Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[Rhinox]

oh come on, a republican that says they were taken out of context gets attacked by you while you yell retard to anyone that says what you just said

She still anti-war and has never backed away on that issue. The quote that was picked up by the the conservative blogs was " She opposes sending more troops but doesn't think pulling out everyone at once is a responsible decision" I'm paraphrasing btw

What is wrong with that? As much as everyone would like to you can't pull out overnight without leaving everything behind.

[Rhinox]

You mean a Classical Liberal...like John Locke, Frederic Bastiat, Thomas Paine....etc. Yeah, huh-uh, sure. Socialism is not liberty. Mercantilism, is not liberty. Marxism is not liberty. Free-Market is liberty. Understanding that we as individuals are inherently free, and that we own our bodies and therefore own all production that is derived from our labor. You see, a Classical Liberal is a libertarian. At least the term in Europe is still used as it was originally intended for...for the most part.

If you don't know, liberty means both economically and personally. It is all encompassing. And as referenced above, he is definitely against liberty. You can live in your police state, economic slavery, what have you, all you like. I intend to return this country, and millions along with me to its original foundations in Natural Law and Non-Aggression Principle and its foundation in libertarianism. You can join the ride and fight for liberty with me, or you can stand against me...either way we are going to win. So if you don't like the direction that we will achieve, well...there is pretty much every other country that fits your ideology. Cheers.

Thanks needed a chuckle.

[Rothbardian]

She came out on a radio Interview the day this story came out and said the author of the article took her out of context. You gotta give me more then a Partisan blog to prove what your saying.

Come on. What context...they said: Pull out of Afghanistan now, to...we have to rethink Afghanistan. Again, your hackery shows through. Do you even stick to your principles? You want to know what principle stands are? Right now the national base for Rand Paul is in a HUGE uproar over his recent statements. Most of us are not going to donate to him again, ever. That is a principled stand.

[Tristam]

Liberty or Death is my motto.

CRAZY.

whoa there champ.

[Rhinox]

Come on. What context...they said: Pull out of Afghanistan now, to...we have to rethink Afghanistan. Again, your hackery shows through. Do you even stick to your principles? You want to know what principle stands are? Right now the national base for Rand Paul is in a HUGE uproar over his recent statements. Most of us are not going to donate to him again, ever. That is a principled stand.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/...pink-in-kabul/

I'll take the New York times over the Christian science monitor any day of the week.

A Christian Science Monitor article about the Code Pink trip, which described Ms. Benjamin as rethinking her views, caused a buzz in antiwar circles, with some antiwar bloggers wondering whether Code Pink had become “pro-war.”

Ms. Benjamin sharply disputed the notion that her views of the war had changed. But she acknowledged that the nearly two-week trip had given the group “a lot more depth of understanding” about the complexity of the war and the depth of Afghanistan’s needs.
She said the group would continue to support legislation in Congress requiring the Obama administration to come up with an exit strategy. She said they would also push for peace talks with elements of the Taliban, with women at the table, and for increased economic aid to the country.
And she said she planned to meet with leaders of women’s organizations that support the American military mission in Afghanistan to make the case that the presence of American troops was not making life better for Afghan women.

[Beckwin]

yes, these scientists are doing it for massive sums of cash to line their pockets. they get multi-million dollar bonuses every year... oh wait, they're low 6 figure earners and their extravagant lifestyle has them going to science conferences in some nice places. real funny for a free-marketeer to start bashing yuppy living.... won't say anything about the opulence of the hedge fund managers and CEOs, yet you'll make goddam sure to point out these goddam academics are almost into the top tax bracket!

a destabilizing pakistan may be justifiable cause for some anti-war groups to "rethink" afghanistan. I can't speak for them though, as I don't really agree, but acting like the situation is the same as it was in '01 is pretty dishonest.

[Beckwin]

a theory and science can never have facts. The definition of THEORY precludes fact.

and then he talks about the scientific method being subverted. lol.

science constantly corrects itself. even if agw theory changes through research, or becomes nullified, we still have cause to investigate our climate and to take actions that would not only help solve the potential problems agw could bring, but also to solve problems regarding sustainability, public health, and the ozone layer.

of course, capt. libertarian is absolutely terrified of individuals being held responsible for their externalities, so he's freaking about the thread screaming Patrick Henry- quite alarmist, isn't it?

[Demosthenes11]

yes, these scientists are doing it for massive sums of cash to line their pockets. they get multi-million dollar bonuses every year... oh wait, they're low 6 figure earners and their extravagant lifestyle has them going to science conferences in some nice places. real funny for a free-marketeer to start bashing yuppy living.... won't say anything about the opulence of the hedge fund managers and CEOs, yet you'll make goddam sure to point out these goddam academics are almost into the top tax bracket!

a destabilizing pakistan may be justifiable cause for some anti-war groups to "rethink" afghanistan. I can't speak for them though, as I don't really agree, but acting like the situation is the same as it was in '01 is pretty dishonest.

complete irrelevance coupled with backing backpeddling all in one post
bravo sir

PS: it's about money for the scientists, just not to line their own pockets. Not saying that's why they are sensationalizing, but don't act like they aren't experiencing an enormous increase of funding right now because of this

[Cadsuane]

yes, these scientists are doing it for massive sums of cash to line their pockets. they get multi-million dollar bonuses every year... oh wait, they're low 6 figure earners and their extravagant lifestyle has them going to science conferences in some nice places. real funny for a free-marketeer to start bashing yuppy living.... won't say anything about the opulence of the hedge fund managers and CEOs, yet you'll make goddam sure to point out these goddam academics are almost into the top tax bracket!

If anything, careers in climate change denial can be demonstrably lucrative.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482

[Solefald]

complete irrelevance coupled with backing backpeddling all in one post
bravo sir

PS: it's about money for the scientists, just not to line their own pockets. Not saying that's why they are sensationalizing, but don't act like they aren't experiencing an enormous increase of funding right now because of this

whereas the skeptics, who are virtually without exception funded by fossil fuel interests, are paragons of objectivity and wholly untainted by the motives of their backers

[Demosthenes11]

whereas the skeptics, who are virtually without exception funded by fossil fuel interests, are paragons of objectivity and wholly untainted by the motives of their backers

pretty much exactly what I said, thanks

retards like you make people out to be either a) doomsday predictors or b) ignorant fucks

[Tristam]

The past decade was actually pretty dry for climate funding, and more money was spent combating science in the court of public opinion. Climate researchers did work in spite of poor funding. The NOAA lost its long term funding for climate research, NASA earth science funding has been slashed in recent years, the NSF annual budget fails to keep up with inflation. Where's all this money coming from?

Anyways. Money now is going towards impact assessment studies, AGW is as done as done can be. You don't get grants funded by asking the same old question again and again.

[Beckwin]

I'm curious as to why Bush-suppressed satellite imagery of polar areas now being available didn't cause quite the same sensation among conservative and libertarian blogospheres.... I mean especially with the latter group, shouldn't they be championing transparency and freedom of information?

oh wait, it's because those pictures showed reductions in polar sea ice. the free market and lovers of liberty won't have that get in their way.

Mann et al certainly deserve some sharp criticism for some of their actions, and frankly it's good that this information is getting out, but pretending like it completely invalidates agw is premature and ludicrous. Mann et al are some pretty prominent contributors, but the theory has been developing since the 60s/70s backed by countless studies by countless scientists.

[Beckwin]

complete irrelevance coupled with backing backpeddling all in one post
bravo sir

PS: it's about money for the scientists, just not to line their own pockets. Not saying that's why they are sensationalizing, but don't act like they aren't experiencing an enormous increase of funding right now because of this

I'm aware that scientists compete for grants to do the research they desire to do, but to talk of them as embezzlers living the high life is quite a stretch.

and call it backing backpedaling if you want, but the situation in afghanistan has changed significantly over the last decade... a destabilized nuclear neighbor that we've pushed taliban/alqaeda into along with continually failing attempts at establishing afghani government is at least worth considering, which it appears is all codepink did.

[pahnphoenix]

tl;dr I'm afraid of libertarianism and what it stands for; liberty.

i'm afraid of libertarianism, because it takes people who have the compassion to be anarchists and makes them adolescent idiots. libertarianism stands for anarchism without the sense of responsibility or realism. it makes like gw bush and creates a Bad Guy ("The State") in order to avoid real problems (large unequal distributions of power, oppressive systems, histories of tyranny and oppression, etc). discuss.

[Beckwin]

i'm afraid of libertarianism, because it takes people who have the compassion to be anarchists and makes them adolescent idiots. libertarianism stands for anarchism without the sense of responsibility or realism. it makes like gw bush and creates a Bad Guy ("The State") in order to avoid real problems (large unequal distributions of power, oppressive systems, histories of tyranny and oppression, etc). discuss.

pretty much nails it. except I don't think they have the compassion to be anarchists... the motivation is personal gain/me-first mentality.

[Dense]

Looking at long trends, you can see from where the idea of human impact on global climate originates:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Not to mention that carbon in the atmosphere is a deceptive number, as the oceans tend to absorb the CO2, as is explained well in this article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...y-in-the-ocean

TL;DR: The oceans absorb around 40-85% (debated) of longterm co2, which acidifies the oceans, and changes the longterm geochemical balance. Eventually, it will disturb the foundation of the food chain, as well as no longer be able to absorb anymore CO2.


http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...ification.html

The Royal Society of London published a report Ocean acidification in 2005, which summarised the salient points:

1. Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere dissolves in the ocean making it more acidic.

2. This is inevitable with high carbon dioxide, no fancy models are involved.

3. The oceans have already become 30% more acidic than before fossil fuel burning started.

4. Acidification will kill corals, and destroy other marine life.

5. There has been no period like this in the past 2 million years.

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming...s/Ocean_pH.jpg

[Olo401]

I'll take the New York times over the Christian science monitor any day of the week.

For the record, the Christian Science Monitor is actually a VERY good hard news source that prides itself on it journalistic integrity and objectiveness. Just because they have a specific focus on issues regarding religion doesn't detract from that either. In fact that bend provides them a more focused and unique view on such topics as worldwide poverty or human rights, especially in places where journalists are not necessarily welcome but emissaries of the Church would be.

Oh btw - whoever linked Dailykos earlier, as much as I enjoyed reading it please don't use them as an exclusive source because of the site's well-known bias. They will usually have links in the diaries you can use.

[Demosthenes11]

it's at least kinda funny leif discounts some websites because of bias and then turns around and links foxnews

[Olo401]

^ Quite.