Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

An Inconvenient what ?
ifihadahif Posted: Fri May 18 17:52:06 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderg/index.html


 
Mesh Posted: Sat May 19 03:14:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  That's one bloated liberal pantywaist.


 
FN Posted: Sat May 19 06:59:07 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hey, that's the first scientificly backed up post I've seen hif make ;o)


I've read it, and I've read much of what it has to say before.

I'm not an expert on the matter and even the experts can't get to agree, but I'll say this:

There's more than proof enough that the climate is indeed changing.

The question is wether this is caused by humanity or not is something else.

I believe that for some part it is.

The only question in my mind is the division of "responsibility" between humanity and nature.

I shrug to see how either everything is put on the head of humanity, and I'm equally unimpressed by people who claim humanity, pollution, etc, has no (negative) effect at all.


 
addi Posted: Sat May 19 07:37:14 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:

>I'm equally unimpressed by people who claim humanity, pollution, etc, has no (negative) effect at all.

it's 2007. my son is taking a college course in Anthropology. He just told me that half of the students in the class raised there hand when the prof asked them "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"


People that believe we're just passive victims, and play no role in what's happening to our climate are just like those students.

There will never be a lack of fools around to raise their hands, despite clear evidence to the contrary.



 
FN Posted: Sat May 19 07:43:41 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>it's 2007. my son is taking a college course in Anthropology. He just told me that half of the students in the class raised there hand when the prof asked them "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"

I don't get how the US degenerated into that


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 19 08:23:24 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>Hey, that's the first scientificly backed up post I've seen hif make ;o)
>
>
>I've read it, and I've read much of what it has to say before.
>
>I'm not an expert on the matter and even the experts can't get to agree, but I'll say this:
>
>There's more than proof enough that the climate is indeed changing.
>
>The question is wether this is caused by humanity or not is something else.
>
No one could possibly doubt that the climate is changing. The whole argument is whether or not it is caused by people from Belgium or not.

There is enough evidence to the contrary and enough respected scientists who doubt this that the argument is nowhere near over. The fact that soon-to-be Dr. Gore used the word consensus should make you very wary of his motives.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 19 08:25:52 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>
>People that believe we're just passive victims, and play no role in what's happening to our climate are just like those students.
>
>There will never be a lack of fools around to raise their hands, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
>
Addi, I'm very much in agreement with you on the subject of evolution.
Where we part ways on this is the fact that I'm not willing to label someone a fool because of their beliefs. At least most of the time.


 
addi Posted: Sat May 19 09:06:21 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>Where we part ways on this is the fact that I'm not willing to label someone a fool because of their beliefs. At least most of the time.

I am.

Of course it depends on the subject in question. There are lots of people that sincerely believe Lindsay Lohan is the sexiest actress in the world. I disagree with them, but I can't reasonably call them fools...we all have different opinions on beauty.

But when people passionately believe in something that flies in the face of scientific data gathered over years of study (that the vast majority of the scientific community who are experts in that field) agree on...then I won't hesitate to call them fools.
In the case of denying evolution I call them fools; in the case of human impact on the global environment and climate, I call them fools.


 
addi Posted: Sat May 19 09:34:44 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  allow me to elaborate a little more in context with Gore and global warming.

For simplicity's sake let's say that Gore presents 26 "facts" lettered A-Z in a document to back up his position on global warming.

Scientist Shmoe comes along and says, "Hold on here one minute, Mr. Gore. I contest points G and R in this paper. There is some credible evidence out that supports a different take on these points."

My problem is with those people that then take the illogical leap that if points G and R MAY be incorrect, that all the other points are unsupportable as well..those that throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. It's an unjustifiable and untenible position to take in my opinion.

No doubt new facts will surface down the road that will shed more light on this subject. For the time being I think the prudent thing to do is to examine the entire body of evidence that we now have on the effects of human modification to our environment, and what that has done to accelerate our climate change since the Industrial Revolution, and then take immediate actions to recify that problem.
I don't see any value at all to those that say, "Let's hold off on doing things that will lessen the amount of pollution we put into our atmosphere, untill we have all the facts on the consequences".

that is a very dangerous and foolish position to hold in my estimation.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 19 09:57:23 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  But no one is saying that we shouldn't lessen the amount of pollution we emit. We have been decreasing our pollution emittance(is that a word?) since the 70's. It's a fact that our air is cleaner, our water is cleaner, and we have more trees now than in 70's.
It's been proven that there have been more dramatic warmings in our climate several times as well as dramatic coolings, all you have to do is go back far enough.
The other problem I have with the global warming alarmists is that their whole argument is predicated on the fact that our climate now is the best possible climate we could have and that it just shouldn't change.
Well it's gonna change and keep changing as it always has.
The other problem is the co2 argument.
Since the co2 elevations that supposedly caused the warming in the past have been proven to occur after the warmings, that kind of poo poos the whole argument for me.

By the way in case you didn't read the entire link this thread is based on, the essay was done by a high school student in Oregon for extra credit.
Pretty good don't you think ?




 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 19 10:52:04 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Perhaps if the global warming alarmists would debate the argument on its merits instead doing their best to silence the opposing view it might be easier to listen to them.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/


 
addi Posted: Sat May 19 11:38:19 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>But no one is saying that we shouldn't lessen the amount of pollution we emit.

this will come out as much nastier than I mean it, you know I lovz ya, but this just shows me you're not paying attention to the reality of what's happening.
Saying and doing are TWO entirely different things. Words mean jack crap. Actions count.
This administration talks the talk (barely), but doesn't walk the walk. The lack of any significant ledgislation over the past 6 years (i'm including the republican controlled congress during this time period)is testiment to the fact they only give it lip service.
Take a look at any credible environmental watchdog site (there are several..there must be one you trust)and review this administration's record...it's dismal to say the least.
Bush has proven he's much more interested in big business than in enforcing or enacting laws to protect the envirnoment.


 
FN Posted: Sat May 19 12:33:35 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Where we part ways on this is the fact that I'm not willing to label someone a fool because of their beliefs.

Lol, that's the biggest load of crap I've read all day ;o)


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat May 19 13:09:38 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>But no one is saying that we shouldn't lessen the amount of pollution we emit.
>
>this will come out as much nastier than I mean it, you know I lovz ya, but this just shows me you're not paying attention to the reality of what's happening.
>Saying and doing are TWO entirely different things. Words mean jack crap. Actions count.
>This administration talks the talk (barely), but doesn't walk the walk. The lack of any significant ledgislation over the past 6 years (i'm including the republican controlled congress during this time period)is testiment to the fact they only give it lip service.
>Take a look at any credible environmental watchdog site (there are several..there must be one you trust)and review this administration's record...it's dismal to say the least.
>Bush has proven he's much more interested in big business than in enforcing or enacting laws to protect the envirnoment.
>
I agree, Dubya has not been the "environmental" president, but he's had quite a lot on his plate lately. Also at least he's done nothing to harm it. The facts still are that we are cleaner now than we have been since probably the 50's.
Would you have us to ratify Kyoto ?
Cleaning the environment is a noble endeavor, but not the same topic as global warming, although I can admit there is some overlapping.


 
DanSRose Posted: Sat May 19 14:39:14 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I did one search and found this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html?ex=1179720000&en=7b57dad84161c2e8&ei=5070
WASHINGTON, April 2 In one of its most important environmental decisions in years, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.

The EPA, and the 4 dissenting justices (Thomas, Alito, Roberts, and Scalia who apparently has a long history of hating the Earth), were actually arguing that the agency whose purpose is to protect the environment is not legally bound to regulate greenhouse gases (because the Clean Air Act says it does) and that organizations like watchgroups, cities, and the state of Massachusetts don't have the authority to the federal government in such cases.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/01/30/PM200701305.html
A house panel investigating NOAA officials are limitings the findings of environmental research into climate change.

Annd I lost my train of thought



 
innocenceNonus Posted: Sat May 19 23:48:26 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>it's 2007. my son is taking a college course in Anthropology. He just told me that half of the students in the class raised there hand when the prof asked them "Who doesn't believe in evolution?"

lol... that's what happens if your son is going to school in the South... [particularly GA]. JUST saying...

i personally believe in evolution [just saying]. i remember, though, when i told my sunday school class that, this one girl started shaking her head... and when i called their home to talk to her about it [and talked to her parents as well], they sent me a PACKET [15 pages, i think] of how believing in evolution might make me fall off the path of christianity.

it still makes me giggle. not because i scoff at them or am angry about it... i just think it's funny that religion would keep ppl from thinking about other things/ possibilities.

ehhhhhhhhhhhh

>There will never be a lack of fools around to raise their hands, despite clear evidence to the contrary.
>

amen [ironically]


 
addi Posted: Sun May 20 07:24:15 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  innocenceNonus said:

>lol... that's what happens if your son is going to school in the South... [particularly GA]. JUST saying...


I think there's truth in what you say. He's actually in Charleston, SC., not Georgia, but it's still the south, and I believe geographic location does play a part in the number of hands that were raised.

and I'm glad to know you're not one of them, innocence. Having faith and still using your brain doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.
: )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun May 20 08:32:29 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>innocenceNonus said:
>
>>lol... that's what happens if your son is going to school in the South... [particularly GA]. JUST saying...
>
>
>I believe geographic location does play a part in the number of hands that were raised.
>
I would more or less be in agreement with you on this, but Kansas ain't exactly the south is it ?




 
addi Posted: Sun May 20 09:10:01 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:

>I would more or less be in agreement with you on this, but Kansas ain't exactly the south is it ?


geographicly I guess you'd say it's midwestern, but it's a bible belt state, and when you look at some of the recent education issues that have surfaced there I'd say they have a southern mentally

*not that there's anything wrong with the south..I live here so there must be some redeeming qualities : )


 
tarrant Posted: Mon May 21 01:53:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I hate to disagree with every single one of you in my first post but I think the idea that evolution and science are in cohesive agreement should be prodded a bit.

Without going into a drawn out explanation of every scientific fact that leads me to believe in creationism, I'll just follow suit and link an interesting article: http://www.icr.org/article/1842/

The people who run this site are Christians and they believe that the Bible is God's perfect word, but they are also scientists. They've always impressed me with their information and analysis. If nothing else, hopefully the disbelief in macroevolution will seem less foolish and stubborn after a look at some of the stuff the Institute for Creation Research explores.



 
DanSRose Posted: Mon May 21 02:38:28 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Not to pick apart the Institute for Creation Research's heavily flawed article, but it needs to be done. I'll stay in my home field of archaeology and anthropology, visiting the neighboring realms of paleontology and geology.
Briefly:
Most, if not all, archaeologists, and their site studies and theories, suggest agriculture developed approximately 10,000 years ago (a global average, from early American to the oldest domestications in the Near East around Jericho). Between fossil readings and datings of seeds, genetic tracings between wild and domesticated strains of grain and animals, and even the evolution of the tools needed for complex farming from basic cutting all show Humanity coming from sometime long long before 4004 B.C. Either way, that article is poorly researched, as some of the footed sources are taken well out of context.


 
addi Posted: Mon May 21 07:34:42 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>I hate to disagree with every single one of you in my first post but I think the idea that evolution and science are in cohesive agreement should be prodded a bit.

Welcome to the forum, tarrant. While I may disagree with your religious beliefs I still think it's a good thing to get people posting here with lots of different viewpoints...it makes for a lively discussion.


 
tarrant Posted: Mon May 21 11:11:51 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Most, if not all, archaeologists, and their site studies and theories, suggest agriculture developed approximately 10,000 years ago (a global average, from early American to the oldest domestications in the Near East around Jericho). Between fossil readings and datings of seeds, genetic tracings between wild and domesticated strains of grain and animals, and even the evolution of the tools needed for complex farming from basic cutting all show Humanity coming from sometime long long before 4004 B.C. Either way, that article is poorly researched, as some of the footed sources are taken well out of context.

What sources specifically are poorly researched and taken out of context? I've been reading what ICR's produced for the past couple years and laziness/deceptiveness just doesn't fit their profile.

I don't argue your point about the time of agriculture's development. 10,000 years ago is a comfortable figure to me because the idea of working the land has been around since Genesis 3:17 - so shortly after creation.

As far as the "Humanity coming from sometime long long before 4004 B.C." based on seeds/fossils/tools/etc, how far back are you talking about if you accept agriculture coming on the scene about 10,000 years ago?

addi said:
>Welcome to the forum, tarrant.
Thanks. I've been hanging around for years, just never had the time and the desire to post occur at the same time.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 21 11:54:26 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>What sources specifically are poorly researched and taken out of context?
>deceptiveness just doesn't fit their profile.

Maybe for starters the fact that they're saying creationism is a more plausible theory than evolution and that they deny life having started millions of years ago.

>I don't argue your point about the time of agriculture's development. 10,000 years ago is a comfortable figure to me because the idea of working the land has been around since Genesis 3:17 - so shortly after creation.

Oh my fucking god.

Are you serious?


 
FN Posted: Mon May 21 11:58:50 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>Institute for Creation Research explores.

>The people who run this site are Christians and they believe that the Bible is God's perfect word, but they are also scientists.

Contradictio in terminus


I don't know what kind of hallucinogenics you took but I want some too


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon May 21 15:56:02 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>What sources specifically are poorly researched and taken out of context? I've been reading what ICR's produced for the past couple years and laziness/deceptiveness just doesn't fit their profile.

Your paper has 2 papers from 2005, about stratigraphy in Ethiopia and the T-found Rex soft tissue. 14 of the 31 sources are self- referencing (from the ICR or other creationist research groups). Astronomy papers from before the Hubble. It's leaping to the Genesis conclusion from that things like ancient writings are not around (they are- I've held them). Biological anthropology reports from before the growth and study of the influences of ecology and genetics.


Sir James Lightfoot calculated that Genesis began at 9 AM, October 3, 4004 BC. 4004 BC was after by 4000 years that 10,000 ya agricultural revolution place holder. Just for perspective, 4000 years ago from today was about when Stonehenge began construction.


>As far as the "Humanity coming from sometime long long before 4004 B.C." based on seeds/fossils/tools/etc, how far back are you talking about if you accept agriculture coming on the scene about 10,000 years ago?

12000 in the Near East, 10000 in Europe, 11000 in Central and Eastern Asia, 8000 on the Pacific Rim and Australia, and about 10000 throughout the Americas. That's what the research says. Try any number of the books by Fagan.


 
FN Posted: Mon May 21 17:42:56 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>12000 in the Near East, 10000 in Europe, 11000 in Central and Eastern Asia, 8000 on the Pacific Rim and Australia, and about 10000 throughout the Americas. That's what the research says. Try any number of the books by Fagan.

I liked Guns, Germs And Steel by Jared Diamond as well on the subject


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon May 21 17:51:23 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I haven't picked up Guns, Germs, and Steel, but I loved Collapse.
While this doesn't have to do with anything (as another thread suggested that these may just be bots), have you read either of Rory Stewart's books on his time in Afghanistan and Iraq?


 
FN Posted: Mon May 21 18:20:40 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Afraid I haven't

Book recommendations are always welcome though, I just put them on my to read list and will end up reading them some day when the ones before them went through the machine


 
FN Posted: Mon May 21 18:29:24 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I haven't watched it yet (time shortage) but it's supposed to be the reaction to "an inconvenient truth"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170


 
tarrant Posted: Tue May 22 02:07:30 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  DanSRose said:
>Your paper has 2 papers from 2005, about stratigraphy in Ethiopia and the T-found Rex soft tissue.
You seem to be more of an expert on these matters than me. This fact doesn't mean anything to me. Why is this a problem?

I understand how the self-referencing comes across, but to invalidate any information that begins with a creation scientist just doesn't make sense. Here's one example of a self-referenced article (this one was written by the same exact author, Russel Humphreys): http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm
I would think Humphreys' depth of knowledge and prolificness concerning the earth's magnetic field would make him an expert rather than negate his findings.

>Astronomy papers from before the Hubble. It's leaping to the Genesis conclusion from that things like ancient writings are not around (they are- I've held them).
I don't know enough about the Hubble or it's implications concerning the points raised in the paper I linked to argue this point. If I have the time to do some google-research and come down on one side or the other I'll definitely post it.

To the point about the ancient documents, no one doubts their existence, just their age.

>Sir James Lightfoot calculated that Genesis began at 9 AM, October 3, 4004 BC. 4004 BC was after by 4000 years that 10,000 ya agricultural revolution place holder.
The closest I could find was a John Lightfoot working based on a James Ussher's research. I'd never heard of this before but I would say the 6,000 year old idea does fit with the shortest possible range presented by the ICR article. That being said, I don't prescribe by that date and don't think that anything that suggests an origin that goes to 8:45 AM on that day (I found it to be Oct. 23rd by the way) proves anything in the young earth article wrong.

I'll probably check out one/some of those books. I've been trying to read more fiction lately but just haven't been able to get into anything, so until I find a good series I'm open to all suggestions.

Finally I guarantee I'm no bot. I figure the only way to prove it as long as I keep adding links to my posts is to mention the other guy you're talking about: chrisfelon.



 
addi Posted: Tue May 22 07:24:02 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:

>Finally I guarantee I'm no bot.

I believe you : )


personally, I think the world is only about 50 years old. Any memories or artifacts we have that are older are implanted false memories, or fake objects put here by those sneaky Sun Worshipers...but I can't really back that up.


 
FN Posted: Tue May 22 11:15:47 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>This fact doesn't mean anything to me. Why is this a problem?
>...
>I don't know enough about the Hubble or it's implications

Maybe you should try starting out with trying to answer some of the blanks for yourself before you buy into and advocate self-referencing crap like this stuff, or the bible or koran for that matter

>I would think Humphreys' depth of knowledge and prolificness concerning the earth's magnetic field would make him an expert rather than negate his findings.

Hitler knew quite a lot about jews, does that validate him wanting to eradicate them?

Having a certain type of knowledge doesn't even merely *imply* that you're free from bias in any way at all.

>To the point about the ancient documents, no one doubts their existence, just their age.

Have you ever noticed how long it takes for a clay tablet or paper or anything similar that can serve as a low-cost easily produced writing tool?

The reasons of why it took so long to develop both writing and agriculture and everything that sprung for it are pretty well known.

Read a book without an agenda maybe on the matter and you'll see.

>I'll probably check out one/some of those books. I've been trying to read more fiction

More fiction than ICR?


 
tarrant Posted: Wed May 23 01:01:57 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If I ever start a topic and link an article, I'll do my best to know everything there is to know about it. This was being discussed and I thought (still do) I had a contribution to make, so I went with it.

Of the two sources cited that dealt with Astronomy that were also before Hubble's launch, one dealt with comet age and the other with the change of shape of our galaxy over time. Based on some quick reading of Wikipedia articles and the like, the Hubble Space Telescope hasn't made any discoveries concerning comet age. The other citation was to show a change that had come about because of the Hubble, so the old theory was necessary for background information.

I'm still going to need help with the problem with the sources concerning stratigraphy in Ethiopia and the soft tissue in T-Rexes. Is 2005 too recent? outdated?

Christophe said:
>Hitler knew quite a lot about jews, does that validate him wanting to eradicate them?

No. You seem to be implying that knowing about Abraham and yarmulkes led Hitler to his actions; that's ridiculous. Humphreys has researched and studied something, analyzed the results and published his conclusions. If you _really_ don't see the difference, you don't possess the intellect I believed you did.

>Having a certain type of knowledge doesn't even merely *imply* that you're free from bias in any way at all.

No one said that it did. However, I don't see why expanding on your findings by incorporating them in an article with a larger scope invalidates the whole thing.

>Read a book without an agenda maybe on the matter and you'll see.
Ok.


 
addi Posted: Wed May 23 08:05:22 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  tarrant said:
>If I ever start a topic and link an article, I'll do my best to know everything there is to know about it. This was being discussed and I thought (still do) I had a contribution to make, so I went with it.

you and I are at polar opposites on this topic, tarrant, but I respect the mature way you've handled criticism, especially from Christophe..who doesn't concern himself with inconsequential niceties...bless his heart.

*and don't concern yourself with being an expert before you chime in on a topic here. My ignorance on a topic has never stopped me from giving an opinion : )


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 2 07:33:08 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Interesting:
http://www.generationterrorists.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?action=view&thread_id=86074


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Jun 3 18:25:49 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sat Jun 30 22:28:17 2007 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]