Si Modo, I have been debating the issue of climate change on USPO for nearly four years, and I have been following the issue since the early eighties, when it was called 'the greenhouse effect.'

I also have contact with people working in disciplines in earth and life sciences whose research is every day turning up more evidence of the impact of climate change.

My son studied environmental science and was able to provide me with far more information on ice cores, and CO2 over the last 600 years than anyone here has ever done.

Add to that I have also lived on the land and seen first hand the changes, I have studied economic history.

I have posted hundreds of links on USPO showing a variety of links, and in which I have discussed the issue with far more high powered and better informed sceptics than Kramer.

Over the last year I just post links to news articles, however I am far more infomred on the issue than these boys.

"whatever" is an entirely appropriate response. I have no intention of posting anything in any depth to someone who simply refuses to see what is going on in the world around him.

likening these people to members of the 'flat earth society' is also appropriate. because that is about where they are at.

You are still a relative latecomer here Si modo, and so are not familiar with muy history at USPO.

I also doubt very much that you know anything about mental disorders.

Exactly. Following an issue is what a dilettante does and when they take the defense of "proof" to point of cheerleading in the face of facts, it's rather pathetic. It's not as if you have studied it in any scientific manner. It's not as if you really are a scientist. Whether I an a newcomer to the forum or not is irrelevant. I do science for an actual living and know to keep politics out of my profession, otherwise I wouldn't have a job in science as I have for the last 20 years. I actally get paid for my opinions in science.

As far as knowing anything about mental disorders, I don't have first hand knowledge, that's true, however I am exposed to those who actually study it everyday. My agency is certainly considered a premier agency in the sciences so I guess I have a bit of everyday exposure to many issues and access to all scientific pubs that the general public does not.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

And a decade before it was "the greenhouse effect", we were facing (according to the scientists at the time, some of whom are now talking about global warming) a new ice age.

But what we are seeing now is a shift in the social paradigm - it is no longer permissible to discuss whether or not there is global warming. Those who question it are vilified, and there are even proposals to make questioning global warming a criminal act.

Science isn't supposed to work like that.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

Strangely enough that's what many folks would describe you as.

Kramer put out facts, plain and simple for you to see and you refuse to even acknowledge them. Sure, it makes what you say look ridiculous but then again if you "see what's going on in the world around you", as you say then that wouldn't bother you too much.

So is it okay for others to call you a member of the eco terrorist's association because that's where they believe you're at?

You have never been able to effectively respond to any of my post. That is why "whatever" was your response to a recent post of mine. And now you have to resort to disparaging me (and others) by linking us with the "flat earth society." This is the typical liberal method when a liberal can't answer intelligently on something: Discredit the source.


Kramer

__________________
“It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve; it more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy."
Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers

Really? I strongly beg to differ. How much of politics is based on religion? How much opposition to gambling (and the taxed income from it earned by governments) is brought about by religion? How much influence does religion have in setting funded charity and donation standards; influencing social policy, etc.

when the EU starts to meet their self imposed and treated quotas, let me know.....

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

H. L. Mencken


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

don't forget 550 million and a 10 year study of acid rain...verdict- horse hocky....

__________________
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under.

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.

H. L. Mencken


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

You can beg to differ all you want, but the examples you have suggested are based in and supported by far more than just simply a religious belief. Besides, even if a religion objects to it, that is far different than a religion ramming its core beliefs down everyone's throat - which is what the greenie movement attempts to do.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Really? You mean that all the political arguments against gay marriage etc, aren't centred by religious influence? I would suggest that religion rams its belief down our throats as you suggest, via political influence far more than the greens do. All one has to do is look at US politics for that. How much national support does the Green Party have, as opposed to the political influence in both the Democratic and (predominantly) Republican parties?

interesting. you have a paid job in science - or so you claim. One could reasonably assume you are a mere dilettante in politics. a cheerleader.

great. so as a scientist, do you believe that the majority of the world's scientists are less professional than you are?

perhaps you may ask them whether a person who makes a sarcastic comment to someone re stating the same argument that has already been refuted several times over - by persons who ARE knowledgeable in the field (Kramer has posted the same point before, and it was refuted I believe by Onon) shows more signs of mental disorder than someone who joins a discussion for the sole purpose of attacking someone whose politics they don't agree with?

That may well be. I suspect environmental science is not your area however. If you familiarize yourself with some of these journals, including some of those published in Australia, you may have more understanding of why Rudd ratified Kyoto.

If you take a look at some economic data from Australia you may also understand why INDUSTRY also believes we have to act fast.

So if you now find out that she has ever been involved in politics as a proffession are you just gonna admit that she knows more about this sort of stuff or keep spouting this same "I'm superior because i say so" stuff you've always come out with? She gets paid for her opinion; you get criticised for yours....do yo see the difference about how her opinion must actually be highly valued? Oh and its not just a claim, i can irrefutably verify her credentials/proffesion or whatever else you wish to blindly question and challenge though i dunno why i'm even posting this, its not like anyone here has to justify themselves to you.

Did she ever say that? Opinions being argued/debated are not grading standards for proffessionalism. However saying "whatever" as a response shows total inability to counter the argument or facts.

You again seem to be describing your own behavior (re stating the same argument that has been refuted several times by someone more knowledgeable than you, Si Modo). Are you asking whether she thinks you have a mental disorder?

come now Matt ... this ice age business was only an issue in the northern hemisphere. we are talking about Australia.

furthermore - between approx 1982, when Time magazine posted articles on the Greenhouse Effect, and now - 25 years later - the issue of Global warming has been current. Governments around the world have acted due to concerns over the impacts.

you can't seriously want to discuss the 'ice age' in the same tone - unless you are referring to later theories of a new ice age as a possible result of rapid ice cap melt and reversal of ocean currents.

Although I don't think that that is likely to be as likely as many other flowons from warming.

Your believing my "claim" is insignificant, yet a good bait because I will allow a touch of my ability to be a bitch to come through, just for you, darlin’. Your posts seem to demonstrate a propensity to respond to those with whom you have ideological differences with snide remarks, condescension, and playing the pathetic victim of crimes that only exist in your mind. It might be a good bet that you are often late to appointments, too. Chronic passive-aggressiveness has several telltale attributes.

*sigh* So, let’s start the tedious task of responding to Daisy, point by point:

- Yeah, my mother has a son who is nuclear engineer, but one would never hear her claim that she knows much about nuclear energy to aggrandize her contribution to a discussion on the subject...she has class. In addition to studying Mideast culture, and whatever else you have claimed you have "studied" (it’s hard to recall all of your claims of superior experience since they are so numerous), you now claim that you have studied environmental science, through acquaintances and your son, for the last however many years you claim. That's a dilettante. Own it. Be proud of whatever it is you actually do for a living and claim some authority in that. But if you claim expertise in all that you have claimed you have done, you are a master of nothing.

- About your assumption that I am a mere dilettante in politics, you are correct. It is not my profession; it is neither what I have officially studied nor what I am trained to do. If it were, I would not participate in this forum during my leisure. But, I do not feel the need to claim my experience in politics to boost credibility as a poster in this forum. I suspect many here are dilettantes in politics as well. Perhaps you stay here with so many amateurs rather than playing with the big boys in another more professionally oriented political forum so that you can further wax bombastic with your delusions of superiority over the plethora of simpletons who have ideological differences with you. I haven’t any problem with admitting I am an amateur and dilettante in politics as this self-knowledge allows me to learn more each time I visit USPOL.

- It is hard to tell for what you think I cheerlead since your articulation skills are not shining too brightly in the first couple of lines of your post. However, I remain proud of cheerleading for the scientific method and for scientific and academic integrity. If cheerleading is what you choose to call that, I will gladly own the moniker of cheerleader, but I doubt you intended your cheerleader reference in any complimentary way. As I said, it’s hard to tell with the disorganized nature of the first lines. Your snide derogations must give you some vacuous satisfaction since they are a consistent feature of your responses to those with whom you have ideological differences; too bad you don’t see that they usually don’t work out for you.
This sort of question is what a political hack who has no talent for spin might ask in response to my posts here. It is probably not what one who has any idea how to actually study science would ask, since they would have the analytical skills to fully comprehend what I have said. And, more on topic, mercury poisoning is a bitch as it has such horrid neurological and cognitive effects; but, rest assured, I am not saying that is something that is definitely affecting you personally.
- Wait for it folks…soon Daisy might claim that she has studied mental illness for the last few decades. I do know that chronic passive-aggressive behavior is a symptom of several disorders listed in the DSM IV. Fear not, Daisy; although sarcasm is one aspect of passive-aggressive behavior and practiced by most from time to time, usually I am simply aggressive with folks who haven’t the tact to understand social cues when they are acting inappropriately. But, I do practice sarcasm when speaking to some as I believe in speaking the same language of the ones who are chronically put-upon and play a victim when they get an unattractive response to their condescending, self righteous, delusional grandeur in superiority over most, and insulting rhetoric. However, once it becomes obvious that their denial is so ingrained (a significant part of the problem), this is an approach of last resort. On the other hand, how can anyone be sure of when I am being sarcastic?

- I know nothing of onon. If onon has stated that he is sure of only one variable causing global warming, that tells what I need to know about his capabilities as a scientist. But, I will say nothing about him/her since I am not familiar with him/her.
Your put-upon tone is noted, but so common that it is hard to keep track of how often you play it. What you fail to see is that what attracted me to this thread is the fact that I am fed up with folks playing at science for some feeble and insecure political agenda yet are dilettantes, insulting and vilifying others who are actually willing to enter into a real discussion about the issue and learn more via participation in a civil discussion about it. Your condescending attitude toward Kramer is lacking any indication of a desire for an open discussion. Kramer showed class in his post but attracted your unoriginal use of “whatever” and your ad hominem with reference to his and others’ membership in some flat Earth society. Maybe you could try that type of discussion strategy at an actual scientific meeting and see how far your use of pontification, meatless arrogance, and undemonstrated analytical skills will get you with that crowd. Or, just show the attendees a picture of your son.
- What field of science you suspect I am in is irrelevant to my championing the scientific method, scientific integrity, and open discussion. I could say how sad it is that this point went right over your head, but now it is just funny.

- With respect to Australian journals, if I do absolutely have to slum it, I have access to and am familiar with them.

- On the subject of Rudd ratifying Kyoto, Trav brings up an excellent point and I agree. I look forward to the USA benefitting from Australia’s (and other nations’) ratification of Kyoto. Feel the increased rate of brain drain, baby; more brains are welcome here. Just leave the dilettantes in Australia; show them a picture of your son and enjoy further exchanges of pretentious pomposity over a half-caf non-fat hazelnut venti latte with them. While you’re satisfying yourself with that, the USA will actually have the available funds for those brains’ research and any innovations they may bring with them. Sweetening it even more for America is that US funding agencies will no longer have to ask State to approve foreign aid for grants to those scientists when they are actually on US soil so the brains will be further motivated to come to the USA since this is where the hassle-free money will be. It’s a win-win for us and being the jingoistic maniac I am, I’m all for another win-win for the USA. Perhaps I should change my user name to Jingo Si modo. It has a nice ring to it and rolls easily off the tongue.
- It seems quite out of line with your ideological leanings to be using INDUSTRY as support, so I will take note that you have done so here. Although I no longer work in INDUSTRY, what INDUSTRY thinks is often important to me.

- However, by the defensive nature of your post, it seems that you think I have come to some conclusion about the global warming issue. This could be indicative of several things – you have difficulty in reading comprehension with my posts (or your ideology has you so blinded that you don’t even see my words for what they are); you have a defensive nature; you are unimaginative when trying to project a false assumption onto others … there are just so many possibilities.

It’s a shame that your delivery is off-putting. Often political hacks dismiss delivery as unimportant. Many others have experienced more civil discussions occurring when they present an offensive position with class. If you ever wonder why your points get lost in your delivery with those whom you wish to persuade, ask Frank as he will have excellent insight into the importance of delivery and when that delivery is an effort in futility with some.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

co2 is not a weak greenhouse gas, it's the second largest contributor to the greenhouse effect (about 10% of the effect). Humans account for 25% of co2 in the atomsphere, not 3%. 3% is the figure for human emissions per year relative to natural emissions, but natural emissions are "carbon neutral" in that nature absorbs as much as it emits.