread elsewhere, you seem to want to force it to become so, when there is anything resembling disagreement.
This suggest to me, and apparently others here, that this particular thread in Film Asylum is not informed or balanced criticism, but a casual political diatribe without responsible critical foundation.
You can do better than that, c'mon! Leave the closed minded, anti-intellectual stuff behind; that's for FOX News.
Cheers,
Bambi B
P.S. By the way, I have never experimented with absolute polarity and, therefore have no criticism of it. In fact, I'm rather inclined to believe it's a perceivable effect and would like to try it, but it is still a subjective effect and not meaningfully "measurable"- except as to the proportion of people that believe they hear it. Making scientific claims for it are, in reality, more like subjective opinion polls and are not strict science. On your basis of evidence and statisitcs, I believe, by similar meothod can make a "scientific" proof that 95% of poeple can't hear "imaging" from reproduced sound- none of my non-audiophile fiends can hear it.
PPS: I've has several conversations on the subject with a director of atmospheric sciences for NASA, and have read quite a bit about it on each side of the argument, but unlike you- who seem to believe you have all the facts you need, am not willing to comment on any deep level. While, there are a pile of facts at hand that cause me deep concern, I don't feel confident in my understanding of the vastly complex modelling used for prediction. But, the measurements and effects of reduced ice cap, glaciers, the opening of sea passages to northern Russia never before navigable, suggest something serious is happening and I'm with our liberal friends on this one and believe we should err on the side of caution. You may find 99% can hear a polarity effct, but I'm 99% sure that when a piece of ice the size of Connecticut and one mile thick breaks off Antarctica, we had better pay more attention to that than automatically taking the side of industry fearful of blame.
You are again diverting the discussion at hand.-- I believe *you* first mentioned "polarity".
The issue here is that you began a thread that intends to criticize Gore's movie about Global warming, by linking to an article that intends to refute the content, but so completely avoid actually discussing the movie, you use the merest excuse to divert attention and return to the polarity issue.
-- I repeat...
In this sequence, you're forgetting to apply your proclaimed principle of trying to understand technologies and experiences with an open mind before making a judgment. I agree with this completely, but do you feel you've applied your principle to "An Inconvenient Truth"? Have you seen this movie?
-- No. And you couldn't pay me to go. I, and many, have frequently posted others' comments on things I (we) haven't seen (yet).
The unfortunate appearance in this instance is that apply your principle only when it complies to your prejudice. And your comments come off as prejudice when you don;t explain your comments but instead change tthe subject.
-- I repeat...
And, I believe you are being more than a bit oversensitive to suggest that I engage in "invective", as I can't find a word in my post that is personally abusive in any way.
-- Your remark that I am helping to sustain oil company profits, was intended to be delightful?
I find this comment insulting, given my long history on this site of long-winded, poorly typed, and rambling care to attempt to calm hurt feelings and defuse personal squabbling. That you confuse gentle sarcasm with invective demonstrates ego-centrism, intense defensiveness, and lack of confidence.
I said, "ineffective" invective. Meaning, it was way weak!
Further, your statement to me, "Your fallacious assertions about polarity are as wrong as the rest of your argument on global warming" is obtuse and slightly psychotic.
-- And truthful.
I never made any statement concerning "absolute polarity"- or even mentioned the actual term, as I suspected that mentioning it would set you off in a diversion- just the way it did anyway.. [see P.S. below].
-- Like I wrote, I interpreted "obtuse polarity" to be what it was.
Gotta go!
clark
.
September 3, 1864Dear Dr. Crichton,***
Actually, my friend of late, though done only reluctanctly [sic], and only from strictist necessity, I rather enjoyed it.
Thank you for asking.
Regards,Billy [signed]
Major General William Tecumseh Sherman
c/o General Post Office
Peachblossom, Georgia***This was written to Dr. Nicholas Carter Crichton, who was Sherman's personal surgeon and friend
s
clarkjohnsen,Exactly, we see the young "Bambi" frail and innocent, sensitive, kind and curious- this instead of butchin' it up, winning at Rugby and running around beating others- so naturally many of the uninformed assume Bambi is a "female" deer. I had a cat that was big, sleepy, and fluffy, but tough as hell (an "Alpha-Puff" I called him) and everyone before correction always call him "she". Meanwhile, my female tabby, a lean and mean tiger-striped Sheena of the Jungle- but the sweetie of sweeeties is, "What's His name?"
So, yes "Bambi" is the perfect child- though orphaned and without appropriate role-models- a "latchkey" deer- if that, a disadvataged doe.
But, Bambi is all American and when the need, motivation, and opportunity arises, even the disadvantged Bambi- without benefit of affirmative action of any kind, pulls himself up by his hoof straps and is there on the job with horns on- Super Stag and running the show from now on Buster !
The Bambi story was repeated by Disney- in fact I suppose there are actually numerous treatments of a Disney youngin of dubious meangingful future who rises through adversity to the top, but in "The Lion King", the path is not the Bambistic Jeffersonian non-urban meritocracy, but rather the easiest- actualy automatic- path of just his saying his name out loud- and makes sure everyone agress he's the former ruler's son and heir- justification for the Rights of the Succession. Plus Akimbo is a charming rascal, excellent small-talker, willing to speak peraonally with his lessers, and blond/brunette- of just the sort that Should rule. It's an especially American story.
Young "Akimbo" -like brand names I can't remember these artificial ethnic names- is a lazy slacker, living off of submissive bunnies, moles, and Thompson's Gazelles, but later allows himself to be convinced- by a pig- to pull his finger out! And what a great future monarch and role model for every young child that intends to become King! Prince Charles is, even as we speak, running this dangerous gauntlet towards Kingship.
So, noblesse oblige and golf clubs in paw, Akimbo gets up does an important job of surpressing some kind of gang terrorism, and takes his rightful place on the Throne of Akimboland- and that instead of the evil black, dark brown, and Asian-looking Jackals headed by sinister Jeremy Irons.
Perhaps Eisner thought he was doing "Hamlet", but the American Hamlet actually runs in and gets the job done- none of that non-productive Danish existential angst. Cut to shot of the magnificent King of the Serrangeti shown from below, head proud- triumphant, mane blowing in the wind, a big banner "Objective Attained" high on a tree.
Yes, I see Bambi was depicted as the "Alpha-Puff" of his forest- sensitive but not a pussycat on the windowsill- but holding his strength back for the important work of telling others "in the woods" what to do. With "Bambi", Disney was designing the ideal American child.
Cheers,
Bambi B
s
As a body double?
Victor,Funny you mention "Deep Throat", when I was writing to rico's "Cinema Paradiso" post above, I was thinking of the cinema in Cambridge town centre- it was on the market square like the one in "CP" and I saw many of the movies that were the most influential for me there. I felt I grew up cinematically in that place. I was thinking especially of "Death in Venice", "The Phantom of Liberty", and very memorable- "Deep Throat", which was the first artistic, erotic movie I'd seen.
Cheers,
Bam
Deep Throat is at the center of it.clark
I really dunno... the only tape of it I ever saw was on that 1" reel-to-reel Sony VTR that I bought surplus, together with a bunch of tapes.On one tape there was what appeared to be the twentieth generation copy, allowing you to spot the major organs, but I am afraid at that stage all artistism already left! :-)
Do you think the Criterion is working on the collector's edition?
To shallow that deep like she did?! How about saber sallowing people? Are they not ARTISTS TOO?
But I can assure you, no one swallows MY sabers!
I was afraid you would let out the " s "...
Yes, I intend to take my family to go see this movie. If we are going to live in this world, we might as well do so with our eyes open IMO.(I have copied my statement from the Outside, as I always think the science is fascinating.)
OK, didn't have to read this article to know that it was all bullshit, but let's examine one of its key statements(below). Typical methodology, go back a long ways to make a point about the present and get a lot wrong in the process.1. Scientifically, physicists and climatologist know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it warms the atmosphere appreciably. I never heard any challenge to this fact.
2. Paleo-Climatologists know about the seeming non-correspondence of temperature to CO2, historically speaking. It still doesn't help this argument squat. It says that during cold spells, the buildup of CO2 actually reverses the climate to hotter from very cold. Huh, you say. Well, if the oceans are frozen, they do not absorb CO2 very well and it builds up. That's how you get out of an ice age, stupid. Well, stupid if you believe this article only, otherwise, well, that's why you have scientists to explain these things -- again, climate is not simple at all, but putting CO2 in the atmosphere surely will heat the globe, and that is very simple.
> > > Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
...books take so much *time*...clark
And there are plenty of these. Just go to your library. Also, remember to support your public libraries. Nah, reality has that liberal bias: Better keep your head in the sands of right-wing politics.
We could use one right about now as in the last 2 weeks; our temperature has been pummeled southward of which averaging below normal for the month of June.In any case, all the C02 that we have exhaled into the atmosphere that is nothing compare to the pollutants that we have sprayed every seconds to the earths atmosphere in which contributes to the dimming of the sun.
...then what on earth is causing the changes we all experience?" Right! My area has had really abnormally cool weather for weeks. That's *my* experience! I don't know what *his* is, but I do know this: He's generalizing from particulars.Which is just like generalizing from the particular surface temperature measurement stations that have been incorporated into the expanding urban heat puddle.
clark
...he is entitled to comfortable climate.I wonder if that was the last battle cry of the dinosaurs?
Imagine... the dinosaur political activists demonstrating down the plains with their stupid signs?
.
That is all I have to say, because the truth is that simple. Toodles.
...& Paid.... etc. etc. It's obvious that they are, because it says so on the internet . Besides, George Bush went to Harvard; I rest my case.clark
.
both sides of the story, you'd agree that you just helped me make my point. Yes, all bought and paid for.....even the ones whose area of specialty is dentistry. GMAFB.
a
...
s
Now there is seasoned nonpartisan opinion for you. He's the only "scientist" allowed in the White House. That, my friend, says a lot.Yes, all bought and paid for.
From the speech headered below (substitute "global warming" for "nuclear winter"):At the time, there was a concerted desire on the part of lots of people to avoid nuclear war. If nuclear winter looked awful, why investigate too closely? Who wanted to disagree? Only people like Edward Teller, the "father of the H bomb."
Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr. Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant.
I say it is hugely relevant. Once you abandon strict adherence to what science tells us, once you start arranging the truth in a press conference [or movie/cj], then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political ends.
and none of them are foolish enough to pretend to be experts in climate change.Clark, this is just one of those issues we're going to agree to disagree on. I know your mind is made up, and so is mine. Let's go kick ass somewhere else in AA now.
I encountered the facts.clark, Bought & Paid by Big Oil
If you didn't get a lot, let me handle those negotiations for you in the future. ;~)
.
Someone needs to tell him he isn't writing a book when it comes to this stuff. The screenplay is going to be ugly. ;~)
I see you are on a roll..
How droll... That article is a nice piece of propaganda. WHich is a polite way to say it, and you, are full of it.Real science is done by the book; well,by the journal. One of the guys quoted asserted, in effect, that he had a counterexample. That is a devastating and permanent end for any theory. Where is his journal article? Where is the discussion of it in the literature? A search will reveal about a thousand journal articles on GW, and not a counterexample in the lot.
The gold standard in science is prediction. The GW guys predicted warming, and we got warming.
And now we find out the rate at which things are warming is accelerating.But I can see why a phony expose by a PR firm would appeal to you.
and I'll give you a hundred bucks! (Hint: you'll never find one, 'cause it don't exist).This is nothing but political posturing and belly-aching from people who refuse to face the facts.
In 2003 they published an article by Soon and Baliunas, abstracted in the header below. It says exactly what you don't want it to say.It will be amusing to watch you weasel out of this one, because there the thing is for all to see.
I'll give you my mailing address in private e-mail; a USPS money order preferred.
clark
see link-A quote from the article by David Appell: "The Soon et al. paper is so fundamentally misconceived and contains so many egregious errors that it would take weeks to list and explain them all."
Perhaps I should have said "peer reviewed and accepted".
- http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000829C7-70D9-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF&sc=I100322 (Open in New Window)
But not quite. You owe me $100 fair and square.Put your money where your mouth is.
And by the way, thousands of journal articles are challenged every year. So what?
clark
With scientific facts one usually selects the ones that fit his world vision.
s
When it comes right down to it, you are a spectator. You can't play this game any more than you can claim expertise in biology.I have said it many times before. You don't count, neither do I.
even the scientists take a back seat to the work. And the work strengthens the human induced hypothesis.I don't have the expertise to 'peer review' that article. But I find very telling that Soon and Baliunas defined the current warming out of existence. Looks like a cheap stunt, but what do I know.
a
.
.
From the article linked by Clark:"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun."
Now here is a supporting point of view from Duke University. It that reputable enough? Although they are not downplaying the global warming impetus from greenhouse gaseous emissions, they certainly are providing an educated argument for the sun being mostly responsible for what the GW cultists have been blaming on greenhouse gas emissions.
...your work is getting reviewed by people who get their funding from all the same sources, so you can count on political correctness.clark
How many anti-racism works were published in the Nazi Germany?
Science is always open to opposing opinions, indeed it is built on the premise that theories and "working models" are made to be demolished. If a "climate scientist" with credentials were to present a dissenting article to, say, Scinetific American or Nature, the editors would welcome it, since a little controversy is always good for sales.
The whole branches of science have been pushed and destroyed before.
-
As soon as you introduce into science things politically acceptable and not, you kill it. This is happening now.
d
.
s
NT
.
.
Vic,
science works like that. You get to a certain point and the crowd jumps the fence. After that point they don't want to hear from the Old Guard.That does NOT mean the Old Guard is ignored. Far from it. There are many instances in the history of science where the old guard has managed to destroy the new theory.
If someone came up with a REAL argument that kills GW, it would get published. The scientist would announce his results, and the 'war' would begin. This has not happened, and at this point I don't think it can happen.
The radical environmentalists have cried wolf so many times that they have no credibility.
Not a pretty picture is it?clark
and has only produced emissions (other than fire which occurrs naturally) for maybe 200 years. Yeah, I'm sure our puny tiny 200 years out of 200 MILLION can really affect teh global climate which naturally goes in cycles we can't even measure yet.I don't believe a word of it- just like in 1970 the same scientists and politicians' fathers were screaming ARCTIC WINTER!!!!! Gee what ever happened to that Inconvient Truth???????????
Music is Emotion
.
...is that the computer models they rely so heavily on, besides the usual GIGO, are not predictions but scenarios, a series of "what-if's". Fifteen years ago one of their models showed a rise in temperature three times as high by 2100 as it now shows. One might even say, show it goes.clark
...and more powerful computing, which allow scientists to develop more and more accurate models.But all this belongs into Science, that field of human activity you so much loathe, no matter how you pretend to be "a scientist" yourself...
Regards
BF
clark... can you even pick your nose without consulting our Mr. Science?Fact is, clark stuck your nose in the latrine, where this is not the matter of current accuracy (which sucks, of course), but of what idiots do with their clearly inaccurate "predictions".
If to you this is "science" then the rest of us can do clearly better... keep accumulating knowledge without seeking quick political reward.
You would fit nicely into the anti-Galileo crowd, Mr. Know-it-All-Already.
As usual with you, nothing of a substance.Learn some humility, then perhaps some day you will learn about science. In that order.
s
There are some people who at least try... our Spanish guy is not one of them.
a
nt
From your myopic point of view, why not let Iranians play that game, too?Itīs hard to believe the strange effects tunnel vision has on so many people...
Regards
BF
Just one Krakatoa eruption of 1883 was the equivalent of 200 Megatons... that's over 10,000 the Hiroshima.And guess what? The Earth survived.
Become humble, my son!
...change more than a bit, if we want to avoid going back to earlier stages: our civilizations needed a huge lot of things, and a very stable climate, to flourish and, if climate changes too much, too many things we are taking for granted will become more than scarce.While idiots braying against the evidence wonīt help...
Regards
BF
Anything else you feel the world owes you?
.
...in their right context...
RegardsBF
...makes it plain that it is a reliable critic of non-conservative ideas. It's like quoting Fox News for an "objective" assessment. I'm sorry, but a critique of Al Gore's position would better come from a neutral source. One can always find a critique of a socio-political position that can be made to sound legitimate. That's the nature of rhetoric and discourse.My father in law is a climatologist and has been a critic of global warming for years. But he's also one of the most didactic, superior and disconnected people you could ever hope to meet. One of those people who just likes to think he "knows" what other people don't get. I wouldn't trust an idea of his with a nickel.
I can't prove it, but my feeling is that there's an aesthetic parallel between anti-global warming ideologues and Holocaust deniers. That may sound like going too far but I suspect it's true.
eb
You present him as a fool... begging for that old Mark Twain's quote.
nt
Is your FIL automatically all those things because he dislikes the GW idea? I wonder...
You really think it's possible that all my enmity toward my father in law comes from his position on global warming? That suggests your brain has an auto-pilot function that magically turns everything into a form that's easy for you to digest and dismiss, when you deem it to your advantage to do so. Sure reminds me of the way Fox news, so blatantly the most biased of all the major news organizations, declares itself as "fair and balanced" just to distract from the predicability of it's own slant. It's really all quite funny.The other thing that's so amusing is that I've followed the contours of your "thinking" on this forum for a couple of years now and I can't think of anyone else who's more completely predictable in terms of opinions of both movies and politics, when the latter subject comes up. You've always struck me (and many others have publicly made the same observation) as the very picture of the closed mind, so I can only chuckle when you toss that description my way. I can't think of anyone who knows me who has ever described me that way.
As far as my father in law is concerned I see his position on global warming as called into question by the many other ways he demonstrates his utterly self-absorbed know-it-all qualities. This is a man that abandoned his kids when they were five years old, never contributed any child support while holding well-paid jobs as his wife supported three people on a pittance, then announced to me and his unsupported daughters how happy he was when his income finally reached "six figures." Then he told a later girlfriend that he didn't want kids because he's already "raised his children."
This is also the guy who has never said an affectionate word to either of his kids but reported to them how his "sides ached from crying" after his dog died...
Just the kind of guy who sees only what he wants. If I could only tell you the many other ways in which he transparently enjoyes holding contrary opinions because he thinks it shows he "gets" something that eludes other people.
Yeah, he's Mr. Intellectually Reliable, isn't he.
eb
You have an apparently knowlegeable guy, a specialist in his field, a climatologist, and you, instead of learing something from him, simply declare him incompetent - while you yourself don't seem to know first thing about that subject.Your best defense in this question - dumping it on me... figures, as you have nothing else to state.
I say - drop your silly prejudices and spend some time talking with him. It is likely you will abandon the childish "he knows it all" and simply realize he knows a few things about his field of expertize.
Our problem today is too many people with your mindset. Knowing exactly zero about this field, they don't have any problems putting forward very forceful positions - just read this thread. Any doubts regarding their knowledge are met with ridicule, and you are doing in that department just great.
When you learn perhaps 1% about that field what your FIL does, then perhaps your views will be taken seriously too. Until then, with Al Gore as your source, I would be more willing to talk with your FIL than with ten people here.
As far as your presentation of your FIL personal life... I think you should rethink posting such stuff here, as it surely does not present YOU in any good light - how exactly does it make you look I will not state, but I think you get my tilt.
If your intent was to thusly present all anti-GW climatologists as bad people, this would be just ridiculous, but speaking badly of someone who is not here to defend himself is at best ungentlemanly.
Well it's not my intention to brand all anti-GW climatologists as bad people. I just find it amusing that this particular intellectually dubious guy espouses it (actually we maybe see him every few years and I've no clue what his current thinking is; nor do I care).I've not actually expressed my own opinion on the matter. My position is essentially a version of Pascal's Gambit. Knowing that there are strong opinions on both sides it appears the risks of ignoring the concern are infinitely greater than the inverse. So I go with a position of caution and of careful stewardship of nature.
Although I can't offer scientific proof of it I'm sure the earth's resources are not infinite, and I am not inclined to the position that the earth has a limitless power to heal itself. I do know that factory farming, for example, has a tremendously pernicious effect on the natural world, and I'm quite sure that agribusinesspeople ignore these devastating effects from a position of self-interest. I take this as a representative example of human behavior that I extrapolate and assume exists in other forms.
The problem with that Pascal's position, while reasonable on surface, is that one gets blown around like a dry leaf, lacking critical mass to analyze and select the issues of concern.There are all kinds of alarmists around, and if one were to apply that logic to all of them all life on Earth would have to stop - there would be no air travel, no nuclear power, no agriculture and who knows what else. My FIL is that sort of a person, and you should see him fight any home improvement idea his wife had over the years.
Pretty much ALL human activity involves risk/benefit analysis, and if manking always went with limiting risks, we would still be living in caves.
No one is suggesting limitless power to heal, but we also have evidence of Earth surviving many things on the way to today... ironically, though, that doesn't mean a particular form of life is guaranteed to. We have our wishes, and then there are cosmic realities - it the Earth is destined to become 20 degrees hotter, killing all human life, due to hotter Sun, for instance, then there is nothing we could do to avoid that.
Limited resources is an entirely different category.
z
a
But of course being the biggest hypocrite on this board you would never notice mean vindictiveness in that guy's post... but the message hurts? Learn to take it like a man.
makes it plain that it is a reliable critic of non-conservative ideas."Well put. If this article had appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, then the arguments might have had more weight, but as it is, this is nothing more than (conservative) political posturing and kvetching.
All that talk about articles to the contrary not appearing... are you familiar with the Lysenko period?
though politically, we are making our way there. The scientists haven't bowed yet. However, a handful do get paid off, as in these conservative-press articles.
Ever tried pissing against the freight train?
Check this:Tom Harris , Director, Ottawa Operations
Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with private companies and trade associations to successfully position these entities and their interests with media and before government committees and regulatory bodies. Tom holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Carleton University and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical - thermo-fluids) from McMaster University.
Our Clients
Past and present HPG clients include:
* private corporations
* national and international not-for-profit organizations
* federal, provincial and municipal governments
http://www.highparkgroup.com/index.htmHere's a bit of background on the lead scientist quoted in the article, Bob Carter:
He is "one of the ususal suspects" - a well-known climate change skeptic who can be reliably expected to back up any attempt at debunking GW, no matter how transparently political (which this article manifestly is).Tom Harris is a flack and the article is PR garbage.
Info on Dr. Carter at the link.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
...
If all of this is just scare mongering, then what on earth is causing the changes we all experience?
I guess from the ostrich position everything seems fine.
And possibly for political gain?Say it ain't so! ;)
This movie is worth seeing. The fact is that anything espoused by Al Gore will be disputed by self-styled conservatives. That's a given. People should see the movie, read comments from all sources, including skeptics, and make up their own minds.
..the hell is a self-styled conservative anyway?O tempore, O lingua.
clark
NT
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
