Is the USA now a rogue state?

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

The present is not separate from the past! Science, mathematics, literature, critical thinking, philosophy and art all have their roots in the past, long before the USA was even in existence. USA has a really checkered past; slavery, discrimination against minorities, abuse of women, civil rights violations and poverty.

And Native Americans constantly warring with each other.  And killing all the horses and eating them instead of learning how to use them as beast of burden.  History goes all the way back.

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

And Native Americans constantly warring with each other.  And killing all the horses and eating them instead of learning how to use them as beast of burden.  History goes all the way back.

 

 

They were not all war like. The Anasazi in the SW were not.

[Marblehead]

Just now, ralis said:

 

 

They were not all war like. The Anasazi in the SW were not.

Yeah, I know.  I was generalizing again.

 

 

[windwalker]

2 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

 

They were not all war like. The Anasazi in the SW were not.

when is a war not a war,,,when is the past not the "real" past

answer: when ever some one from what is called the left is trying to make a point....

[ralis]

2 minutes ago, windwalker said:

when is a war not a war,,,when is the past not the "real" past

answer: when ever some one from what is called the left is trying to make a point....

 

I said not all American Indians were war like as a response to your generalization. The Anasazi were agrarian and covered much of the SW; Mesa Verde, Bandelier National Monument, Chaco Canyon and so forth.

[windwalker]

Quote

California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new climate change agreement between the State of California and the People’s Republic of China on Tuesday. http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/06/07/jerry-brown-plays-president-signs-climate-deal-china/

 

Wow California, is so lucky to have such a visionary leading the state.

I hope all can afford the tax increases to pay for his visions.  

[Brian]

28 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

Wow California, is so lucky to have such a visionary leading the state.

I hope all can afford the tax increases to pay for his visions.  

Constitution , Shmonstitution...

 

 

California should proceed with caution.

[rene]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Yeah, I know.  I was generalizing again.

 

 

That may be, but if/when SHTF - I'll ride with the Lakota, or the Crow. Joyously fierce. (-:

 

 

[Marblehead]

5 hours ago, Brian said:

Constitution , Shmonstitution...

 

 

California should proceed with caution.

California should leave the Union and form its own nation.

 

Maybe call itself Mexifornia.

 

[Taoist Texts]

On 6/3/2017 at 3:56 AM, Jetsun said:

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this

position."

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

 

‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim

 

Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.

“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”

“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. 

[Brian]

2 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/

 

‘Propaganda’: Top MIT Climate Scientist Trashes ‘97% Consensus’ Claim

 

Dr. Richard Lindzen is sick and tired of the media repeating the so-called “97 percent consensus” statistic to show just how strong the global warming agreement is among climate scientists. It’s purely “propaganda,” argues Lindzen.

“It was the narrative from the beginning,” Lindzen, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), told RealClear Radio Hour host Bill Frezza Friday. “In 1998, [NASA’s James] Hansen made some vague remarks. Newsweek ran a cover that says all scientists agree. Now they never really tell you what they agree on.”

“It is propaganda,” Lindzen said. 

Oh... The Church isn't going to like this...

 

It will be interesting to see whether he is destroyed or simply ignored.  I suspect destroyed -- heresy cannot be tolerated.

[thelerner]

33 minutes ago, Brian said:

Oh... The Church isn't going to like this...

 

It will be interesting to see whether he is destroyed or simply ignored.  I suspect destroyed -- heresy cannot be tolerated.

I think what'll happen is the majority of MIT Climatologists will write a letter saying his viewpoints don't represent the current, past or mainstream science.  Whoops they did it already- https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump. 

 

There's no Church, just science and the scientific method and community.  Not always 100% accurate but moving towards making better models.   Quite simply the majority of those who've spent there lives studying climate see problems ahead.  It's too bad its become a political thing. 

 

From the link-

 

"As [Lindzen's] colleagues at MIT in the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate, all of whom are actively involved in understanding climate, we write to make it clear that this is not a view shared by us, or by the overwhelming majority of other scientists who have devoted their professional lives to careful study of climate science," said the March 2 letter, signed by 22 current and retired MIT professors.

The MIT staff  addressed specific inaccuracies in Lindzen's letter, including his assertion that "carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."

"The risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide are almost universally agreed by climate scientists to be real ones," they wrote. "These include, but are not limited to, sea level rise, ocean acidification, and increases in extreme flooding and droughts, all with serious consequences for mankind."

Lindzen has spent years downplaying the significance of man-made climate change through his published research, testimony in lawsuits and appearances before Congress. He has compared "global warming believers" to a "cult," and called the most recent assessment by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's leading climate science body, "a political document." He served as a meteorology professor from 1983 to 2013. He is now a distinguished senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank.

Lindzen responded to InsideClimate News with a one-page statement that echoed the contrarian points he made in his letter. He also criticized MIT's climate program.

"Since MIT's administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute with the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate (PAOC) playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis of this issue," Lindzen wrote. "For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the 'risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide' really are," he said, referencing something James Madison wrote in 1787.

A petition accompanying Lindzen's letter was signed by 300 other people. Lindzen described the signatories as "eminent scientists and other qualified individuals" in his letter. A review of the names by the Guardian, however, revealed few biology, chemistry, climate, earth and physics scientists. Many are well-known climate contrarians and deniers. They include Willie Soon, an aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Steve Goreham of the Heartland Institute, an industry backed organization that denies climate science; and William Briggs, a statistician at Cornell University who questions climate models.

"In stark contrast to Lindzen's letter, ours was signed only by those who know something about the climate system," said Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric sciences who signed the letter opposing Lindzen.

The science advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientist also annotated the letter to point out its errors.

The MIT letter noted that professional societies including the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union have all released statements affirming the scientific consensus on man-made climate change and its grave risks. A recent analysis found that 140 of the world's national academies and top scientific geosciences, biological, chemical, physical, agricultural and other organizations have issued statements about human-caused warming.  

"We owe it to future generations to remain engaged with the international community to seek the widest possible efforts to understand and mitigate [climate change] threats,"

[Brian]

In real scientific work, scientists employ the scientific method and things like falsifying data are frowned upon.  In real scientific work, those scientists who point out fraud or challenge the status quo are applauded rather than being labeled "contrarians and deniers."

 

Those paying attention to such things are less likely to swallow a hook.

[Taoist Texts]

42 minutes ago, thelerner said:

There's no Church, just science and the scientific method and community.

The true  believers  are never able to explain how a scientific method differs from unscientific one, or how science is different from non-science.  They just want to believe.

 

45 minutes ago, thelerner said:

Quite simply the majority of those who've spent there lives studying climate see problems ahead. 

Not to mention  grants and tenures.

[Brian]

14 minutes ago, Taoist Texts said:

The true  believers  are never able to explain how a scientific method differs from unscientific one, or how science is different from non-science.  They just want to believe.

 

Not to mention  grants and tenures.

98% of those people paid to say CO₂ unquestionably causes global warming and the planet is doomed unless we surrender power and money to politicians say exactly that.

 

I know! Shocking, isn't it?

 

To preempt the predictable "well... NASA says...", I'll point out that NASA has repeatedly been caught falsifying data related to "climate change" as well.  This isn't surprising, though, since they are no longer an agency focused on space science and engineering but on climate change.

 

https://capitalresearch.org/article/nasa/

[Jetsun]

1 hour ago, Brian said:

In real scientific work, scientists employ the scientific method and things like falsifying data are frowned upon.  In real scientific work, those scientists who point out fraud or challenge the status quo are applauded rather than being labeled "contrarians and deniers."

 

Those paying attention to such things are less likely to swallow a hook.

 

One bad scientist doesn't negate the work and findings of thousands of others, who have worked independently without any influence of those who worked fraudulently. 

 

 I agree that calling people deniers isn't exactly helpful regarding debate, but it doesn't make the climate change supporters incorrect. A global scientific conspiracy just isn't viable or practical. 

[Taoist Texts]

14 minutes ago, Brian said:

To preempt the predictable "well... NASA says...", I'll point out that NASA has repeatedly been caught falsifying data related to "climate change" as well.  This isn't surprising, though, since they are no longer an agency focused on space science and engineering but on climate change. 

 

 I was always curious  how did that Muslim outreach worked out? Do they feel good yet?

 

 

Quote

 

Mr Bolden said: "When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.

"One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

 

 

 

Foremost Carl. Foremost.

 

 

[Marblehead]

I believe that if there were no co2 in our atmosphere the Earth would be a solid block of ice.  We have to have some global warming.

 

[Brian]

From that report:

In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and distinguished scientists wrote a letter asking Administrator Bolden to stop using NASA to push radical global warming theories. They warned that NASA’s “advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study” puts at risk “the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

Edited June 11, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

12 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I believe that if there were no co2 in our atmosphere the Earth would be a solid block of ice.  We have to have some global warming.

 

The sun warms the Earth.

[Taoist Texts]

26 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

A global scientific conspiracy just isn't viable or practical. 

Interesting how the believers say  the global science community is 97% cohesive, and then turn around and say that a wide-reaching collusion is not viable. It is fascinating to see doublethink in vivo.

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Jetsun said:

 

One bad scientist doesn't negate the work and findings of thousands of others, who have worked independently without any influence of those who worked fraudulently. 

 

 I agree that calling people deniers isn't exactly helpful regarding debate, but it doesn't make the climate change supporters incorrect. A global scientific conspiracy just isn't viable or practical. 

"One bad scientist," is it?  Bad as in naughty or bad as in incompetent?

[Brian]

It's far more than one, BTW.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/07/nobel_laureates_emperors_new_clothes_speech_about_global_warming.html

[Taomeow]

On 6/2/2017 at 7:07 AM, Brian said:

Seriously, stop and think about this for a moment...

 

BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, DuPont, Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Unilever, General Mills, Kellogg, Johnson & Johnson -- these are just a few of the supporters of the Paris Agreement.

 

Hmmm...

 

Too many people don't understand that "countries" is something they would need to assess, in terms of just how much independence to make major far-reaching decisions "countries" have today, in comparison to multinational global corporations.  Multinational corporations -- or rather a handful of people owning them, whose country of origin is usually quite beside the point, and whose allegiance invariably lies with their corporate profit and power rather than any particular country or cause -- is what makes and implements all major decisions.  Think about it, not "for a moment" but for a year.  For ten years.  

 

Any "country" that would attempt to challenge or reverse this deadly process of swallowing up planet Earth whole by those insatiable entities is decried as "rogue" by the national servants of the multinational overlords (that's what "governments" of "countries" are these days.)  Doesn't matter if it's Russia, China or the US, if it tries to act in service of anything or anyone other than the bigger boss, it is vilified, ridiculed, and usually forced to fall in line.

 

Rule of thumb: if a global mega-corporation with tentacles in every pie is behind any agreement, the agreement is about the most expedient ways to suck your blood.  What?  You thought it's about helping you?  You thought these entities are run by altruists?  Research these corporations' history.  Find out how exactly they got to be so big and wealthy and powerful and who and what they gobbled up in the process.  This might decrease anyone's appetite for prolefeed.  And hopefully for dishing it out to others.

[thelerner]

Putting aside the warming of the Earth.    What about air pollution?  Water pollution? The acidifying of the ocean?  These are real threats that are shortening the lives of real people.   Hurting the quality of our environment.

 

China has 7 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution_in_China) of the most polluted cities in the world.  Millions of people suffer in them.  Thanks in part to the Paris agreement they're not putting in 100's more coal plants.  That a good thing for them and for the world.  Beyond CO2 it releases a poisonous brew of heavy metal and contaminants released.   That's not to say its not valuable, but we'd better wait and or invest in truly clean coal, before burning and releasing poisons. 

 

Having stringent pollution controls is worthwhile.  It is an investment in the future.  India and China are not getting away with something, they are devastating there land and robbing millions of good health.

 

I was in Pittsburgh for a few days last month.  In the 1940's it was the Steel capital of the world.  Made more then anyone else, the furnaces were always burning.  And the buildings were all blackened.  In cemeteries white marble was quickly turned black.  In hospitals pneumonia was rampant, with higher rates then other cities (according to my tour Driver).   Nowadays it's a nice clean city.  They still keep a few buildings blackened as a reminder. 

 

Maybe they didn't have a choice in the 1900's.  But we have one now.  To seek our intelligent ways to be cleaner, conserve more.  Not to poison ourselves.

 

The world is huge, but if it was aquarium sized and we put in the millions of tons of contaminants (or the equivalents) into it, we'd see a difference.  Yes there are other important factors- Sun cycles, volcanic, but for our own sakes, we should do what we can.   Simply to be good care takers of our tank, we'd better do our best to keep it clean, not pollute faster then filters can take.  Forget nations, We are Mankind-  We should be wise enough not to turn our environment into a cesspool. 

 

The industrial revolution is fine, until it starts shortening lives and blackening the skies.  Then responsible government has to step in regulate pollution, lest we slowly slowly kill ourselves.  Knock over one domino too many.  In my life great lake died.. from uncountable life, to dead, catching fire.  We stopped pollutants and it came back.  The ocean is showing strain, the great Reef of 1,000's of years is getting bleached.   The ocean is warming and acidifying.  If it goes, mankind will be hurt.