Badmovies.org Forum

Movies => Press Releases and Film News => Topic started by: Allhallowsday on April 20, 2008, 01:48:39 PM



Title: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 20, 2008, 01:48:39 PM
Bush's Toothless Climate Plan

President George W. Bush stood in the White House's Rose Garden this afternoon, and delivered his strategy for saving the world from climate change. Central was a new goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, through a mix of incentives for lower-carbon power and better energy efficiency, especially for utilities. It wouldn't be a bad plan — if it were the year 2000 and this was candidate George W. Bush speaking on the presidential campaign trail. As it stands, Bush's new climate change policy — though no new specific initiatives were announced, aside from the 2025 goal — is too little, too slow, too late... 

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1731550,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1731550,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-healthsci)


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: SynapticBoomstick on April 20, 2008, 02:07:11 PM
It's obvious that he just plain doesn't give a damn. What? He said one thing and did another right after election? Impossible!

I count the days until he's out :-| I'd say what I really thought about his take on the planet's condition but I might offend quite a number of people, I've no doubt about that.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 21, 2008, 09:49:40 AM
OH NO, so now climate change is George Bush fault too, got it!

The science behind global climate change is questionable at best and there are as many professionals that degree with it, but the lemming and the chicken littles think that government needs to be more of a PARENT than a BUSINESS ... I for one do not need the government telling me what kind of light bulb to use, what mileage to get in my truck, what water heater to use, where to set me thermostat, what I should drive ... geez ... this winter we had record cold, record snow fall through out the upper midwest, I guess that is because of global warming too.

Here is a little news for you, the more you let the government intrude into your life and the more control you allow them to take ... the more they will take and it is highly likely they will never give it up. I for one am stocking up on incandescent light bulbs, because compact fluorescents are a bigger health hazard then incandescent ever could be, the CFL's contain high levels of mercury. In California, it's already illegal to throw them away. If one breaks and the authorities find out, the costs of biohazard cleanup are enormous. It has also be shown that they cause in some people migraines and seizure ... what are they to do live in the dark or get a prescription for incandescent bulbs.

It's just ridiculous ... ok go ahead fire away, I'm armed with knowledge. 


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 21, 2008, 11:03:23 AM
Bush's toothless plan (which won't pass so don't worry) is just designed to try to take the wind out of the real climate change measures that were being prepared.  It is the last gasp of a lame duck, who will go down in history as the worst president since James Buchanan sat on his but as the nation disintegrated.  Now Bush is doing it at a global scale, but his time is limited and Obama will have another mess to clean up.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 21, 2008, 11:12:47 AM

the more you let the government intrude into your life and the more control you allow them to take ... the more they will take and it is highly likely they will never give it up.
 


I am not going to become embroiled in a climate change debate here, but I would like to offer the following observation (by someone else) on the issue of government intrusion into our lives.

Davit's Take on Freedom in the USA (http://renegade-cruisers.net/bb/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=12505&p=159190#p159190)

To me, the loudest part of his message was the idea that from within, you just cannot see how overbearing our government is.  Once you step outside, many things become clear.  We went on a trip in the early 90's that was only one week outside the USA, and we noticed it then.

The Nanny State has got to go.  That's my two cents.

Quote

[Bush] will go down in history as the worst president since James Buchanan



Wow.  I think you need to re-read a little history there.  Wartime presidents rarely are known as 'bad' when history looks back, no matter how popular they are or are not at the time.

Nice try, though, to sell Bush hating with a little Appeal to Popular Argument.  I get YOU hate Bush, but that does not mean that on an objective scale, he is "the worst" or even "bad."  Time will tell.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 21, 2008, 11:25:31 AM
Well, there's always this: http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 21, 2008, 11:33:56 AM

Well, there's always this: [url]http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html[/url]



Contemporary historians voting about something they are living through is not historical analysis.

As I said...time will tell. Give it 50 or 100 years, when the generation who lived through the events (with all the emotion that entails) are no longer proselytizing, and then an objective historical analysis can be done.

Oh, and by the way.  That sample size on that "survey" is extremely small.  109?  Surely they could have found more historians to survey than that.  Hmmmm. What if they small sample size was a close circle of acquaintance who pretty much knew the voting results?


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 21, 2008, 11:38:58 AM
I guess those historians need to read more history.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 21, 2008, 12:05:22 PM
I guess those historians need to read more history.


Perhaps what they need to do is to conduct proper research, not write an article based upon an informal web poll conducted among the readers of their own biased web site.  Even if such an article does include pretty pictures that seem to tell the story they want to tell, it is not valid research.

Edit:

I'd like to modify my stance just a little bit.  I don't think the hnn.us web site itself has baised readership, but those who participated in this poll certainly do NOT represent the readership of that site in a statistically meaningful way.

This discussion page (http://www.historynewsnetwork.org/readcomment.php?id=121651&bheaders=1) shows that it is clearly NOT 98% 'against' Bush as the article suggests.

I do, however, stick by my assertion that a web poll is not research. I think the discussion page supports that assertion.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: trekgeezer on April 21, 2008, 12:57:07 PM
I don't know which is worse, the Bush bashers or the Bush apologists.   The guy is  one of the biggest lunk heads that ever sat in the oval office.  He gets something right occasionally (tax cuts), but the war in Iraq is going to be his greatest legacy however it turns out (there won't be a victory in it for anyone).  It has nothing to do with "The War on Terror". That's something that will be fought by intelligence agencies and police, not troops. 


As far as climate change, you'd have to pretty damn stupid not to see it's happening right now (the earth goes through natural climate cycles every few thousand years). The only debatable part is what influence man has on it and that's probably not much.  It doesn't help anyone for both sides in this to be politicizing it.     


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2008, 05:21:16 PM
I think the Global Warming . . . . I mean, oops, Climate Change (they've changed the usage as global temperatures began ticking back down two years ago!) is the Y2K of the 21st Century . . . just one more fear tactic for politicians and statists to use in order to justify taking away one more little chunk of our constitutional liberties.  If Al Gore had been elected President 8 years ago, he would have trashed our economy, destroyed our global competitiveness, and done his best to erase most of the gains of the industrial revolution in the name of fighting this "crisis" . . . . and most likely, global temperatures would have done what they have done in the last 8 years anyway. 

As far as Bush goes, history will indeed judge him, and no one knows what that judgement will be.  I would like to point out that a certain man from Missouri left the White House in 1953 with a 27% approval rating . . . and is now considered the second greatest President of the 20th century, behind only FDR.  On the other hand, when Warren died in office in 1923, he was loved by most Americans as an affable, fatherly figure in the White House . . . and he is now ranked as one of the worst Presidents of all time.  Point?  Contemporary judgements of an American President are rarely an accurate barometer of how history will judge that person.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: nshumate on April 21, 2008, 05:39:39 PM
I think the Global Warming . . . . I mean, oops, Climate Change (they've changed the usage as global temperatures began ticking back down two years ago!) is the Y2K of the 21st Century . . . just one more fear tactic for politicians and statists to use in order to justify taking away one more little chunk of our constitutional liberties.  If Al Gore had been elected President 8 years ago, he would have trashed our economy, destroyed our global competitiveness, and done his best to erase most of the gains of the industrial revolution in the name of fighting this "crisis" . . . . and most likely, global temperatures would have done what they have done in the last 8 years anyway. 

As far as Bush goes, history will indeed judge him, and no one knows what that judgement will be.  I would like to point out that a certain man from Missouri left the White House in 1953 with a 27% approval rating . . . and is now considered the second greatest President of the 20th century, behind only FDR.  On the other hand, when Warren died in office in 1923, he was loved by most Americans as an affable, fatherly figure in the White House . . . and he is now ranked as one of the worst Presidents of all time.  Point?  Contemporary judgements of an American President are rarely an accurate barometer of how history will judge that person.

Don't forget that other President who started a war, got low popularity ratings, was characterized widely by his critics as a country bumpkin... and got shot at Ford's Theatre midway through his second term.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 21, 2008, 05:55:03 PM
I love it when I hear Bush is the worst president EVER ... nothing I can add that hasn't been artfully said already. History will prove out his standing ... however as far as contemporary presidents go I'm guess people have forgotten the "misery index" and the double digit inflation, double digit interest rates and bang up job in Iran accomplished by the still meddling Jimmy "The Peanut" Carter? The only thing that man has to be proud of is the fact he wasn't reelected. (Perhaps he's proud of his brother's beer too?)
There are members in congress that want to revoke his passport, I said do it while he is out of the country.

Now excuse me, I must go turn up the A/C this global warming is killing me.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2008, 05:58:13 PM
karma for that one, Nate!!!  

A few years ago, I remarked offhandedly in a history lecture that while Lincoln was generally rated as America's best President, I personally thought Teddy Roosevelt was the coolest president.  A new student to our school, a junior, stayed after class and asked me how on earth I could possibly think Lincoln was a great man.  I raised an eyebrow at this, and she launched into this long harangue about how evil, cruel, sacreligious, vain, and hypocritical Lincoln was.  I  asked her where she got her information, and the next day she brought a book entitiled THE REAL ABRAHAM LINCOLN, authored by a former Confederate colonel in the 1890's.  It was full of poisonous, pro-slavery, pro-Southern propaganda, including many long-discredited stories about Lincoln and dozens of cherrypicked negative quotes from his contemporaries.

Suffice it to say, if a book starts out with THE REAL (insert name here), it likely is going to be a slash job.

Speaking of slash jobs, isn't Oliver Stone making a movie about George W.??


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 21, 2008, 06:29:32 PM
I guess those historians need to read more history.

Perhaps what they need to do is to conduct proper research, not write an article based upon an informal web poll conducted among the readers of their own biased web site.  Even if such an article does include pretty pictures that seem to tell the story they want to tell, it is not valid research.

Of course they could do valid research, but it would just be condemned as communist like the Global Warming science was in this very thread.  Keep fighting those Commies, guys, one day the USSR will fall! 


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 21, 2008, 06:42:47 PM
Just into the news deck ....

beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep ... etc

Wintry blast cools global warming fervor

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2008/04/21/5343616-sun.html (http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2008/04/21/5343616-sun.html)

Quote
Vendors and presenters from various eco-friendly groups, including Bullfrog Power, CO2 Reduction Edmonton and the local solar energy society, crammed into a lone tent in Hawrelak Park after a blizzard forced them to abandon their original locations.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Ash on April 21, 2008, 07:11:17 PM
Speaking of slash jobs, isn't Oliver Stone making a movie about George W.??


Yep.  Here's the link:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 21, 2008, 07:19:44 PM

Of course they could do valid research, but it would just be condemned as communist like the Global Warming science was in this very thread.  Keep fighting those Commies, guys, one day the USSR will fall! 


SLAAAM.

That was the sound of the door closing after any credibility you may have had left, left.

We can now ad Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion and Appeal to Ridicule to the Appeal to Popularity fallacy you made earlier.

Not one single person in this thread has stated Bush was NOT the worst President in history.  What has been said was

(a) if you are living the events, you are not a fair judge of "history" in the making; time will tell the tale, and
(b) your source, that hnn.us "data" is patently stupid on it's face.

I did a little "research" of my own this afternoon, and discovered that the hnn.us site gets roughly 46,000 hits per DAY.

They conducted that survey over 3 weeks, or 21 days.  This equates to roughly 320,000 times the site was visited.  Said another way, that's 320,000 times someone COULD have participated in the survey.  Statistically speaking, that's called the "population."

109 people did.

That's called the "sample."

Their sample size is 0.03% of the population.  Probably not too good.

Without the details of the survey itself in front of me, I cannot analyze the data as to predictive power of that 0.03%.  We call this "Peer Review," and it is an essential part of the scientific process (ie, valid research) so we know someone is not trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

Questions I would ask the surveyors:

(1) How many "choices" did each respondent have for each question?
(2) What was the actual distribution of responses, per question?

With this information, I could tell you what confidence you can have, scientifically speaking of course, in that 61%.  Is it a "real" measure of what someone in the population would say, or is it hogwash?

Also, given the rhetoric of the remaining article, using phrases like "overwhelming consensus" think Bush is near the bottom are certainly suspect.  61%, especially without error data or standard deviations, cannot by any scientifically objective measure be considered "overwhelming consensus."

Sorry if actually looking at data and the way it is presented makes me look like a commie hunting, earth hating Evil Conservative.  Last time I checked, thinking was not a crime.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 21, 2008, 07:39:22 PM
Quote
Sorry if actually looking at data and the way it is presented makes me look like a commie hunting, earth hating Evil Conservative.  Last time I checked, thinking was not a crime.

Karma .... I'll save you a seat in hell.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: indianasmith on April 21, 2008, 07:57:29 PM
To quote Thomas Jefferson:


"If there be any here who think these principles invalid, or would seek to overthrow our Republican form of government, let them stand forever undisturbed as a monument to the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated, where reason is left free to combat it."

Karma to Ulthar and Cheeze!


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: nshumate on April 21, 2008, 09:17:09 PM
My computer must be defective; I searched the page for "communist," Tars, but yours was the first post in which the word was found.



Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Andrew on April 22, 2008, 12:05:11 AM
Let's discuss points on the merits of the arguments, not trying to undermine the credibility of the person speaking, especially not with uncalled for comparisons.  If you want to know what is often on my mind in big threads, with one or two people defending their opinion, this fits pretty well:

"The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society." - Thomas Jefferson

Forums and debate thrive on different viewpoints.  You have to throw it all in together and boil it down to see what, to you, encompasses the truth.  I am glad we all don't agree, but let's keep the debate civil.  There really is not any reason to start mud slinging, no matter where you are in the debate.





Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 22, 2008, 12:37:39 AM
"Nanny state" and "government intrusion" are codewords attacking policies seen as socialism, which is why I went the commie route. 


Even the EPA website states: The term climate change is often used interchangeably with the term global warming, but according to the National Academy of Sciences, "the phrase 'climate change' is growing in preferred use to 'global warming' because it helps convey that there are [other] changes in addition to rising temperatures."

Anyone who things global warming will result in increased temperatures across the board isn't bothering to get informed about the issue.  The one small small so small piece of science that The Day After Tomorrow got right was that the increases in temperature will alter wind current patterns.  This won't result in a new ICE AGE or hilarious CGI mammoths voiced by Ray Romano, but will mean some areas will get cooler while others get hotter.  The greatest concern isn't even with air currents, it is with the ocean, ocean currents, ocean temperatures, carbon saturation (via CO3) leading to acidification of the ocean, and massive loss of ocean diversity (bleaching of corals, collapse of coral ecosystems, jellyfish and squids outcompeteing native fish species.)  With fish an important source of protein in cultures throughout the world and many fisheries in danger of collapse through overfishing without factoring in altering climate data, broad global repercussions could be at hand.  Even small increases in ocean levels are doom for small island nations, Floridian beachfront property, and many beaches.  Maybe people should invest in dike-building companies.


The past winter was cooler than normal (in the US), but not cool enough to counter the previous two decades.  Even if the next winter is also cooler as is projected, they are still not out of bounds for a continual trend of increasing global temperature.  There were temperature drops in other years but that didn't stop 2005 from being the warmest year on record.  2007 still managed to tie 1998 as second warmest, but then that's NASA saying so: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ and I'm just some dude on the internet.  Be sure to check out the part on Solar irradiance and how we're on the bottom of a cycle where we'll be going up soon.

There is not scientific debate on if global warming is real.  There is no scientific debate on if man is causing global warming.  The debate is on how much is man causing, and what can be done.  The debaters are climatologists, geologists, meteorologists, ecologists, biologists, and others who deal with the alteration of temperatures affecting their study systems.  If someone came up with an alternate reason for the current temperature changes that made scientific sense it would create a debate.  Nothing has come along, despite what a few people funded by a few shady organizations want you to think.  And it is not a conspiracy, we're dealing with people who spent ten years arguing on optimum sizes of nature conservatories.  If something credible showed up it would be heard.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 22, 2008, 12:53:59 AM

There is not scientific debate on if global warming is real.  There is no scientific debate on if man is causing global warming. 


Absolutely there is debate on the anthropogenic causes of climate change.

Here's but one example: Scafetta and West, Physics Today Vol 61 No 3, March 2008, p 50.

Scafetta is on the Physics Faculty of Duke University and West is a Chief Scientist at the US Army Research Office.

I quote the article:

Quote

Thus the average global temperature record presents secular patterns of 22- and 11-year cycles and a short timescale fluctuation signature...both of which appear to be induced by solar dynamics....If climate is as sensitive to solar changes as the above phenomenological findings suggest, the current anthropogenic contribution is significantly overestimated.  We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature, depending on the [total solar irradiance] model used.


I further offer the petition signed by over 20,000 Ph.D. research scientists urging better and more complete research before long reaching policy decisions are made.

The idea of "consensus" in the scientific community as to the anthropogenic causes of ANY climate change are a myth.  The debate is there.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 22, 2008, 01:35:51 AM


I further offer the petition signed by over 20,000 Ph.D. research scientists urging better and more complete research before long reaching policy decisions are made.

The idea of "consensus" in the scientific community as to the anthropogenic causes of ANY climate change are a myth.  The debate is there.

The Oregon petition is a fraud.  It was sent in 1998 as a bulk emailing to thousands of scientists, carrying a "paper" authored by Arthur B. Robinson and three other people titled "Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" and was printed to look like it was an article from the scientific journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)  The NAS never heard of Arthur Robinson until scientists called them asking "WTF?"  Arthur Robinson is a biochemist (not a climatologist) and the paper was not peer reviewed anywhere, nor accepted for publication anywhere except by Robinson himself by his own Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, founded and headed by Arthur Robinson.  Robinson has declared Ozone depletion a hoax, self-published a book called Nuclear War Survival Skills (which says "the dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated), and told people it was safe to drink Chernobyl-irradiated water in OISM newsletters.  Fellow authors on the paper include Zachary Robinson (22 year old home-schooled son of Arthur) and two astrophysicists, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon.  The NAS issued a rebuke of the paper, but not before 14,000 people had signed the attached petition.  The OISM website allowed further people to sign up, leading to the 20,000 number.  This number includes such well-respected people as Drs. Frank Burns, B. J. Honeycutt, and Benjamin Pierce (who you may recall from a TV show), Michael J Fox, someone named Dr. Red Wine, and Geraldine Halliwell (aka Ginger Spice - who was listed as a biologist!)  Obviously they have a very tight screening process.  Most names cannot be verified as even existing because they are nothing but names with no other information or credentials.  When pressed, Arthur Robinson admitted only 2,100 signatures are people who identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists.  (Read the book Trust us, we're Experts for a more-detailed analysis on why this petition is the junkiest of junk)

But please keep using this 1998 petition as evidence of a 2008 controversy!

There is no debate.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 22, 2008, 01:41:13 AM
If there is no debate, then what are we doing?

In 1974 the scare was Global Cooling, then it was acid rain, then it was the hole in the ozone, then it was Y2K, now it's global warming, give it another 10 or 20 years and we'll have a shiny new CRISIS to confront. Maybe continental drift or the fact that every year the moon moves about 1" further away from the earth, maybe it'll be polar shift ... but I assure Global Warming will be old news and there will be a new crisis that mush be address and corrected right freakin' now at great cost.

You throw enough money at something you'll either fix it or people will loose interest and they'll find a new cause.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 22, 2008, 02:14:03 AM
There is no debate among scientists.  The actual global warming debates are on the issues I mentioned previously. Dismissing it with a wave of the hand and the classic Global Cooling chestnut will not change anything. 




Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 22, 2008, 02:59:07 AM
No debate?

(1) You must have never heard of McIntyre and McKitrick and how they completely debunked the Mann Hockey Stick?  Following their initial debunking, the Hockey Stick has further been challenged by the Chair of the NSF's Statistical Sciences Committee.  Read about that here (pdf) (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf).

(2) Did you dismiss the 2008 article in Physics Today that I cited?

Are respected scientists who publish data in the official publication of the American Physical Society frauds, too?

(3) How about the big list of articles outlined on the Junk Science (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html) web site?  Are all of those researchers frauds as well?  Be sure to check out this page (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html) for contemporary data and discussion.

(4) Check out some of the quotes on this page (http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2117056).  I particularly like the one by William Gray, who, around 2003 or so changed his prediction models to incorporate everything that is "known" about climate modeling with AGW, and since then his prediction errors have been well over 100% (prior to that his numbers were on par with NOAA's).

Admittedly, some of these quotes are aged.  But taken as a collection, they show the process of how this issue has been politicized in a very dangerous way.

(5) Finally, here's a good read (http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/chapter-4-skept.html) very specifically called the Climate Skeptic and it is NOT a lay site.

I quote:

"In 2007, the IPCC released its new climate report, and the hockey stick, which was the centerpiece bombshell of the 2001 report, and which was the “consensus” reconstruction of this “settled” science, can hardly be found."

The bottom line is that there is no consensus.  You say there is no debate, but there is.  There is very clearly debate going on...or attempted.  As Gray said a decade ago, "I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: nshumate on April 22, 2008, 07:38:07 AM
There is no debate, except by those whose views are suspect because they debate.



Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 22, 2008, 08:16:04 AM

I respect what you have to say ulthar and you're certainly entitled to your opinions and to point out things that you may or may not agree with, but it always seems like you live to contradict people here. 


Interesting construction, Ash.  Just about ANY reply I make proves your point.   :wink:

It is my firm belief that there is a difference between facts and opinions.  The pattern of discussion in our culture has evolved to a point that attempts to blur that very important line.  I hope that if I ever tell anyone their opinions are wrong that people call me to the carpet on it.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 22, 2008, 09:57:31 AM
There is no debate among scientists.  The actual global warming debates are on the issues I mentioned previously. Dismissing it with a wave of the hand and the classic Global Cooling chestnut will not change anything. 

What are the crowds of hyperbole doing, but dismissing factual counterpoints with a wave of the hand. As Ulthar has pointed out and provided link to, there is plenty of debate amongst scientist and in the public.

You believe in Global Warming, great go 100% green no one is stopping you, BUT do not inflict your (as GW group) your beliefs on me. (i.e. banning incandescent light bulbs, regulating my thermostat, forcing me to bring canvas bags to the grocery, etc etc and so on) And that is at the heart of the argument, the global warming crowd wants to enforce and inflict their beliefs of all that is right and holy on the masses and that my friend is not America. If I want to leave every light in my house on and set my thermostat at 65 in the heat of summer and if I want to drive a gas guzzling 10 mpg Ram 3500 and I can afford it than I should be allowed to do it. (I don't do 2 out of 3 of those, but that's not the point.)
No one is stopping anyone from believing in Global Warming or that the world is flat for that matter, what many of those that don't agree with it are doing is protecting their right to choose and the Global Warming crowd wants to regulate those right so it's not the fate of our planet that is stake it's our freedom of choice. And when you give up a freedom, you rarely ever get it back and that is the underlying battle. 


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: AndyC on April 22, 2008, 12:29:51 PM
The title of this thread reminded me of the criticism our prime minister, Stephen Harper, has taken for taking a cautious and sensible approach to climate change, rather than jumping in recklessly. One of his critics actually called him a "climate-change denier." I'm surprised that the Jewish community wasn't immediately demanding an apology for that.

The all-around suppression of free speech on this issue is remarkable. Climate change is being presented as a universally accepted fact, with those who question it being, in the example I just mentioned, lumped in with the likes of Ernst Zundel.

From my own point of view, it does seem interesting that regardless of what the current crisis is, the solution is usually the same. We must all give up or cut back on some use of technology. Driving usually tops the list. And the warning is always that we must make this change by some arbitrary deadline or it will be the end of the world as we know it.

Two things usually bother me. One is the lack of concern for the effect of drastic government policies on business and the economy. This is usually dismissed as irrelevant. But it is only because of our society's relative wealth that we can afford to worry about climate change. People struggling to earn a living have more immediate worries.

The other thing that bothers me is that we are looking at our technology as the problem. I'm not convinced that we have that much effect on global climate, but if we do, the problem is not our technology but its side effects.

The problem is not the car, but rather its emissions. We don't use too much energy, we just don't produce it cleanly or efficiently enough. But the idea of finding ways to continue our current lifestyle more cleanly is not exactly a popular one in environmentalist circles. Generally speaking, the environmentalist philosophy, for lack of a better word, does not believe in the win-win situation. As with many a religious order, it is only through self-denial that we may find salvation.

I just don't agree with that.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 22, 2008, 12:37:18 PM
I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



(3) How about the big list of articles outlined on the Junk Science ([url]http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.html[/url]) web site?  Are all of those researchers frauds as well?  Be sure to check out this page ([url]http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html[/url]) for contemporary data and discussion.


Citing Steven Milloy's Junk science website is about as accurate as citing Santa Claus.  Here is one of many, many, many, many, many sites debunking this non-scientist junk peddler:  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_Milloy



Needless to say I can pick and choose quotes about how there is a debate about landing on the moon, but that doesn't mean there is a debate about faked moon landings.  The same with "intelligent" design.  The same with Saddam having weapons of mass destruction.  The same with Hillary actually having a chance of winning.  Except all of those are also false and only around due to people having monetary interests in pushing them.  The same is true with people who deny global warming.  Look at who funds them.  Follow the money, and see how it is funny.  Look at Cheezflix theorizing that I'm on a mission to force him to use cloth bags under threat of jailtime.  Where did I say that?  I guess because on wacko says something that must be true for everyone who believes in global warming.

Scientists claiming that they spoke against global warming and are suddenly ostracized are laughable.  It is about as accurate as the scientists in Ben Stein's film who claim to have been fired over not believing in evolution but when you bother to look them up find out they were fired for not doing any research or the jobs they were hired for.   And even the retired Gray keeps changing his predictions: "In 2006, Gray predicted a cooling trend by 2009-2010. In 2008, Gray changed the prediction to "within ten years.""  He's now attempting to make bets on the effects of climate change.


Scafetta & West's paper, if correct, only explains 25-35% of warming.  That's hardly saying there is no man-made global warming, and again reinforces the point I continue to make that the debate is not if there is man-made warming, but how much damage we are causing.  More on S&W: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

As for the hockey stick graph (which was "disproven" by a mining industry worker and an economist) there are many places showing that they disproved practically zilch.  here is one:  http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
note the corrected graph and how it is still a hockey stick. 

But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!



Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: nshumate on April 22, 2008, 12:43:31 PM


But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!



Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 22, 2008, 01:20:21 PM
I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



Let me be as clear as I can on one key point:  I am not debating with you which side is right or wrong.  I am debating with you your assertion of "consensus."

You did not trash anything.  20,000 scientists signed that petition in good faith, no matter what it's origins. Or at least one did.  My name is on it.  I believed then and I believe now that more OBJECTIVE science needs to be done before far reaching, possibly disastrous federal and international policies are implemented.

And one dissent is all I need to disprove consensus.  Of course, it's easy to label one dissent as a crackpot or a fraud.

So, I presented other dissenting scientists - REAL RESEARCHERS.  I find it more than just a little troubling that for each dissenter I produce, they are labeled crackpot or fraud, and you continue with the statement "there is consensus - there is NO debate."  The debate is there -  you are choosing to ignore it.

I learned yesterday that you are a Biology graduate student.  So I ask you, as a scientist, do you not find the facts outlined in my last paragraph illogical?

Let's change the base fact a little bit and say the issue is plate tectonics rather than global climate change.  At one time, the theory of tectonics was considered pseudoscience and the proponents of the theory were held up as crackpots and frauds.  That exact paragraph above could have been written then.  The point is NOT that they were ultimately vindicated.

But now you know (or I should say I THINK you know) that plate tectonics is not only a valid theory, but is THE accepted theory of geologic change.  It is very, very important to note that the IPCC itself has issued a report in November 2007, that I linked to earlier, in which it was clearly stated that the foundational underpinning of all that is supposedly "known" about the anthropogenic causes of global warming have been shown FALSE.  I don't know...that sounds like some pretty good credibility for McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman, to name only a few key players that have been involved in debunking the Hockey Stick Graph.

There is no hockey stick.  Even a review by MIT Researchers (http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/) has concluded Mann's analysis was flawed.  Are the boys at MIT now frauds and crackpots, too?   What about work done at the International Arctic Research Center (http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks?  Crackpot, fraud or valid research?  What about Edward Wegman, Chair of the National Science Foundation's Statistical Sciences Committee?  Is he likewise a fraud, along with the whole team of statisticians that the US Congress tasked to study the Mann data?

If you continue to assert that the Hockey Stick data is real, I can only conclude that your mind is closed to even the possibility that what you believe about the anthropogenic causes of climate change might be incorrect.

(Note I did not say ARE incorrect - if you want to get to anthropogenic causes without the Hockey Stick, more power to you, but it is generally assumed in the science community that the Mann data is the underpinning for all claims of causality in the anthropogenic debate).

Debate, discussion, is ALWAYS good in science.  NOTHING is settled or completely known.  I would be very surprised if you complete your graduate training withing figuring that out.  It is very fundamental.

I've read that history will show 2007 as the year the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax officially died.  Given the near 180 turn done by the IPCC in November, I think that's a fair call.  It will take years for the "issue" to completely go away, as some hold cherished beliefs rather strongly.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 22, 2008, 05:55:31 PM
I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Allhallowsday on April 23, 2008, 12:10:13 AM
I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.
You're a smart-ass. 
 
But, yeah, all of you need to recycle or I'm calling the green gestapo.  Happy Earth Day!
Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.
That seems impatient with a bit of humor.  Man, there is a reason they have that old saying about religion and politics. 

What a debate I started here, unintentionally, you believe me don't you??!! 


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 23, 2008, 12:29:25 AM
I did what I could do today, on earth day to HALT GLOBAL WARMING ... you read that right Cheeze got on board to stave off warming. I turned my A/C down as low as it would go and I opened all the windows and doors ... I sure hope it helped.
You're a smart-ass. 

As opposed to being what? (Come on you can figure it out.)


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 24, 2008, 02:10:50 AM
I don't have time to trash all of these as thouroughly as I did the so-called 20,000 signed petition, but many of these are just as incorrect.



Let me be as clear as I can on one key point:  I am not debating with you which side is right or wrong.  I am debating with you your assertion of "consensus."

You did not trash anything.  20,000 scientists signed that petition in good faith, no matter what it's origins. Or at least one did.  My name is on it.  I believed then and I believe now that more OBJECTIVE science needs to be done before far reaching, possibly disastrous federal and international policies are implemented.


The petition was sent out under false pretenses and outright deception, and is filled with false names and researchers who have little if anything to do with weather patterns in their areas of study.  But if you want to continue to accept it as proof of massive disagreement on climate change then feel free, and I will continue to point out it proves only that many people don't read their email carefully.

Quote
And one dissent is all I need to disprove consensus.  Of course, it's easy to label one dissent as a crackpot or a fraud.

So, I presented other dissenting scientists - REAL RESEARCHERS.  I find it more than just a little troubling that for each dissenter I produce, they are labeled crackpot or fraud, and you continue with the statement "there is consensus - there is NO debate."  The debate is there -  you are choosing to ignore it.


Milroy and his ilk that are funded by oil companies to be their mouthpieces are not REAL RESEARCHERS.  Even for the others that are REAL RESEARCHERS, there are always crackpots within the ranks as well.  The man who invented PCR believed he was abducted by aliens and that HIV does not cause AIDS.  I guess we should label those as two things that also need to be seriously discussed without evidence as well.  If you are as familiar with science as you claim to be you would be aware there are plenty of strong personalities and just plain weird people who see any dissenting opinion from their own as a grand conspiracy.  My objections to them are that they overstate their data and make false claims. 

Most of the important data produced recently challenging global warming only show adjustments to the levels of human-caused change, none eliminate it entirely, and many of the dissenting studies are filled with errors themselves.  All of this continue to show my argument that the debate is on the level of human caused climate change, not if it is happening at all, is true.

Quote
Let's change the base fact a little bit and say the issue is plate tectonics rather than global climate change.  At one time, the theory of tectonics was considered pseudoscience and the proponents of the theory were held up as crackpots and frauds.  That exact paragraph above could have been written then.  The point is NOT that they were ultimately vindicated.

Yes, and people once believed in ether filling space, sperm were little tiny fully-formed people, the world was flat, dinosaurs died in the flood, prions were really viruses, and the moon was made of green cheese.  And then they were thrown aside when real evidence was brought forward.  Even though the wheels of change in science can move slowly and there will always be resistance by people who've made their careers saying things one way.  Although they do not stand in the way forever, the way to move them aside is to bring evidence to the table that shows them wrong.  They hockey stick graph evidence showed some of the shape was off, but did not disprove the graph (now in modified form and still saying the same thing.)  The other report only explained 30% or whatever of the temperature increase if it was even correct, which, again, does not disprove the human-caused global warming hypothesis. 


Quote
It is very, very important to note that the IPCC itself has issued a report in November 2007, that I linked to earlier, in which it was clearly stated that the foundational underpinning of all that is supposedly "known" about the anthropogenic causes of global warming have been shown FALSE.  I don't know...that sounds like some pretty good credibility for McIntyre, McKittrick and Wegman, to name only a few key players that have been involved in debunking the Hockey Stick Graph.


What's funny about that website saying the IPCC claims it's false is the policy summary itself says: "There is very high confidence that the net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming."  and "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."
It also contains the modified hockey stick graph!

Site - http://www.ipcc.ch/
official report - http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm
Summary for policy makers: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The hockey stick graph is figure 1.1! (SPM1 on the policy maker pdf)

I think the validity of the site you linked to is now in question. 

More than likely they took the components of the report discussing the difficulties of knowing the full impact of human-caused climate change and translated it into meaning that it's all bunk.  So basically they lied.


Quote
If you continue to assert that the Hockey Stick data is real, I can only conclude that your mind is closed to even the possibility that what you believe about the anthropogenic causes of climate change might be incorrect.

And since the hockey stick graph is in the IPCC report, where does this leave us now?

Quote

Debate, discussion, is ALWAYS good in science.  NOTHING is settled or completely known.  I would be very surprised if you complete your graduate training withing figuring that out.  It is very fundamental.

Well, of course.  But they need the skillz to pay the billz.  Ecology was recently rocked to the core by the Neutral Theory of Ecology.  It shook many assumptions people had made for decades.  It was challenged immediately.  But they were unable to dismiss it completely, and it is still here 20 years later.  The neutral theory of ecology is probably false (the current version defiantly is, but they are working on a Nearly Neutral Model which will be much better) but there was no censoring, no secret mafia suppressing reports.  The debate happened in the open, because both sides have evidence and didn't try to claim their data that said one thing was the final nail in the coffin.

Reports attacking the hockey stick graph were right that there was data problems.  They were wrong in asserting they've disproved it, when all they did was just make it a goalie's hockey stick.

Quote
I've read that history will show 2007 as the year the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax officially died.  Given the near 180 turn done by the IPCC in November, I think that's a fair call.  It will take years for the "issue" to completely go away, as some hold cherished beliefs rather strongly.
I find reports of the Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Hoax's death greatly exaggerated, and the IPCC's path as unwavering as it was in the previous Feb 2007 report and before.


Could you please resist the urge to throw in your sarcastic "zingers" at the end of each post?  They undermine whatever respect your reasoning garners up until that point, and makes you seem like the kind of guy who likes to taunt and belittle those who disagree with him -- certainly not the kind of assumption of good will one would like to see in any debate.

I see no objections to the sarcastic "zingers" thrown by Cheezeflixz or you in this thread.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: AndyC on April 24, 2008, 06:28:20 AM
Nope, no bias there  :lookingup:


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 24, 2008, 08:49:00 AM


I think the validity of the site you linked to is now in question. 

 

Then you've still missed the point of what I wrote.  I'll not rehash it again.



Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 24, 2008, 09:48:22 AM
If there is in fact no debate about global warming, climate change or what ever the catch phrase of the day. Then I have a question.

What is the idea temperature for the earth? Is it higher, lower or right where it's at? And if it's higher or lower than current, then how much? 2 degree, 5 degrees, 10? If it can be shown with empirical data to that effect that is not bias, then I'll consider the evidence. Otherwise it's speculation and hyperbole.

But there is irony in the greater debate (and there is a debate), those that feel the earth is getting warmer wants the government to get on board and regulate consumer and personal use, they've already begun the demise of the incandescent light bulb and they cheer, they've regulated future fuel mileage and they cheer, they want the government to regulate, banned and enforce so much more so they can cheer,  ... BUT the very second the government want to listen to suspected terrorist communications they cry foul and protest, they open a recruiting station in they community (Berkley), they protest. They protest nearly everything that the government does they DON'T agree with, well you can't have your cake and eat it too.
The optimum level of government intrusion on you personal freedoms is ZERO. While government is a necessary evil, it is unwise to afford them more power than absolutely required. Hyperbole often leads the wholesale clearing house of your personal rights, and once those rights are sold at bargain basement prices the long term expense and maintenance is high.

For those that are passionate about AGW, I respect your beliefs. However, a word of warning never enforce your beliefs through laws and regulation; you are ultimately undermining the very philosophy in which you live by and circumventing the foundation in which this country was founded. You are in fact selling your sole for a pocket full of candy if you do.

And that IMHO is the greater debate, personal choice and freedom.

edit: clarity


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: nshumate on April 24, 2008, 09:56:48 AM

I see no objections to the sarcastic "zingers" thrown by Cheezeflixz or you in this thread.

Probably because whatever little we've thrown doesn't come close to intimating that anyone who debates with you must a deluded Commie-hunter.

Know why the world's problems will never be solved?  Because people insist that anyone who thinks differently than they do is either stupid or evil.

I think I'm done with this thread. Heck, I may be done with the whole board.  There are forums (fora?) out there where people can disagree without being disagreeable, but that doesn't seem to have trickled down to many of the most active members here.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: trekgeezer on April 24, 2008, 10:59:51 AM
Well, Nathan join the club.  I sent Andrew a PM the other night telling him I was going to take a break from the forum because of these constant political debates.  I come here to have some fun,  but certain people here insist on trying to turn this into political forum.

I have to admit I'm still lurking around here, but damn it there are a lot of people I like here and I don't like the idea of few jackasses messing it up for everyone else.






Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Andrew on April 24, 2008, 11:08:29 AM
Actually, the question is if we just need to say "no political discussion" because they have become a problem - sinking into arguments.

The goal of the site is to enjoy, discuss, and share information about b-movies and cult films.

Quite honestly, political discussion sites require a lot of careful moderation, and I do not have the time to be micromanaging adults conversations.  I doubt anyone here does.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: AndyC on April 24, 2008, 03:17:49 PM
I'd miss the political debates, because they are stimulating, and there are some intelligent people on the board with interesting points of view. But with any of these, it just takes one individual with a rigid political stance and a big ego to gum up any kind of exchange of viewpoints. And lately, we've had some loaded subjects posted that were clearly intended to bait people.

This is, first and foremost, a pop-culture board. If the political threads are interfering with the smooth running of it and driving away the regulars, I guess they have to go (the political topics, that is). But again, I will miss them.

Of course, we could also just individually resolve not to get sucked into these fights.


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 24, 2008, 03:39:37 PM

Of course, we could also just individually resolve not to get sucked into these fights.


Agreed.

Individually, we can choose not to click the links to the threads we don't want to participate in.  I manage this in doses.  So, I don't really understand how any thread's content can drive anyone off.  The debates and discussions, MOSTLY civil and very respectful, have remained localized in the OT Discussion boards.  It's not that hard to just ignore those threads if reading them is not your bag.

Perhaps a middle ground might be some kind of ignore feature.  Some forums, like Slashdot, are set up where you can select in your profile those boards/topics you don't even want to see on the screen.  I wonder if SMF has an add-in for that, or how hard it would be to code one?

For what it's worth, there is not one single person on this board that I don't consider a friend in some way.    For my part, I hold absolutely no grudge for someone, anyone, just because we disagree on something.  I like discussing things with people who don't agree with me - from that comes learning; it forces me to examine my own perspectives and possibly change them.  That does not mean I am going to agree with everything and everyone all the time.  I think that is impossible anyway.

In the final analysis, I think most of us "regulars" are here to make connections with others of similar, but not transcendentally identical, interests.  Bad Movies brings us here, and once here, we want to learn more about the others that share this interest.  I think part of that is natural.   One way we learn about others, our friends, is to push each other's buttons occasionally.

So, who's up for a good flame-war on which Episode of STAR WARS is the best?   :wink:


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 24, 2008, 04:10:22 PM

Of course, we could also just individually resolve not to get sucked into these fights.


Agreed.

Individually, we can choose not to click the links to the threads we don't want to participate in.  I manage this in doses.  So, I don't really understand how any thread's content can drive anyone off.  The debates and discussions, MOSTLY civil and very respectful, have remained localized in the OT Discussion boards.  It's not that hard to just ignore those threads if reading them is not your bag.

Perhaps a middle ground might be some kind of ignore feature.  Some forums, like Slashdot, are set up where you can select in your profile those boards/topics you don't even want to see on the screen.  I wonder if SMF has an add-in for that, or how hard it would be to code one?

For what it's worth, there is not one single person on this board that I don't consider a friend in some way.    For my part, I hold absolutely no grudge for someone, anyone, just because we disagree on something.  I like discussing things with people who don't agree with me - from that comes learning; it forces me to examine my own perspectives and possibly change them.  That does not mean I am going to agree with everything and everyone all the time.  I think that is impossible anyway.

In the final analysis, I think most of us "regulars" are here to make connections with others of similar, but not transcendentally identical, interests.  Bad Movies brings us here, and once here, we want to learn more about the others that share this interest.  I think part of that is natural.   One way we learn about others, our friends, is to push each other's buttons occasionally.

So, who's up for a good flame-war on which Episode of STAR WARS is the best?   :wink:

Amen brother, if you don't like the topic then don't click the link. To ban something just because a few people don't like it, well that's a debate unto itself.

Karma Ulthar contrary to popular belief I agree with you. :wink:


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Captain Tars Tarkas on April 24, 2008, 04:23:49 PM
Nobody is forcing anyone to read the threads here.

That being said, if someone is taking things said here or on other message boards too seriously, it is time to go for a walk.  Get some fresh air.  The internet is not serious business.  Holding grudges based on political affiliations is ultimately self-destructive, especially in an environment like this one with a wealth of different viewpoints.  Just because I agree with Lester 1/2 on absolutely nothing politically doesn't mean I don't respect the fact he has a great knowledge of weird films from around the globe.  I also like the fact he sticks with his opinions even when everyone else disagrees, because they still make perfect sense in his ideological framework.  And similar statements can be said of everyone else here.  No one here brings nothing to the table, even the posters who just ask a question about identifying a movie and disappearing forever bring discussion and help people discover new films they may not know about.  With the current Democratic campaign becoming increasingly divisive and probably foreshadowing an even nastier 2008 presidential election thanks to economic unrest and food shortages, political threads here and everywhere will constantly be in danger of turning sour.  Even neutral issues run the danger of getting sucked up in the chaos.  But if the worst thing in your life is some dude on the internet disagrees with you, then things are going pretty good.  Sometimes you just need to remember there is a whole world of terrible films out there just waiting to be watched, with more arriving every day.  I don't think we should ban the political threads, but we should be aware of the amount of them so they don't spiral out of control and take up too much of the off-topic forums.



And the best Star Wars is clearly Caravan of Courage. :thumbup:


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: ulthar on April 24, 2008, 04:35:33 PM

But if the worst thing in your life is some dude on the internet disagrees with you, then things are going pretty good.


Well said.

Karma for that!!

(I'll give you another after the 6-hour wait for the lively, and to me at least, welcome discourse we've had in this thread).


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: CheezeFlixz on April 24, 2008, 04:44:25 PM
I'll second that KARMA and add one too. Just because at time folks don't agree doesn't mean they can't get along ... cripes of that was the case I'd never been able to be married 20 years. It's our differences that makes us interesting or boring which ever the case.

However, there is nothing more boring in my opinion than a bunch of people setting around agree with each other on everything, don't you agree? :tongueout:


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: indianasmith on April 25, 2008, 07:08:41 PM
Actually, this debate is pretty tame compared to some I have read on other boards.  My philosophy is, if you don't like the topic, don't read the thread.  Heck, I reviewed to absolutely AWFUL B-movies on here last weekend and neither one has garnered a single reply that I can see . . . . but the political stuff goes on for pages and pages.  That speaks volumes as to what people enjoy talking about.  I hate to see anyone leave a forum, especially one that is this much doggone fun.  No one here is threatening bodily harm to anyone else, we just have very strong and diverse opinions . . . which is part of what makes this such a great community.


Don't bail on us, guys!!! Just stay away from Off Topic Discussions if you don't like them!


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Terf on April 25, 2008, 11:42:00 PM
On Global Warming, global cooling, and other "Manbearpig" stuff:

I think I'm just going to wait and see if the two happen at the same time and cancel each other out. However, in case they DO occur at different times, well gosh durn it I've got a cottage in Hawaii and a vault in Antartica, and will hunker down in one of 'em for the long haul with more cans of pork 'n beans, Twinkies, and copies of "Hustler" than you can give two s--ts about!

Er, okay, the truth is I'm terribly non-informed and have nothing intelligent to add...*cough*


Title: Re: Bush's Toothless Climate Plan
Post by: Allhallowsday on May 01, 2008, 05:10:23 PM
...I think I'm done with this thread. Heck, I may be done with the whole board.  There are forums (fora?) out there where people can disagree without being disagreeable, but that doesn't seem to have trickled down to many of the most active members here.
I don't understand that comment... "many of the most active members?"  Did I miss something?  We all have "disagreeable" moments, particularly when embattled.  Nonetheless, I'd dare say that there is a CONSENSUS among this site's members that this board is not only tolerant but friendly.  Though TarsTarkas may have made a few snied swipes, that doesn't mean he did not receive sarcastic slaps in return.  As Menard had said somewhere, and I paraphrase: I defy you to find a more agreeable forum to visit.  Sorry Nathan, but I knock your karma for knocking the board.  :thumbdown: 

...And lately, we've had some loaded subjects posted that were clearly intended to bait people.
Hey, I started this thread because I found the news item interesting.  It is up to each and everyone of you whether to participate in any discussion, political or otherwise.  It was not my intention to "bait." 

This is, first and foremost, a pop-culture board. If the political threads are interfering with the smooth running of it and driving away the regulars, I guess they have to go (the political topics, that is). But again, I will miss them.

Of course, we could also just individually resolve not to get sucked into these fights.
You will note that I have not voiced any opinion on this topic and have not participated in this political debate.  I learned my lesson months ago.  I don't have time for political debate, particularly on a forum.  It's not fun