The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[Alex]

The real point is that if Carter hadn't killed the Shah, then none of this would have happened.

Yes, I know that isn't historically accurate or particularly sensible. But then most of the arguments on who is to blame for allowing 9/11 suffer the same issues.

[scaeagles]

I read his "they had 7 months to do something and did nothing" comment as blame assignment.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I read his "they had 7 months to do something and did nothing" comment as blame assignment.

Read it whatever way you want, the reality is all that it means is that to claim that Democrat=death by terrorists and Republican=safe from terrorists is a load of sh*t.

[Alex]

Well, using this part:

They were actually pretty fair in their assessment that Clinton's hands were tied- the Repubs had him on the ropes about the Tripoli shelling and were accusing him of using that as a distraction from his domestic 'affairs'- to go after Bin Laden would have been (and was) not only a bit illegal at that point, but misconstrued purposefully by the very people that are now using terrorism as a threat against their own citizens.

would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Alex

Well, using this part:



would support the position of the billboard guy. If a Republican had been president, Clinton's reasons for not taking out Obama wouldn't have existed.

Not that I agree with him or think this is the way in which he means the point.

Lol! Too true. Well, I think McCain has a worse track record in that arena than Obama does- so far as we know, anyway.

[scaeagles]

I knew he meant it as a compliment.

[scaeagles]

It looks as if there is a largerthan previously thought and growing group of scientists who question the whole man caused global warming idea.

50000 physicists open debate on global warming

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.
...
In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth.

[Alex]

Eek, unfortunately the actual APS doesn't quite agree with that. The response from the APS to the story:

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that "Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

So yes, a specific newsletter within the APS dedicated an issue to debating the topic [changed this word]. Viscount Monckton took the anti-global warming position. Others in the issue took the pro-side. You can read the editorial accompanying the issue here and find that it does not put forward a policy position.

It is worth noting that Monckton is not one of the 50,000 physicists represented by APS. He is a policy consultant and former journalist. In fact the two physicists writing in this issue are both on the pro-global warming side.

So, yes, there are scientists who disagree with the accepted theories of global warming. But the APS has not changed its official position on the issue which can be found here. All that has happened is that an online newsletter published an article by someone who disagrees with the APS position.





Really, when in a debate and presented with what appears to be a pretty significant "gotcha" is it really that hard to spend 5 minutes double checking the information provided by some blog? Amazingly, those are frequently wrong.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

Really, when in a debate and presented with what appears to be a pretty significant "gotcha" is it really that hard to spend 5 minutes double checking the information provided by some blog? Amazingly, those are frequently wrong.

Indeed.

[scaeagles]

As a follow up, yeah, admittedly, I have a tendency to jump on things like that. I am a "skeptic" and have read writings of accomplished scientists who are skeptics as well, so when I read something to the effect of a growing population (or a large one ) of skeptics, I get excited.