The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

I knew he meant it as a compliment.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Scrooge McSam

Understood

Perhaps you could come back to that on a slow Obama news day.

In summary, I think the 9/11 commission was government pulling a CYA for itself for all involved - previous admins and the current admin. The degree to which I think what was a CYA and for whom isn't important, I suppose.

I have a tendency to be somewhat conspiratorial, though I am not one who subscribes to the "9/11 was an iside job" idea, but I do believe that covering up ineptitude of great magnitude was a primary goal of the 9/11 commission.

[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 This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.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.

[wendybeth]

You'll jump on an article like that, yet throw out the 9/11 report without even reading it because of a conspiracy fear? Okay....

Would you have been so quick to dismiss the commission's report if it had been more of a slam on the Dems? I can't help but wonder. Personally, I was shocked by the candor put forth by members of both parties. I found it refreshing.

[scaeagles]

I didn't say I threw it completely out. I have read it (long ago). Government watching over government and reporting on government is a concern of mine and I don't trust it.

And I admitted I was wrong to jump on that. I actually will admit when I think I was wrong about something.....it just ahppens so rarely.

[Alex]

Sorry to jump on it like that. When I saw the headline I pretty much knew it was likely to be bull****. I just didn't expect it to take me 30 seconds to find out it was (from going to the APS web site).

You admit your wrong and I'm fine with that and making mistakes.

Mostly I'm bothered by it because that it has been on Drudge it might as well be true as far as hundreds of thousands of people are concerned.

So, next time you're at your Conservative Club meeting and someone trots this out I expect you to say something like "I'm with ya brother, GW is a crock but you know that particular story isn't true so we should stop using it."

And then we'll just work on you thinking it is a crock.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Alex

So, next time you're at your Conservative Club meeting and someone trots this out I expect you to say something like "I'm with ya brother, GW is a crock but you know that particular story isn't true so we should stop using it."

I kept reading that as GW = GW Bush, not Global Warming, and was trying to figure out why I'd be at my conservative club meeting saying GWB was a crock. Well, he is to true conservatives, so that could happen, too.