Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:42 pm**

Everyone.... PLEASE read this article
http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/199 ... onment.htm

"It doesn't matter what's true; it only matters what people believe is true ... You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine." .....Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace.

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:00 pm**

There is not one single reference anywhere in that article and it is written by a journalist, who as far as I can investigate, has no environmental or scientific credentials. In light of this, the author's opinions are worth no more than my own, or anybody else's.

What are we expected to see in this article?

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:06 pm**

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:35 pm**

bails wrote:
cjj wrote:Reminds me of the ol' ozone hole hysteria...
As far as my region question goes, I note that you don't live near the hole, in a country with the highest rate of skin cancer in the world...

Yeah, I've got admit, where I live, if you go out to get some sun, half the year, you'll freeze to death within minutes, the other half of the year, the mosquitoes will suck you dry within minutes...

Posted: **Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:59 pm**

bails wrote: What are we expected to see in this article?

Just a summary of some of the recent sky-is-falling scares and how they have been refuted, thats what. No more, no less. If you want specifics, go look them up... they are all there. I've supplied many links, but you need to do your own research.

My question is this: how many times to the scare mongers need to be blown out of the water before the general population starts to see them for what they are. You are being lied to and you need to follow the money.

Alar in Apples? "Risk estimates based on the best available information at this time raise serious concern about the safety of continued, long-term exposure."--EPA letter to apple growers before the story broke" ..... oops ..... "Actual risks may be lower or even zero."--EPA statement after the story broke

Acid Rain? Those of us old enough to remember the mid 70's will recall what a BIG HORRIBLE thing this was. So Solly Cholly. We were misled.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... rtId=20522

DDT? Millions have needlessly dies because of Rachael Carson's fraud
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

y'all NEED to GET and READ these books:
Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism
http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Sanity-Common ... 156833057X
and
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environ ... 427&sr=1-1

" What makes "The Skeptical Environmentalist" so noteworthy – and especially to the mainstream media – is that the book is authored by one of the Green movement's most prominent members....."I'm a left-wing guy," says Lomborg, "and a vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals – you can't play the "He's right-wing so he's wrong argument" with me. "

You are being lied to. Look it up for yourself. the dioxin fraud --- the asbestos fraud --- the lead fraud, and radon, radiation, polytyrene, acid-rain, global-warning, greenhouse, and ozone-depletion frauds................ how long do we have do put up with this?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:11 am**

brammy wrote:
bails wrote: What are we expected to see in this article?
Just a summary of some of the recent sky-is-falling scares and how they have been refuted, thats what. No more, no less. If you want specifics, go look them up... they are all there. I've supplied many links, but you need to do your own research.

My question is this: how many times do the scare mongers need to be blown out of the water before the general population starts to see them for what they are. You are being lied to and you need to follow the money.

Alar in Apples? "Risk estimates based on the best available information at this time raise serious concern about the safety of continued, long-term exposure."--EPA letter to apple growers before the story broke" ..... oops ..... "Actual risks may be lower or even zero."--EPA statement after the story broke

Acid Rain? Those of us old enough to remember the mid 70's will recall what a BIG HORRIBLE thing this was. So Solly Cholly. We were misled.
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... rtId=20522

DDT? Millions have needlessly died because of Rachael Carson's fraud
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf

y'all NEED to GET and READ these books:
Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism
http://www.amazon.com/Eco-Sanity-Common ... 156833057X
and
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
http://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environ ... 427&sr=1-1

" What makes "The Skeptical Environmentalist" so noteworthy – and especially to the mainstream media – is that the book is authored by one of the Green movement's most prominent members....."I'm a left-wing guy," says Lomborg, "and a vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals – you can't play the "He's right-wing so he's wrong argument" with me. "

You are being lied to. Look it up for yourself. the dioxin fraud --- the asbestos fraud --- the lead fraud, and radon, radiation, polytyrene, acid-rain, global-warning, greenhouse, and ozone-depletion frauds................ how long do we have do put up with this?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:23 am**

Uh, Kent? Global temperature aside, you'd better stick a thermometer under your tongue...and maybe lie down for a little bit. Jim K. admires you for your passion, but I'm a little worried about your blood pressure, man.

So, I'm a 'luddite', if I'm reading between your carefully constructed lines correctly...well, I'm very proud to find myself in with the under 30 (although I'm over 50) educated crowd described by bails & co. Mark, I spent 9 austral summers working outdoors ten hours a day under that ozone hole, and I'm as afraid about my health in the coming years as I'm sure many of you Aussies are. I think it fair to say that many of you in Oz are soon going to find yourselves confronting the consequences of the game the 'captains of industry' continue to run on the rest of us. I'm with you in spirit, brother...and we're not going to get very far in this discussion, I fear. It's hard to hear polite conversation when the veins in one's temples are pounding, I suppose.

My dear brother Brammy: how can you be so sure that we're being lied to, but Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh and the rest are feeding you gospel? You keep saying 'follow the money', but where is it you think most of the money in this world is (and always has been) going?

(And please, make the supreme effort and keep it rational, polite and in the spirit of decent discourse...not for my sake: I've caught spittle in the face all my life over topics like this and it doesn't bother me. But for the sake of the younger, impressionable members of the forum, and in the words of Andre 2000's road manager: "Act like you got some sense.")

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 1:12 am**

And thanks for the concern, but my blood pressure is just fine. I dont need a high blood pressure to type a little and do a little cut'n'pasting. And yes Dane.... you are clearly a luddite when it comes to the human race. You've made that much very clear both recently and in our previous discussions.

The original luddites during the industrial revolution were anti-technology, and admittedly one can even understand (if not agree) some of their reasoning. That same anti-progress attitude continues to this day, but it has been taken one GIANT step farther.... now what many people are against is the existence of the human race itself on planet earth. I'm not quite sure whether you've reached that point, Dane ole buddy, but I can say with confidence that you are headed there.

And so, here's a little test for you (and anyone else who cares to answer it).......

You find yourself in a city you have never visited before, and you dont know anybody there. Suddenly you notice flames coming from the 4th floor of a brownstone across the street. You rush into the building and up the stairs to find an apartment on fire. Apparently nobody is around, however inside that blazing apartment you find two things: (1) a bassinet containing a baby, and (2) a cage containing 6 live chickens. Both items are the same size and both items weigh the same. As the fire gets larger, you realize that you can only save one... it's either the bassinet or the cage.... the baby or the 6 chickens... not both. WHICH DO YOU SAVE?

When this question is posed to people, you'd be amazed at the varied response. So which is it, Dane? Which one would YOU save? ,,,, and why?

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:04 am**

Gentlemen we are starting to go off track a bit here. Let's keep the conversation about the topic and not about each other. Thanks in advance. I am looking forward to the debate resuming in a cordial manner.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 2:36 am**

Thanks, Brian, for once again being the calm voice of reason. There are debates and there are dogfights...I may not be getting too old for one, but I've definitely had it when it comes to the other. I'm turning 'our' side of this discussion over to the younger, more thoughtful and better educated among us...and best of luck to them.

Thanks for trying to be polite, Kent...I know you did your best.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:42 am**

brammy wrote:And so, here's a little test for you (and anyone else who cares to answer it).......

You find yourself in a city you have never visited before, and you dont know anybody there. Suddenly you notice flames coming from the 4th floor of a brownstone across the street. You rush into the building and up the stairs to find an apartment on fire. Apparently nobody is around, however inside that blazing apartment you find two things: (1) a bassinet containing a baby, and (2) a cage containing 6 live chickens. Both items are the same size and both items weigh the same. As the fire gets larger, you realize that you can only save one... it's either the bassinet or the cage.... the baby or the 6 chickens... not both. WHICH DO YOU SAVE?

When this question is posed to people, you'd be amazed at the varied response. So which is it, Dane? Which one would YOU save? ,,,, and why?

OK Kent, I’ll have a go.

As I enter the room I notice an open window. I throw the caged chickens out the window, believing this is their best chance of survival. I then grab the baby and make it safely out of the building.

The chickens survive the fall, landing on Climate Change skeptic, John Coleman, who writes a book about Chicken Little. The chickens are then taken to a local animal shelter where the eggs they lay help feed the city’s poor and homeless for many years.

After being feted a hero, I do the talk show circuit, finally ending up hosting a top rating game show on national television. After three years I retire to my own tropical paradise, absolutely filthy rich.

The baby, a girl, is adopted by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. After obtaining honours degrees in Physics, Meteorology, Oceanography, Astronomy, Chemistry and Philosophy, she grows up to lead her own Climate Change organization. She proves conclusively that Climate Change is solely the work of mankind, and sets in place remedial action, which saves the earth and all its inhabitants. She wins the Nobel Prize then retires to her own chicken farm.

Why did I do it ?

'Cos that’s the sort of guy I am.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:23 am**

All this talk of sea ice makes me think of snow cones.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 4:06 pm**

Snowcones - I like the cherry ones!

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 5:54 pm**

Both sides of this debate make good arguments for their positions and I don't have any evidence to add that will sway one side or the other. As in most philosophical, political, or even scientific debates, all sides can line up their expert witnesses to prove their points.

For me the question is not which side is right or which side is wrong about what exists and why, but rather "What is the course of action individually, organizationally, and/or socially that would most likely lead to a more positive impact on our environment as we move forward?" In my eyes the answer to that question is clear even if we disagree on the current and future states of affairs as well as the causes of those current and potential future states. So even if global warming doesn't exist or even if it exists and is reversible, shouldn't we still be attempting to create a more sustainable way of life? Is anyone arguing for pumping more pollutants into our water and air? If so I would like to hear those arguments.

Posted: **Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:46 pm**

dr_bob wrote:all sides can line up their expert witnesses to prove their points

Unfortunately there are no expert witnesses on the skeptics side available to prove their points, only armchair skeptics* (which includes some journalists highlighted in previous posts). All experts seem to be on same side, which prevents any such debate within the scientific community. There is definitely some differing views on models and theories(which constitutes normal, peer-reviewed scientific enquiry), but no one has yet produced a credible model which shows the exact opposite of all the others. Only in the Rickenbacker Resource world can we have such a lively armchair discussion with both 'sides' represented...

And while I'm on the topic, there is no such thing as "global warming theory" that has been mentioned in an earlier post. There is however in its place, a mountain of data, a plethora of models and a myriad theories, some of which differ, but all which contribute to our understanding of the situation. In such a case, disproving a single model does not destroy the whole argument, it simply destroys that model! Replacing models with newer ones is exactly how we got from the dark ages to the information age. There is a name for it, but I'm told that name is banned in Utah!

*Note: If there are any expert environmental skeptics, please direct me to them. I am merely an armchair advocate, but I'd love to read their papers.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years

Re: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1000 years