Those crazy rocket scientists are at it again, aren't they rightees? What the hell is up with them using public $$ to tell people facts that they've figured out about crazy "theories" like supposed Global Warming -- hell what do they know, right? They are just a bunch of Al Gore lovers trying to make political trouble for the Republicans, aren't they?
NASA: Danger Point Closer Than Thought From Warming
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3223473&page=1
It ain't rocket-science to see that Gore is gonna jump in at the eleventh hour and sweep this election... Claiming that inspite of his "falling out of love with politics", he has a moral obligation to save the planet... And it will work, the masses are all worhiping at motherearth's alter and are waiting for a prophet to usher in the age of Aquarius...which dawned in the 60's
That's ok, it'll restore balance for everyone to take an 8 year tree-hugging time-out from their glutonous consumptions....
So now the scientists at NASA are working for Al Gore too? Okay, Ben, whatever you say...
they constantly do biz dev. That includes looking to funding sources... See the movie "The Right Stuff" - in it, the astronauts ask the "rocket scientists" "What makes the rocket go up?" The scientist (Wernher von Braun type) responds, "You have a chemical reaction that creates propulsion which drives the rocket...." The Astronaut responds, "Wrong, Funding, that's what makes the rocket go up, without the Bucks, there is no Buck Rogers!"
True then.... even more true now.
it's simply a question of what you're buying. Academics and military types especially often lose sight of logistics and economics, then wonder WTF happened when their funding dries up.
Nobody said NASA wasn't credible.
It depends on what they are talking about. Remember the problem they had with the frozen gaskets?
The problem is that people have a tendency to think that people in costume (and the favorite costume these days is a white lab coat) are inherently believable, and the most gullible people are the actors themselves. It's very rare for a person to criticize their OWN line of shit, and realize where they may not be making shit for sense.
And it happens.
LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!
-- Modified on 5/30/2007 12:46:58 PM
And lets not forget about Apollo 13!
Never mind that frozen gaskets and Apollo 13 were flaws in design and failures in manufacturing systems not a scientific report based on statistics and actual measurements like Global Warming -- it must be wrong because of that frozen gasket!
I guess NASA, just like the almost unanimous majority of scientists, are MAKING UP GLOBAL WARMING because of Al Gore and to make $$!
And those Scientists paid by the Oil Companies are the ones we should listen to, right? Since those Oil companies aren't making any money at all by avoiding doing something about Global Warming, right...They are virtuous companies that have the the good of the environment and the public at heart, right?
Hey, did you guys know that Denial is not just a river in Egypt?
Thanks for the good laugh! I love it! And, if you keep it up on this and the war, people will vote for a Democrat even if he/she is Sponge Bob Square Pants because you make yourselves and the conservative movement look like complete freaks of nature.
-- Modified on 5/30/2007 3:22:48 PM
that disagree with some of the scientists wrt the contribution of man to global climate change... whatever it might be.... YOU chose not to get off your ass and go to the library and read.... your problem, not mine.
It must be one solid source.
Yeah, right -- that would be the smart thing to do right?
Since you are so smart with this stuff maybe you can give me some advice -- My house is on a hill. The hill below it is showing a little erosion. I called the city, they checked it out and told me to talk to an engineer. I spoke to 5 different engineers. 4 of the 5 said it was serious and needed to be addressed or my house could slide down the hill. Who should I listen to? The one who said not to worry about it?
I guess you would be the guy who listens to the one who said not to worry about it huh?
Ya think?
But to answer your question, what are you doing, betting on a horserace? If you are, do you know how to handicap engineers? You fucking ask questions. 4 of 5 of them could be idiots. The question is, which ones are the idiots?
Seriously, assuming they are all licensed and worried about professional liability, you have to understand that "don't worry" is inherently risky advice. When you call a professional, he assumes you want help. Both of these bias to, "do something".
So it's entirely possible - depending on the range of opinions you have - that you have a marginal situation. "Do something" or "danger" is hardly helpful, and it often translates into "give me lots of money".
Good professionals interact with their clients so they understand the client's values and priorities. It does not help you to save your house if you go bankrupt doing it, and lose the house another way, along with everything else.
Being on TER does not exempt anybody from using their fucking big head. LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
That is kinda like building your house on the beach - or in a flood plain... or any place in CA! lol!!! cannot wait till it breaks off and sinks into the ocean.... lol!!!! Way to go!
Building a house on the side of a hill invites disaster! Geology 101 - or common sense 101
to the right person.
I guess that must be Common Sense 102.
And as the saying goes; "shit slides down-hill".... see you at the bottom jack0...
You think I LIKE you or sumpin?
Why are you are making them?
You are such a loving person, aren't you Ben?
"Follower of The Way" is the only true Biblical definition of someone who accepts Christ as their savior...
However, what you are attempting to do is the typical non-Christian approach of using my belief0system to manipulate my behavior... That shit only works on fundamentalists... I live by "those who are free in Christ are free indeed" and another good one is "all things are permissible, but not all are benificial"
You see, those of you that are hell-bent on following ethics and morality to the letter of the law seem to often be MORE concerned with the behavior of others rather than applying the same guiding principles to your own life... "let he who is WITHOUT sin cast the first stone"... And while you're at it, "take the plank out of your own eye before you try and help me remove the speck of sawdust from mine...
Little do you realize, "Christian-living" is actually a self-styled religion... Christ set us free from living under strict, controlling codes of honor and ethic... And PAID THE PRICE FOR SIN AND DISOBEDIENCE HIMSELF! He knew we'd never be able to live up to the standard set by the law...
You're not very nice.
I'm also not easly manipulated, and that's all you are attempting to do is put me in a Christian-box and live under rules that you yourself reject...
Christianity is not a methodology-religion, you DO NOT earn brownie-points for good behavior, nor are you held accountable for bad behavior... As "fallen-man" it is expected of us by God that we will sin and fall short, thus he offers us the FREE GIFT of salvation (ie., "our name written in the Lambs book of life)
We do not EARN our redemption by "good works" or obedience to a set of standards, if we did, the gift would not be "free"...
You seem to have Christians confused with boy-scouts, but there is no fuckin' merit-system in what Jesus taught when he was here, that shit was all added on centuries later when Rome absorbed "The Way" and created a social-order we now know as the Cathholic church, and sadly most denominational-churches are just spin-offs from the Cathholics...
You are attempting to use dogma on me as a ball and chain, but like I said beforethat only works on fundies...
Why do you think that everybody else is so fucking stupid that they won't connect your words to your actions?
Your brand of Christianity is just a particularly weird form of assholarity. A little freakier and less usual that the Phelps or Robertson or bin Laden or many other brands of assholarity.
But you don't seem to understand that organized religion is a form of socialization, of organizing social structure for one type of profit or another. If you can't turn it into a living, like the Popes, televangelists, Scientologists
(based on the usual parasitic interactive entertainment) then the only reason you're doing it is your own internal need.
Anybody that creates such a weird and irrational psychological structure, and then blows it away as so much fire insurance, has some really strange psychic needs.
But I'm really glad to see assholes wasting energy that way, because they'd be much more dangerous if they were more sensible. The way you are, we can see you coming a mile away - even if we have a hard time believing it.
It's not very "secular-humanist" of him to act like such an ass, spew such hate, be so intolerant and intolerable... Not very representative of "liberal-ideals" is it?
Or do you just let him rant his verbal-sewage unchecked because fundamentally you and he hold the same anti-Christian sentiments?
You and jack0 are BOTH full of shit and full of yourselves, but I'll credit jack0 as being the more "honest" of you two, he at least let's his hatefulness be seen at face-value... Whereas You Stamina try to hide you hate of Christians behind a faux-exterior of political-correctness...
is to address the post to the person you're talking to.
It amazes me that you have the chutzpah to talk about ANYTHING, when you can't master that skill.
But I suppose that's all part of being disconnected from your environment.
...So I placed my post under the wrong post, BFD...
-- Modified on 6/2/2007 7:30:15 PM
If you're that hungry, you can just pull your head out of your own ass and lick your lips.
A typical tactic for someone who can defend their position.
Oh, and BTW, I'll bet my house is worth a lot more than yours and I'll bet you'd trade for my house any day. So lets keep it real shall we.
You should look behind the curtain -- Sorry, I am not taking your information over 98% of scientists.
If you want to believe in the small group holdout scientists -- go ahead. It is never going to be unanimous -- but this is probably as close as anything has ever been to unanimous among scientists. If you want to believe in the few over the 98%, go ahead. I think you are a fool for doing so.
If you really built your house on a side of a hill and you did not inspect prior to building for erosion problems then yes vote for AL and find a friend to lead you wherever you go.
at least there there is some modest review of the material and fact checking... the web?! lol!! Well, it is what it is "the wild west!" I mean, in here, Al Gore Invented the internet... lol! and even if you think he "meant" invested in the internet... well even there you are off a few years....
Tomorrow - psychoanalysis of TER handles, with Dr. Fill.
the question is, what is their bias? How much does it relate to the question at hand? Is the bias minimal or inconsequential?
Then of course you have witnesses whose statements aren't relevant enough to listen to. Like Pat Robertson.
In this issue, I'd be more worried about taking a single statement out of context.
BSD's approach, that scientists are presumptively not credible, is a bit over the top. OTOH, I am a firm believer that we take a lot of the values and processes of "science" for granted, when we shouldn't be. I do believe we need to question where these assumptions are taking us, and why.
Being a "scientist" doesn't make a person believable. it's the integrity and impartiality of the process, and that is often unquesteioned, when it should be.
Failure to question faith is precisely what undermines the credibility of the right - and the "libertarian-type" views of BEND & BSD. Just because there are a lot of assholes doesn't mean you should throw out the baby with the bathwater.
That is why you can't trust science, right?
just because somebody puts on a white coat and calls himself the heir of Isaac Newton, does not mean you shouldn't question him.
"Hi, I'm Mother Teresa, please give me money for the orphans."
"I'm a disabled vet, how about some spare change?"
"We're from the govt, and we're here to help you."
"I'm Dr. Schlockenfucker, and I'm working on curing cancer. How about giving me lots of money?"
Life is full of risks, and you always have to decide what you're gonna believe, and how far you're gonna stick yer dick out.
But, by & large, it's really not a whole lot of trouble to ask to LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN.
most particularly that the issue with this article, w/r/t global warming or whatever, is that it's not in a context, and those figures alone may not be "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
Yes, institutions have bias, and it's important to understand how they arise, because they are often subconscious. It's also important to understand OUR bias and gullibilities. When a real sweetheart babe tells you something, you are MUCH more likely to believe it than when you get the *same* information from George Bush.
And it does not help the cause of science to get excited when somebody asks questions, because IMHO, that's what science is about.
You will note that I said EVERY witness has a bias. You didn't ask what I thought about the relative bias and relevance of say NASA's comments on this issue, next to those of say, Rush Limbaugh.
It so happens that I regard BenD in this respect, as most, as far more off the wall than on.
But process is what's important. Process is what will get you the best result. I may be more intuitive than most, but it's because I don't trust my fucking intuition.
"new ice age"
Cold fusion
polywater
Montreal accord - would save the planet form CFC's depleting the ozone layer when istead the replacement molecules were much worse as greenhouse gases... scientists.... better hope they get it right this time.... cause according to "Tipper's" hubby - times a runnin out!
"Although the Montreal Protocol does phase out the worst ozone depleting substances (CFCs, HCFCs, halons, methyl bromide), unfortunately it allows ozone depleting chemicals to be replaced with two greenhouse gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). Both of these chemicals are among the six global warming gases to be controlled under the Kyoto Protocol."
http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol5/v5n08ozone.html
The Catholics hide pedophiles. That obviously means everybody that ever bought a Roman collar is a pedophile. Let's lynch the Pope!!
Saves the money on trials. We don' need no steenkin' evidence, we feel righteousness in our guts.
BTW, I've seen lots of monikers on this forum, but none quite so bizarre and psycho-analysis inducing as yours.
Bizarro. Man, who would name themselves THAT? Then, Superdude. Yeah, I'll *bet*. Whoever this fella is, he thinks he can call somebody *else* a sick puppy.
Ver-y interesting.
And, oh nothing, just 98% of the science community.
Even though I know you are probably right, I think I gotta go with the 98%. Its that liberal, wacko-crazy, batshit, nutso for in me I guess...I just can't shake it ...
we're getting a little far afield here.
But as many of the most prominent members of the TER chatroom have pointed out, all the Pope's robes, AND ALSO 98% of all virgin mothers, do not establish the truth of any particular matter.
What DOES is relevant evidence. You should not be surprised if no significant amount of the relevant evidence can be presented on TER politics chat, because - it's FORUM, man. Nobody reads the 4th paragraph.
So relax and look at the pictures.
More power to ya.
cubic inches isn't what wins races; it's cubic money.
No, of course he's not serious. This is BEND you're talking about.
you're right about everything except that NASA is sucking up to their future boss.
I've been saying for months that Gore will jump in at the last minute and will have a landslide victory. Why would he announce now and have to spend money to campaign? He gets plenty of exposure as an Academy Award winner, author, lecturer and speaker.
I believe he really has "fallen out of love with politics." How could he not after having the election stolen from him in 2000?
Just because he has fallen out of love with politics doesn't mean he has fallen out of love with being of service to his country. Yeah, perhaps there is a desire for power and recognition as well, but I think he is also motivated by a genuine desire to help the US and the rest of the world. People's motivations are very complex; not as simplistic as we might think.
I also think that we are entering an era when attitudes and priorities in this country are going to shift dramatically, Everything is cyclical and this may be similar to the love, peace, and environmental movements that were so pervasive in the 60s.
Though you almost have a derisive tone about an 8 year Aquarian interlude of "tree hugging" liberalism, you also seem to acknowledge that it's a necessary phase for us to be going through in order to restore balance and ensure the survival of this planet and the human race.. Sometimes, it's necessary for the pendulum to swing farther to one side than center in order to find that point of balance.
However, I can't imagine that the NASA and French scientists are "sucking up" to their future boss. I could be wrong, but isn't NASA actually a non-governmental agency?
The Global warmers want to control everything!! Gasoline, electricity, furnace use. They want to control everything. Have a second home!!!!!! OOoooh you have to pay an extra tax on that for global warming. Have a second car!!!! Oooh you need to pay an extra global warming tax on that. A boat?!?!!! Oh man- you're probably killing the little fishys too!!! Pay a big tax on that!
It's nothing but a power grab I tell ya.
ALSO, how come there was a big global warming period from 800 AD to about 1200???? They were growing stuff on Greenland and had colonies of Swedes living there!!!!!!
I say humankind has nothing!!!!! Nothing to do with global warming.
That Kyoto treaty was really dumb too. How come all of Africa, India, China and Russia didn't have to comply and they are the biggest polluters!!
I believe that global-warming is the new meal-ticket to every government-program for at least the next 10 years... and while supporting global warming will only modestly increase NASA's budget, coming out against it would surely greatly DEFUND them and open the door to a new pro-global-warming science think-tank to be created... So I'll bet there are plenty at NASA that are ONLY focused on theories that prove or support global warming... I'll bet the scientific peer-pressure is impossible to withstand!
that the exponential increase in population and industrialization over the last century could result in exponential increases in carbon dioxide and other exhaust gases that might have trap heat.
It just doesn't make sense. It's im-FUCKING-possible. If I say it loud enough and long enough, the defeatists will be defeated. Always worked for me that way in high school chemistry lab - if I chanted loud enough, then the results would come out exactly right.
Like it makes a rat's ass of difference to Shell Oil, or FoMoCo. They'll make dough - or go under - just the same, either way.
It's a cultural ritual. Some people are worrywarts, some people are ostriches, and some just follow the crowd. Nobody actually fucking thinks. AND THAT'S THE REASON the cockroaches and Mexicans are beating your shit!!!!!!!!!!!! Because you don't bring any value added to the program, that they don't.
-- Modified on 5/30/2007 8:17:55 PM
I'm merely pointing out that all those who live or die by the research-grant system will be swayed to find more and more "evidence" to support the beliefs of the hand that feeds them...
Sure, human-industrialization is contributing to 1 carbon atom binding to two oxygen atoms, but so is millions of non-human events around the world... not to mention the ocean-methane increase which has five times the warming effect of CO2.... Fact is, the planet is going to get very hot in these end-days, Bible-prophecy predicts it and says "scorching hot" is what is coming... But since you don't believe the Bible, go waste your life screwing compact-florescents in your ass, thinking you can change the world... BTW, what environmental-impact is going to happen 8,000 hrs from now when all those compact-florescent bulbs full of mercury-oxide are at the end of their life-cycle and go to the dump? Hmmmmm.....
Cleaner energy sources won't be developed unless there's money to be made.
money is nothing more than an accounting system, and I don't trust people who work for free all the time.
it's part of the job, putting credit where it's due, and it's the reason we whupped the commies, not because of Ronnie's dumbass shiteating grin...
however it is not PROFIT that drives these things as much as TAXES...
It is far easier for government to collect their taxes when the population is dependent upon the peol supply-chain...
I've been off-grid for years, My home is solar-powered and I've been a part of the SVO/WVO/biodiesel movement since the late 80's... My goals were a bit different than the current global-warming crowd, I wanted absolute independence from the petrol/government alliance, and I've got it... The side-benefit is a really small carbon-footprint...
Government is part of the problem, not part of the solution, ang they NEED people to use petrol in every aspect of their lives and remain stupid to the fact that energy is FREE! Becase there's no way to tax sunlight, and if everyone realized that and acted on it, government would collapse on it'self!
Ever wonder why in the 1950's it was quietly made illegal to produce palm-oil in America? Because you can produce over 600 gallons of palm-based biodiesel per acre, which would rapidly make us petrol independent, but soy-based or corn-based fuels only yeld 60-80gal. of fuel per acre, thus it isn't possible to grow enough supply for both food and fuel independent...
All the "clean-energy" development that is going on is carefully being regulated, steered and funded to make sure people remain dependent upon easily taxable supply-chains... which of course is "THE AMERICAN WAY", lol!