gsvol
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2008
- Messages
- 14,179
- Likes
- 10
A majority of the politboro were communists (actually 100% were party members), were they fringe or mainstream Russians?? A vast majority of the Russian people didn't want Bolshevik rule but those who dared speak up found themselves with a shovel out in Siberia with the occasional boiled leaf of cabbage or small piece of beet to eat. (democrats call Obama's czars mainstream but that doesn't mean they aren't 100 communists which are fringe to the American politic if, sadly not the body politic.)
Now we are talking semantics and rhetoric.
Examples of some of the fringe element who promote or 'sell' AGW:
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy. " - Timothy Wirth quoted in Science Under Siege by Michael Fumento, 1993
"The crucial paradigm shift the Deep Ecology movement envisions as necessary to protect the planet from ecological destruction involves the move from an anthropocentric to a spiritual/ecocentric value orientation...Humanity must drastically scale down its industrial activities on Earth, change its consumption lifestyles, stabilize and then reduce the size of the human population by humane means, and protect and restore wild ecosystems and the remaining wildlife on the planet."
- George Sessions, pg xxi, Deep Ecology for the 21st Century
In the words of Schneider himself; whose report was used to kick off this thread:
"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in Trashing the Planet (1990)
Two things jump out of his report on findings from lake sediments in the Arctic; "since 1 BC" thereby a subtle shifting to theological considerations. Another is his observation of increases in the last fifty years are coincidental with industrial increases while ignoring the fact that solar activity is responsible for 99+% of any increase in Earth's mean temperature.
Scientists are in a way like computers and the same can be said of both; 'if the data entered is wrong then it follows that any conclusions will also be wrong.'
I probably should start another thread on falsified, erratic (not to mention erotic) and erroneous data that has been used by the IPCC and even those who have nothing to do with the UN's IPCC to promote AGW theory.
And when the head of the United Nations awards a "hero of mother earth" medal to some petty would-be communist dictator, it would appear, at least to me that even the most brainwashed young global warming advocate who appears on this board would stop and think for a moment about the big picture, remembering that we cannot unjump from that high dive.
(Note; so there's no mistake, I'm not referring to you personally in that statement above, I find you quite objective and able to look at both sides of the coin, not just occasionally but habitually.) Personally though I think you give too much leeway to some confirmed liars in the public arena. It's been my experience with liars that they will tell me a bigger lie if I should believe one of their little lies at any time.
One conclusion should stick out like a sore thumb to everyone, we don't have enough data to justify the passing of the radical socialistic cap and tax legislation.
And we don't have a very good idea of when those will occur.
We do know that solar activity is never static and will fluctuate, we don't know when nor know how much nor for how long.
Other considerations are;
Earth's own magnetic field which shields Earth's atmosphere from solar wind and is presently in a stage of reversing polarity, a very rare occurance.
Naturally occurring phenomena such as volcanic activity that releases trememdous amounts of debris into the atmosphere or has an affect on the oceans when an eruption is from an undersea vent.
(Think Yellow Stone mega eruption, for which we are due any time, even smaller eruptions have some affect, especially in Arctic undersea events while 'ecologists' are focusing on that area, ignoring those Arctic eruptions. BTW, Arctic sea ice is not continuing to be less each year, it has begun to rebound the past two years, most likely because of the lack of sunspots.)
Variable ocean temperatures we don't really understand, the most notable and weather affecting being the Pacific 'la nina' and 'el nino.'
