- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 16, 2015 at 6:09 pm #820608
JTBParticipantGetting back to the OP, I’d like to note that Henri Roussel, the founder and former editor of Charlie Hebdo said he was “upset” with the slain editor, “Charb” for continuing to engage in a game of one-upmanship with fundamentalist Muslims by publishing intentionally provocative cartoons after fire-bombings, death threats and expressed apprehension from staff members. Roussel characterized Charbonnier as “brilliant” but “stubborn.”
I think the decision of some of the mass media to not publish the cartoon after the carnage occurred is another matter and is disappointing to me.
CaptainDave, your lack of understanding about the democratic underpinnings of our representative democracy is appalling. Although the framers were generally white males of property, they did establish a foundation that proved capable of expanding to include women, those without property, black people, etc. Yes the intention has been for the representatives to be elected and held accountable by a democratic, collective process. It’s another discussion about how gerrymandering and Citizens’ United have altered the representative and democratic components.
Also, you might look at the reports today citing last year as the warmest in record (since 1880), eclipsing the previous high in 2010 and joining the ten other warmest years which have all occurred since 1997. Trend?
January 16, 2015 at 7:09 pm #820609
JoBParticipantGlobal warming from those pesky scientists..
January 16, 2015 at 7:16 pm #820610
JoBParticipantJTB
what bothers me most about the comments of Henri Roussel is that they center on risk aversion and not on testing the limits of free speech.
a bunch of sheriffs from the Southwestern states gathered in front of the capital recently and chanted some pretty ugly slogans which included racial and ethnic slurs against our President and if they were reported accurately actual death threats.
I found them disrespectful to the office of the President. I found them socially offensive. And they are certainly iconic.
but, they are a good reminder that upholding free speech is not always comfortable..
January 16, 2015 at 7:36 pm #820611
SmittyParticipant“yes, all glaciers grow and shrink. That’s a normal cycle. What is not normal is for them to shrink and shrink and shrink and disappear..”
Puget Sound was carved by glaciers.
January 16, 2015 at 8:30 pm #820612
JTBParticipantJoB, My sense from reading Roussel’s comments is there were a number of issues of Charlie Hebdo that challenged the Muslim sensibilities about depicting Mohammed. I believe that’s what he meant when referring to a game of one upmanship. I understand that to mean it became something more than simply challenging the ability of a religion to impose its beliefs on non-believers. Or, if the point has been made a number of times, is it necessary or wise to keep making it?
January 16, 2015 at 8:38 pm #820613
JoBParticipantyes smitty..
a very very long time ago..
but it’s not likely man had very much to do with that one… in fact.. they still don’t know exactly what caused that or the warming period before it…
but there is little doubt about this one..
there is simply too much clear evidence
for giggles you might want to read the entire article…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/
“Of course, modern global warming stems from a clear cause—rising levels of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) from fossil fuel burning, cutting down forests and other human activities. And, in the past rising CO2 levels at the very least magnified global warming, ushering in the relatively balmy, stable climate sometimes called the “long summer” that has allowed human civilization to flourish. Humanity has now raised global CO2 levels by more than the rise from roughly 180 to 260 ppm at the end of the last ice age, albeit in a few hundred years rather than over more than a few thousand years. “The end of an ice age, you have a sense in your bones what that means: a big, significant change for the planet,” Shakun says. “It’s a tangible example of what rising CO2 can mean for the planet over the long-term.”
In fact, the amount of global warming already guaranteed by existing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere—392 ppm and still rising—will also play out over centuries, if not millennia. “The rise at the end of the Ice Age and today is about the same [a rise of 100 ppm] and we’re going to be well above and beyond,” most likely increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases by hundreds of parts per million from preindustrial levels, Shakun notes. “We will only see some of that realized in this next century. It will be many centuries and beyond to feel the full effects.”
January 22, 2015 at 8:27 am #820614
captainDaveParticipantI ran across some interesting information that seems to reveal why so many people have an overly positive view of islam. Brigitte Gabriel (look her up in wiki), published a document that apparently shows how mass amounts of Saudi money had been used since the 1970’s to alter Islamic history in school text books across the US. The executive summary of the “Textbook Project” at http://www.actforamericaeducation.com is worth a read.
Regarding global warming hysteria: Space is a very cold place. Without heat and CO2, plants won’t grow. If we actually could eliminate all the so-called “bad greenhouse gasses”, then the earth would turn back into a snowball is it was in the past (http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/ancient_earth/Snowball_Earth)
Burning fossil fuels puts the life giving material back into circulation. That’s why actual green houses pump in CO2 at over 2,000 ppm to enhance growth–plants love it, and we humans love plants. Earth is just a big green house. I say if we can turn up the heat a little, and get plants to grow more vigorously, then by golly, let’s do it!
Could it be that the taxpayer funded politically endorsed scientists have the idea entirely wrong? Without the massive continental forest fires and flaming tar pits of the past, how is carbon supposed to be put back into the system? Besides, do you really think China and India will want to reduce carbon now that they know it has increased their badly needed agricultural output?
If we restrict human progress through mystic climate control measures, then we can’t use our freedom to advance very quickly towards the next generations of technologies. Other than Islam, the most significant danger to human life on earth is comets and astroids, not global warming. Humans won’t truly be safe until they have the ability to stave off large objects in space–If the earth is hit with a large astroid anytime in the next couple hundred years, liberals will be to blame for diverting funds that could have been used to advance space technology rather than to social engineer freedom out of our society.
January 22, 2015 at 11:11 am #820615
JoBParticipantCaptain Dave
I don’t have the energy tonight to do your entire post justice..
but instead will focus on a small piece of oversimplification
” I say if we can turn up the heat a little, and get plants to grow more vigorously, then by golly, let’s do it!”
if turning up the heat in the greenhouse is creating it’s own destructive weather patterns .. that it’s probably not a good idea to increase the heat …
especially if the thermostat can’t be turned back down.
if too much heat kills people, what do you think it does to plants?
January 22, 2015 at 4:51 pm #820616
elikapekaParticipantJanuary 22, 2015 at 5:23 pm #820617
JTBParticipantcD,
The internal links in the BBC presentation aren’t working presently, so I can’t review the specific details. However, I am familiar with the 2000 Scientific American article examining the same theory. That article now requires SA membership or purchase so I’m not providing a link.
I can’t tell if the BBC version of this theory is misleading, if you simply misunderstand it, or are willfully misrepresenting some of the key points. But the basic point is there have been and continue to be intricate feedback mechanisms between geothermal forces, water, atmospheric gases, plant and animal life, and the earth’s climate that have led to particular conditions favoring or challenging different life forms. Those conditions developed over millions of years, tending in a particular direction until reaching a tipping point where one or several components reached a level that was sufficient to alter the previous relative balance and initiate a shift in a different direction.
Your notion that more is better when it comes to CO2 is simply not supported by the snowball earth theory and in fact flies in the face of it. That’s precisely the concern over the contribution of man made green house gases to climate change—-that we will reach a tipping point which alters conditions sufficiently so that present life forms will be challenged beyond their ability to cope effectively. For example, the Pentagon views global warming as a near term threat to national security, in great part in recognition of the massive population displacements that are coming and the limited capacity of nation states to manage the accompanying social and political upheavals.
Additionally, when you use expressions, like “taxpayer funded politically endorsed scientists” you reveal more about your defensive, indignant worldview than your interest in engaging in a well-intended discussion of an important issue. Rather than minimizing the opinions of climatologists and other scientists, it reduces your own.
Regarding Bridgett Gabriel, the Wikipedia profile on her indicates she “has made a post-9/11 career out of roundly denouncing Islam, decrying ‘political correctness,’ and promoting the concept of an existential clash of cultures.” Several Jewish organizations that invited her to speak subsequently issued apologies for her hateful comments directed at Arabs and Muslims. That leaves me with little interest or confidence in her research efforts.
January 22, 2015 at 5:31 pm #820618
JoBParticipantCaptain Dave
“I ran across some interesting information that seems to reveal why so many people have an overly positive view of islam.”
my “overly positive” view of Islam could not have been a product of the Saudi Education initiative since i graduated high school before it supposedly began.
strangely enough … my primary education occurred in one of the more racist and bigoted areas of Eastern Oregon
we didn’t socialize with the catholic or mormon kids in town.
we didn’t socialize with the chinese, negro or American Indian kids either.
even attending the 4 square evangelical church was suspect… as i did on alternate Sundays.
The only reason i I wasn’t socially ostracized as a “holy roller” is mom married one of the kids of the founding fathers of the town and the alternate Sunday were spent as a good Methodist girl.
and yet.. even in that bigoted and racist environment.. we were still taught freedom of religion as a core principle of our patriotism and had a small course on the world’s religions built into our world government classes.
there is nothing nefarious about education… it is the bridge that allows us to understand other cultures..
i think the real nefarious education scheme is the one that denies kids the information they need to make good decisions for themselves… and you don’t have to look outside our borders to find it.
January 22, 2015 at 6:12 pm #820619
JoBParticipantand in this morning’s inbox
if this doesn’t make you uncomfortable, nothing will
https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84359240&x-yt-ts=1421782837&v=FDRnH48LvhQ
January 22, 2015 at 6:22 pm #820620
dobroParticipant“Brigitte Gabriel (look her up in wiki), published a document…”
So I did look her up on Wiki, as you suggested. Here’s a line from there…
“She frequently speaks at American conservative organizations such as The Heritage Foundation, Christians United for Israel, Evangelicals, and Jewish groups. In her own words, she gives voice to “what many in America are thinking, but afraid to say out loud, for fear of being labeled a racist, bigot, Islamophobic, or intolerant.”[10]”
And the things she says? Well, her fear, in my case, is realized, because I find her opinions to be racist, bigoted, Islamophobic, and intolerant. Certainly no one I would accept as any kind of “expert” opinion on Islam.
“If the earth is hit with a large astroid anytime in the next couple hundred years, liberals will be to blame for diverting funds that could have been used to advance space technology rather than to social engineer freedom out of our society.”
It’s these types of statements that make me think “Surely I have better ways to spend my time than refuting somebody who thinks evil liberals of the future will rejoice in the destruction of Earth by asteroids, destruction that could have been avoided if only evil liberals of the present could be stopped with their crazy social engineering!!!”
That’s some serious bilgewater there Cap’n. See ya later.
January 22, 2015 at 7:44 pm #820621
captainDaveParticipantJoB: You obviously missed my point. Increased “green house gasses” has not made any measurable impact on global climate.
Which of the hundreds of grant funded climate models made by people working to prove global warming over the last 30 years actually worked? Are you not seeing all the failures as suspicious, or are you wrapped up in a religious cult designed to turn crush free society for the ruling elite? Real science is not about proving popular politically motivated theories.
It is now 2015. If sea level rise is the absolute proof of global warming, why has it stayed the same for the last 50 years?
If the global ecosystem was so sensitive to changes, it would have died off eons ago–especially after any number of large astroid strikes. Maybe the earth is still in recovery from the last major strike and will continue to gradually warm until the next big hit? Why is global warming science so tunnel visioned on punishing humans for returning carbon to the system? We are the only animals that have the ability to return deeply buried carbon to the surface where it can be used in the ecosystem.
Even if we could change the climate with CO2, increasing temperature would have more “good” than “bad”. Fossil records show that the earth had tropical vegetation at high latitudes many times in history. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could grow coconuts and mango trees at Alki Beach instead of living under the 3,000 feet of glacier ice that melted away 20,000 years ago? Too bad the climate models aren’t working. Maybe you should be drinking more fizzy cool-aid?
JoB:If your “scary” artic ice melt graphic were true, then this would not be true:
http://www.sail-world.com/USA/North-West-Passage-blocked-with-ice—yachts-caught/113788
Many of these vessels were abandoned and remained stuck in the ice through 2014. Your graphic was probably a failed computer model rather than real data.
Dobro: So you are saying that a person who has lived under the opression of Islam cannot possibly be an expert on the subject? Sorry, I am lost by your logic here. She is too loud and obnoxious for my tast, but the facts behind her position are easily substanciated. Here is a video of her addressing your PC issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s You can find supporting data at the Pew Research Center. Here is one project that quiried 17,000 people:
http://www.pewglobal.org/2005/07/14/islamic-extremism-common-concern-for-muslim-and-western-publics/
Astroids are more plausible than man-caused CO2 global warming because they actually exist
January 22, 2015 at 11:33 pm #820622
JTBParticipantcD, No wonder Nils-Axel Mörner doubts the findings of satellite-based measurements of sea levels given his ardent belief in dowsing/water witching.
January 23, 2015 at 2:11 am #820623
JoBParticipantcaptain dave..
no.. you missed the point..
and totally disregarded the data.
are you aware that major cruise lines are about to begin marketing cruises through the arctic? According to the lecturer we heard on celebrity they have already sent a test ship through..
here’s another link to another climate denier myth busting article ..
you might want to read at least one of these.. they explain a lot in terms not too difficult to understand.
http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/
January 23, 2015 at 2:17 am #820624
JoBParticipantJTB,, some of the most influential people in history have been comics .. who see it as their job to press the limits of what is acceptable to make their point.
while i don’t happen to be one of those people who gets most of today’s comic material.. heck i didn’t get most of yesterday’s comic material either..
I greatly appreciate the impact they had on popular thought.
January 23, 2015 at 3:09 am #820625
JTBParticipantJoB, are you getting back to the OP? Or are you referring to Captain Dave’s postings on climate change which are clearly laughable? Sorry, now I’m joking.
I am firmly on the side of Charlie Hebdo, but I don’t think they were relieved of considering when they had made their point and when it became excessive or not particularly helpful. All good comics recognize when they’ve gone to far (see link below). I mean were they thinking they’d just keep at it until ISIL or Al Qaeda said “OK, you can put up images of the Prophet and we’re cool with that.”? Or perhaps Charb really did suppose that eventually he’d be killed if he kept at it and he was cool with that. Hard to say. That said, once the murders took place, I think it was important for the media to take a stand and display the cartoons in question. We’ll see how that plays out in the long run.
On your point about how comedy has evolved and mine about making a bad joke, I offer the following link
January 23, 2015 at 3:17 am #820626
JoBParticipantJTB
would we have said the same if instead of repeated arrests, someone had murdered Lenny Bruce instead of imprisoning and blacklisting him?
did he go too far? he certainly went to far for his ability to make a living…
but not too far to influence a generation and help define right to free speech.
January 23, 2015 at 4:28 am #820627
HMC RichParticipantPosts 101 and 102
Ummm. Seems 2014 may not have been the warmest year and the climate change globasm needs to feel a little guilt for reporting the wrong scientific numbers. The SCIENCE IS SETTLED! Science is never settled and neither is promoting an agenda that falsifies the data or inadvertently leaving it out.
This would not be reported in the liberal news outlets because it doesn’t support the agenda.
January 23, 2015 at 5:37 am #820628
captainDaveParticipantCruises through the Arctic? technology+supply & demand. What’s that got to do with global warming? Here is a link about the first vessel to cruise through the Arctic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjøa –the voyage was done by a small wooden sailing vessel in 1906 with no ice breaker or satellites. How do you think that was possible? Maybe there were an abundance of global warming polar bear farts back then?
First US vessel completed the trip through the Arctic in 1957: http://www.uscg.mil/history/articles/northwest_passage1957.pdf
Despite the much improved ice breaking technology today, the issues of traveling through the Arctic are pretty much the same as they have been through the last century:
http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/Experts-Voice-Concerns-Over-New-Arctic-Cruise-2014-07-26
The myth of an ice-free Arctic sea is leftist fodder meant for political propeganda. BBC 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm Where is the actual rising sea levels, unpresidented supper storms, and scorched earth?
The IPCC has led an intense politically motivated campaign of disinformation to support the CO2 global warming hypothesis. How could the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change along with the army of climate change scientists admit that there has been no significant climate change since it’s inception 27 years ago? That would be an admission to the biggest fraud of all time. Debunking debunkers is the only way to keep the academic money machine going. I think a bunch of people want to retire before taxpayers start burning the climate witches.
January 23, 2015 at 7:00 am #820629
Jd seattleParticipantAnother to go along with HMC Rich’s
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/
I’m no skeptic or alarmist but… To say the science is settled and anyone who questions it is somehow ignorant seems a bit closed minded to me.
January 23, 2015 at 3:58 pm #820630
JTBParticipantJoB, I’m not sure there is an meaningful parallel with Lenny Bruce and Charb. One was challenging legal restrictions against free speech, broadly challenging the system, in a pioneering manner. The other, Charb, had the law squarely on his side and was challenging an extralegal threat from Muslim extremists. Perhaps if Lenny had gone to Biloxi, MS and called out white men for being racists because they were afraid of loosing their wives and girlfriends to more sexually potent black men in a series of performances, we’d have seen something similar in the way of threats and, I suspect, violence if he continued.
I appreciate that legal harassment and cowardice on the part of club owners both played a part in limiting Lenny’s career. My understanding is his drug use also played a roll.
Again, I’m not at all saying Charb was wrong to challenge the intimidation from Muslim extremists; I’m just asking if the point hadn’t pretty well been made or what he expected to come from continuing to press the issue?
January 23, 2015 at 4:02 pm #820631
JTBParticipantjD, I haven’t looked in detail at the different articles about the NASA reports. However, a quick scan of your article seems to indicate it is referring to the hottest year in the USA, not the earth. I think even ardent proponents of American exceptionalism can appreciate that difference.
HMCRich. You might want to read the article you posted more closely. Does it really matter much if 2014 was only marginally higher than the previous hottest year (2010) or even the same? I think it’s more telling to note, as NASA did originally, where the highest temperatures in the last 100+ years occurred. Then there can be a fair discussion about whether or not that represents a trend.
January 23, 2015 at 5:08 pm #820632
Jd seattleParticipantJTB- I think the intent of the article (at least my intent for posting it) was to show that NASA has gone in and changed 80+ year old climate data. They wrote a report titled “Too hot to handle” about July 2012 being the hottest month in US history. They then went back and change data from the 30s which essentially nullified the report. Yet, they don’t tell anyone.
I understand this is only data for the US, but it’s not the data itself I have a problem with. My problem is when someone can go back in time and alter data that has been used as”rock solid evidence” of climate change.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.