Did you help ruin the world?

[Idaho]

Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.

So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?

[CountArach]

Where's the "I voted for Nader, so I helped ruin the world" option?

[rory_20_uk]

Not directly, but I pay taxes and that's spent in my name on such projects as Iraq.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Not religious.

[CountArach]

Not religious.
:laugh4:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Hey, nobody's perfect. Just to make it up to ya'll...here's a pretty :balloon3:.

[Husar]

I did support the war in Iraq at first, don't know what was riding me back then but I do not anymore for quite some time andthink I shouldn't have back then most likely so I voted that I don't. :shrug:

[Idaho]

Hey, nobody's perfect. Just to make it up to ya'll...here's a pretty :balloon3:.

Indeed they aren't. But some people's imperfections have more impact than others :laugh4:

[Rhyfelwyr]

I sometimes queston climate change but that's all on that list, so I suppose I only ruined it a little bit. :balloon2:

[Strike For The South]

This is a tad melodramatic.

[Ice]

This is a tad melodramatic.

You i assume you supported the war?

:whip::beam:

[Strike For The South]

You i assume you supported the war?

:whip::beam:

12 when it started. To young to have an opinion.

[Marshal Murat]

That's why I didn't vote for Bush. It'd be illegal.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I do question climate change.

[KukriKhan]

Did you?
Vote for Bush - Not in 2000, but yes in '04, so the same 'leadership' that got us in could get us out, of Iraq quickly.

Support war in Iraq - not the invasion (premature, I thought) & not the occupation; wanted/want a quick, safe-for-our soldiers withdrawal.

Disbelieve climate change - skeptical because of the hysteria of the damage claims; willing to spend tax money looking into it, and reducing/eliminating reliance on dead dinosaur sauce.

So yeah... I guess I helped ruin the world. :)

So, what's my penalty? Oh, the same as yours, right?: living with it.

[Thermal]

im not american so no, plus im not even old enough to vote

[Hooahguy]

you are missing "made bad loans that sunk the economy" (not that i know exactly sunk it....)

btw the theory of global warming (that mankind is doing it, not nature) isnt a fact.v

[CountArach]

btw the theory of global warming (that mankind is doing it, not nature) isnt a fact.v
Are you going to back that up with... you know... evidence?

[Caius]

im not american so no, plus im not even old enough to vote
Looks like if you aren't american you help to save the world.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Are you going to back that up with... you know... evidence?

He's right. Man-made global warming isn't a "fact," it's a "theory." There is evidence both for and against it.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster,
He certainly made many mistakes.


that the Iraq invasion was a disaster
Read the news lately?


and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.
Nope.


So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?

I love the last bit - "refuse to believe" - you sound like such a religious zealot. Michael Crighton was completely right about global warming - oh, wait, you fellows have changed it to climate change after the world stopped warming as much so you could say practically any weather event is evidence of our impending doom -being a religion. (http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU)

The same people who go around saying 'dissent is patriotic' get so angry when you are skeptical of them. :laugh4:

CR

[ICantSpellDawg]

I believe in Climate change, I just don't believe that it is necessarily man-made or that we can do anything about it aside from advance technologically to deal with all climate related eventualities.

I supported Bush, but he has become very difficult to defend over the past few years.

I believe in pre-emptive wars and I think that Iraq was both a good and necessary idea given the circumstances. We will see how it turns out after we leave. Yes it has cost a tremendous amount, but how much would you have paid to try out 21st century technology on the battlefield instead of just waiting to use it when we need it most. Iraq has been a sinkhole for terrorism and will be an active global contributor after it realizes that it can stand on its own feet.

I would have preferred a different Republican in the White House - I like academic types.

Do you really think that Gore or Kerry would have done any better? I'm not so sure - we might be dealing with a backlash against Democratic war-mongering instead. Bush campaigned on an isolationist platform in 2000, remember.

I support well intentioned military actions irrespective of the Admin. I defend a number of decisions surrounding Vietnam by the Dems.

[Lord Winter]

Read the news lately?

We've certainly salvaged what we could, but I'm not sure you can call Iraq a net gain by any stretch. Its chewed up massive amounts of money for little, if any, gain.

[Hooahguy]

Are you going to back that up with... you know... evidence?
yeah-
http://canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

more to come, if you want.

[Lord Winter]

The organization that he runs isn't conterversy free (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Stewardship_Project#cite_note-0), for all his talk about how science shouldn't take any outside funding. Plus the website it's hosted on is no were near politicaly neutral. How can any one who hosts this article (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6790) that wants the Suprume court to overturn Obama's election be any where near neutral. Now if you can find anything in a peer reviewed journal then we can debate.

[spmetla]

Good to see that only things that Americans do ruin the world :wall:

[ICantSpellDawg]

The English are obsessed with us. They are American citizens without voting rights. It really burns their crumpets that we didn't fight harder in the revolution and take them with us.

[Drisos]

Climate change is not Bush' fault. It's just a problem caused by billions of our kind on this earth. It's just way too much. If we'd rapidly decrease in numbers environmental problems would decrease along.

Planting some extra trees here and there or having the industry let out 10% less Co2 isn't going to help at all. Those things are just to keep the people happy and not too much worried about the climate.

[KarlXII]

The English are obsessed with us. They are American citizens without voting rights. It really burns their crumpets that we didn't fight harder in the revolution and take them with us.

Yeah.....that's it.....exactly....right on.

[KarlXII]

In b4 "SADDAM HAD WMDS"

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I dsagree with the basic premise.

It is FAR too early to know if the Bush administration will have been a disaster. I regret the current evidence does suggest that as a possibility. I set high standards however, in labeling "disasters." Johnson, Harding, Grant, Buchannan, possibly F Roosevelt (started badly but did do better from 1939 onward) qualify in my mind, but I'm not sure I'll view Bush's term that way in 15 years. Sadly, there are simply too many gaffes and "misunderestimations" of consequences for him to win many laurels. Still, we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9-11-01, so some things were done decently enough.

[seireikhaan]

I dsagree with the basic premise.

It is FAR too early to know if the Bush administration will have been a disaster. I regret the current evidence does suggest that as a possibility. I set high standards however, in labeling "disasters." Johnson, Harding, Grant, Buchannan, possibly F Roosevelt (started badly but did do better from 1939 onward) qualify in my mind, but I'm not sure I'll view Bush's term that way in 15 years. Sadly, there are simply too many gaffes and "misunderestimations" of consequences for him to win many laurels. Still, we haven't been attacked on US soil since 9-11-01, so some things were done decently enough.
Seamus- Please explain how FDR was a "disaster". I realize that the growth of government during his administration was brutal for anyone who would wish the government take a less proactive role in life. However... he DID provide a significant push to end the German Reich, and took the primary role in dismantling the Japanese Empire, both of which had some abhorrently cruel practices towards their victims. Does doing these bits of good for global good not strike you well enough to place him out of the category of "disaster"? Never mind, of course, that it is only AFTER the FDR administration in which America takes the mantle of Superpower. Of course, with this comes significant baggage. However, I urge you to take a strong look at economic growth in the United States from 1865-1929, and then look at economic growth from 1942 to now. You may wish to attribute this to just advancements in technology, but growth of government has undoubtedly played a factor in this as well.

[Idaho]

The English are obsessed with us. They are American citizens without voting rights. It really burns their crumpets that we didn't fight harder in the revolution and take them with us.

Not quite. What we see in America is an over optimistic child of a nation, with more power than responisbility and the usual imperial human accounting that sees one american worth a hundred foreigners.

We made those same mistakes before you and see clearly the path you will too walk down.

[Hooahguy]

Seamus- Please explain how FDR was a "disaster". I realize that the growth of government during his administration was brutal for anyone who would wish the government take a less proactive role in life. However... he DID provide a significant push to end the German Reich, and took the primary role in dismantling the Japanese Empire, both of which had some abhorrently cruel practices towards their victims. Does doing these bits of good for global good not strike you well enough to place him out of the category of "disaster"? Never mind, of course, that it is only AFTER the FDR administration in which America takes the mantle of Superpower. Of course, with this comes significant baggage. However, I urge you to take a strong look at economic growth in the United States from 1865-1921, and then look at economic growth from 1942 to now. You may wish to attribute this to just advancements in technology, but growth of government has undoubtedly played a factor in this as well.
FDRs government programs didnt end the depression. WWII did. our economy boomed b/c of WWII, not FDR, unless he is the one who commisions all the factories. but he definitely wasnt a disaster.

@OP- i think you are taking a pessimistic view on life. the world isnt ruined. not by a long shot. if it was, cities would be in rubble, people would be dieing in droves from disease and other deadly stuff. there would be nuclear wars. i see none of that. so i just think you are a kind of guy who sees the glass half-empty.

[CountArach]

FDRs government programs didnt end the depression. WWII did. our economy boomed b/c of WWII, not FDR, unless he is the one who commisions all the factories. but he definitely wasnt a disaster.
I suppose that explains the incredible growth from 1933-37 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg)...

[LittleGrizzly]

Yeah alot of what i learned puts the recovery in america as starting with FDR whereas europe (or britian at least) did have to wait until WW2 for thier recovery....

Im a none of the above but have to live with the consequences voter, ruined the world does seem a little ott, put it on the road to ruin maybe a better statement...

[Strike For The South]

Not quite. What we see in America is an over optimistic child of a nation, with more power than responisbility and the usual imperial human accounting that sees one american worth a hundred foreigners.

We made those same mistakes before you and see clearly the path you will too walk down.

And the world is still here. As much as I would like to believe it, the USA doesn't have the power to destroy 5,000 years of civilization much less one man with a divided government. Its a sign of the times really. Everyone thinks there in some big period of human upheaval. Makes them feel all important


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FDRs economic policies are very debatable

1. The economy had nowhere to go but up. Now did FDR help it go higher? Maybe. But what CA fails to mention is that even with all that wonderful intervention and growth the economy still took at sharp downturn in 37-38 and American unemployment rose and the stock market fell. Then right when we looked to be headed right back to where we started, Hitler invaded Poland.

2. FDR did nothing to help the Ag business. As usual the yankee and rustbelt industrialists got all the handouts and money while the plains were left to rot. The dust bowl is not hit hard enough in American cannon. Its impact on the economy and the lives of those people are an absolute horror story. Not to mention these people were treated like carp everywhere they went.

3. Having said all this FDR was a power hungry demagogue. A man out for his own name and power. A truly despicable man to be completely honest. Hitler saved the man and thats really a shame.

[yesdachi]

I think it is all relative.

The last 8 years have been a disaster but would they have been as bad/better or worse with someone else? I voted for Bush and compared to Gore or Kerry I still think Bush was a better choice. But IMO his administration could have definitely done things better.

The invasion of Iraq was a good idea but it was not executed well.

The reasons for climate change are debatable, I do think man could help the environment by limiting our waste and needless use but I don’t think we are the only cause of climate change.

[JR-]

Vote for Bush - no, but would have done if i had been a yank
Support war in Iraq - yes
Disbelieve climate change - yes i have serious doubts about catastrophic anthropogenic climate change as currently 'understood'

[JR-]

Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.


what a load of cr@p. if you want to have a happy back slapping moment do it elsewhere, these questions are unlikely to generate serious discussion as currently phrased.

[JR-]

Not quite. What we see in America is an over optimistic child of a nation, with more power than responisbility and the usual imperial human accounting that sees one american worth a hundred foreigners.

We made those same mistakes before you and see clearly the path you will too walk down.

you do not speak for us all. :)

[LittleGrizzly]

The economy had nowhere to go but up. Now did FDR help it go higher?

The economy could have got worse or stayed the same, like in britian.

[Meneldil]

I can hardly see how a president who :

1 - Ruined the reputation of the US in the whole world (I mean, the only countries that still have some respect for you are Russia and China. It's quite telling).
2 - Started 2 imperialist wars that are likely going to be lost in the long term (Oh yeah, despite CR's claims that everything is alright because Fhoax News said so).
3 - Campaigned on a protectionnist stance and got involved everywhere in the world
4 - Campaigned on cut of gvt spendings and actually increased them by huge amounts
5 - Is on the personnal level a complete and utter moron

couldn't be described as a disaster.

I think Bush will definitely be reminded as one of the worst democratic leaders in human history, at least outside of America.

Overall, he sucked quite a lot, and I hope his presidency will be remembered as a shameful one, because there's really nothing to save him.

[Hooahguy]

I suppose that explains the incredible growth from 1933-37 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Gdp20-40.jpg)...
well of course it helped from the depression, but it was ENDED by WWII.

[Hooahguy]

I can hardly see how a president who :

1 - Ruined the reputation of the US in the whole world (I mean, the only countries that still have some respect for you are Russia and China. It's quite telling).
2 - Started 2 imperialist wars that are likely going to be lost in the long term (Oh yeah, despite CR's claims that everything is alright because Fhoax News said so).
3 - Campaigned on a protectionnist stance and got involved everywhere in the world
4 - Campaigned on cut of gvt spendings and actually increased them by huge amounts
5 - Is on the personnal level a complete and utter moron

couldn't be described as a disaster.

I think Bush will definitely be reminded as one of the worst democratic leaders in human history, at least outside of America.

Overall, he sucked quite a lot, and I hope his presidency will be remembered as a shameful one, because there's really nothing to save him.
and i suppose you think that buchanan and carter were great presidents?
IMO, they were much worse.
lol =P

[Thermal]

Looks like if you aren't american you help to save the world.

well the poll was taking about voting for bush and war in afganistan, decisions only voters and americans have control over, so in this context your right :yes:

[Fragony]

I think Bush will definitely be reminded as one of the worst democratic leaders in human history, at least outside of America.

They said the same about Reagan back in the day, because of history showing reality bashing him became unfashionable, Europeans generally look at eachother for pc-behavioural etiquette-clues before developing the opinion they already had in the first place. Bush ain't that bad, just a bit clumsy. To say he is one of the worst democratic leader in history is just silly.

[Meneldil]

They said the same about Reagan back in the day, because of history showing reality bashing him became unfashionable, Europeans generally look at eachother for pc-behavioural etiquette-clues before developing the opinion they already had in the first place. Bush ain't that bad, just a bit clumsy. To say he is one of the worst democratic leader in history is just silly.


I think Reagan was widely seen as the worst president, until Bush II got the office. And everytime I hear about Reagan (which is a lot, as I'm studying history and polical sciences in Canada), it's basicaly to bash him rather than to say that "history shown us he was a great leader" (:inquisitive:).

So then, according to you, who qualifies for the award of the worst democratic leader of the last 50 years ? You can dislike Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi, Clinton, Tatcher, Reagan or anyone else, and mind you, I dislike/hate most of them, but most of them were not nearly as bad as good old GWB.



and i suppose you think that buchanan and carter were great presidents?
IMO, they were much worse.
lol =P

Sorry, but none knows of Buchanan outside of the US, and Carter, despite being a pointless idiot, did not hurt the US reputation as badly as Bush II did.

[Fragony]

The worst leaders are most likely the ones you never heard of

[yesdachi]

Sorry, but none knows of Buchanan outside of the US, and Carter, despite being a pointless idiot, did not hurt the US reputation as badly as Bush II did.

So PR is more important than the actual job he did?

Carter made the US look like a bunch of fools with his botched rescue attempt and he ruined our reputation with Iran. And he paid to train the terrorists we are fighting today; Carter played a huge part in setting up the Middle Eastern mess we are dealing with now and for the last so many years.

Carter was the worst president but that doesn’t mean W wont be a close second. Only time will tell, but I really don’t think the PR has been damaged much more than it already was 30 years ago as the following survey given to anyone in the middle east will show.

Year: 1980
Question: Do you hate Americans?
Answer: Yes

Year: 2008
Question: Do you hate Americans?
Answer: Yes

One thousand people were surveyed, 200 of them were surveyed by Christians and were never heard of again so the results do not include the missing 200 results and have been deemed inconclusive. :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Quotes from the 'warmongering, simpering oaf' Ronald Reagan (http://www.earstohear.net/Heritage/RonaldReagan.html):


"We've got to do a better job of getting across that America is freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of enterprise. And freedom is special and rare. ... I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit." 1989 farewell address.

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom, and then lost it, have never known it again."

"Our enemies may be irrational, even outright insane, driven by nationalism, religion, ethnicity or ideology. They do not fear the United States for its diplomatic skills or the number of automobiles and software programs it produces. They respect only the firepower of our tanks, planes and helicopter gunships."

More from the man mocked and hated by Europe, the Democrats, and his advisors:

... on 12 June 1987, despite the objections of the State Department and the National Security Council, President Reagan uttered these forceful and historic words before listeners at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin: “General-Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate... Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” ...

His legacy? A bit different from what people expected back then:

Last month the Czech capital of Prague announced its decision to erect a monument to honor Ronald Reagan. And why not? Similar monuments to the man already exist in Budapest and Warsaw, and elsewhere in Eastern Europe.

[Marshal Murat]

"So PR is more important than the actual job he did?"

In the long term, yes.
Woodrow Wilson:
1. Involved the U.S. in several imperialist adventures in Latin America/Philippines which both failed. He also forced Vietnam back into French hands (Ho Chi Minh was involved)
2. Campaigned on keeping the U.S. out of Europe, but got involved?
3. Segregated the federal offices, preventing blacks from achieving previously held positions (except for Post-master general).

When he was around, he was hated and despised by the general populace. Which is why the Republicans won the following election.
Yet today he is revered as the "14-Points Savior of Europe"

[Hooahguy]

The worst leaders are most likely the ones you never heard of
agreed. buchanan did NOTHING to try to stop the south from leaving the union. at least under bush, and even carter, the states arent leaving the union.

[CountArach]

1. The economy had nowhere to go but up. Now did FDR help it go higher? Maybe. But what CA fails to mention is that even with all that wonderful intervention and growth the economy still took at sharp downturn in 37-38 and American unemployment rose and the stock market fell. Then right when we looked to be headed right back to where we started, Hitler invaded Poland.
37-38 was one of the more Conservative parts of FDRs administration where he concentrated more on balancing the budget and cutting spending. After he injected more capital into the market the economy began to recover again.

2. FDR did nothing to help the Ag business. As usual the yankee and rustbelt industrialists got all the handouts and money while the plains were left to rot. The dust bowl is not hit hard enough in American cannon. Its impact on the economy and the lives of those people are an absolute horror story. Not to mention these people were treated like carp everywhere they went.
I'll admit that he didn't do much for farmers, though he did try. The problem was that the farmers were not willing to work on collectivised farms, which is fair enough I suppose.

3. Having said all this FDR was a power hungry demagogue. A man out for his own name and power. A truly despicable man to be completely honest. Hitler saved the man and thats really a shame.
... ummm...?

well of course it helped from the depression, but it was ENDED by WWII.
Then what is your point?

[Yoyoma1910]

Can't we all just agree to put the blame on our parents.





Then we could create a world like Logan's Run.

[Husar]

So America had presidents before Clinton? :inquisitive:

[JR-]

I think Reagan was widely seen as the worst president, until Bush II got the office. And everytime I hear about Reagan (which is a lot, as I'm studying history and polical sciences in Canada), it's basicaly to bash him rather than to say that "history shown us he was a great leader" (:inquisitive:).

So then, according to you, who qualifies for the award of the worst democratic leader of the last 50 years ? You can dislike Blair, Chirac, Berlusconi, Clinton, Tatcher, Reagan or anyone else, and mind you, I dislike/hate most of them, but most of them were not nearly as bad as good old GWB.



Sorry, but none knows of Buchanan outside of the US, and Carter, despite being a pointless idiot, did not hurt the US reputation as badly as Bush II did.

not an uncommon view here too, but i believe it to be very wrong.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I dislike/hate most of them, but most of them were not nearly as bad as good old GWB.

Even Gordon Brown? ~;)

[Hooahguy]

Then what is your point?
dunno. just was dispelling the thought that FDRs programs was the thing that ended the GD.

[Xiahou]

Now if you can find anything in a peer reviewed journal then we can debate.Here's (http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/peer-reviewed-articles-skeptical-of-man.html) just a few(dozen). Not like they're hard to find. :shrug:

[Spartan198]

Humanity in general has helped ruin the world.

[Strike For The South]

37-38 was one of the more Conservative parts of FDRs administration where he concentrated more on balancing the budget and cutting spending. After he injected more capital into the market the economy began to recover again.

You mean like when he told the FBI to dig up dirt on big business because they were causing the recession? Or how magically when the AFL and CIO stopped striking and started fighting business suddenly went back into an upswing? The US owes its enormous debt to this man, nothing else.

Median unemployment never went below 14% the New Deal and all of Roosevelt's grandeur is a myth

Facts Figures (http://www.economics.hawaii.edu/research/seminars/02-03/02-21.pdf)


admit that he didn't do much for farmers, though he did try. The problem was that the farmers were not willing to work on collectivised farms, which is fair enough I suppose.

He did nothing. He let the real cause of the depression wither and die while he pandered to the urban centers. I wasn't aware the feds tried to collectivize farms. I am aware they bought up cattle and offered to plant trees and told the farmers to conserve the soil (which may be the two stupidest suggestions to ever come out of anyones mouth)



.. ummm...?

-The expanded the power of the presdinet to a king-like level (still is)
-He broke precedent by running for more than two terms (little demagouge....allot of New Yorkers do this)
-When the supreme court wouldn't bend to his wishes he tried simply to add more justices
-He intered US citizens
-He was a fascist

[LittleGrizzly]

Struggling to remember now but he did for cotton it may have been, he ordered the destruction of alot of crops so the remaining crops would rise in value

I don't really get the tree planting thing... for wood perhaps... can't really say im against tree planting, but if the products had dropped dramatically in value and allowing a field to lay fallow for a season or two does improve the soil then that suggestion isn't really so stupid...

I am suspicious of conservative views on FDR, i can't help myself im a cynic, but the man who made the goverment grow so much is bound to be hated by conservatives which could lead some cynics to disregard conservative viewpoints on fdr somewhat....

[Meneldil]

So PR is more important than the actual job he did?


Is PR important ? Yes it is, and it should be. If the US wants to appear as the world policeman (and it appears it does, given the last 6 years), then it has to be respected by its allies. Power is not only military, it also works through diplomacy and relationship.

Was Carter bad ? Yes, he indeed was, according to the little I know of him. But according to this same little knowledge, he at least pretended to be a good guy, and tried to act as one, even if he mostly screwed up. On the factual side, he scored poorly, but on the world public opinion side, he wasn't that bad, nothing like Bush.

Bush did not give a damn about the UN, about its allies, tried to divide Europe by playing the "Old Europe vs New Europe" card, opened Gitmo and never agreed to close it, invaded two countries (in a good old Soviet Union way) in which he brought more chaos than anything else, asked his governement to openly lie to the western world public opinion (Zomg, Saddam has WMDs and is closely tied to AQ !!1!!1!), enabled the patriot act, and the list goes on. He did not even try to get some form of legitimacy, and just acted like a 8 years old spoiled kid.
Seeing all this crazyness from outside was at some point clearly scary. Having the leader of the sole remaining superpower talking about crusades during a barely understandable speech is damn crazy.

So yeah, I'm ashamed that some people still support him, outside of the crazy right winger part of the population.
Reagan is disliked mostly because he introduced, together with Tatcher, the neo-liberal policies that we all loathe in Europe. Bush is hated because he acted like an uneducated powermonger wanabe dictator. It's a whole different thing.

As for your survey, yeah, the US are widely disliked in the rest of the world. That's the burden of being a world superpower. It doesn't mean that the US can't change its image: there's a clear difference between say, the JFK or Clinton eras and the Nixon or GWB ones.
France has always been plagued by anti-americanism for example. Yet, it wasn't nearly as bad under Clinton's presidency. It wasn't something that would show up in any discussion. Bush made things much worse, and it will likely take time to heal.



The worst leaders are most likely the ones you never heard of
Disagree, the leaders I've never heard of are the ones who haven't done anything. That doesn't make them bad or good. Most of the leaders from the post-war era enjoyed the spectacular economic growth that was going on back then, and as such are not particularly well known.

[KarlXII]

dunno. just was dispelling the thought that FDRs programs was the thing that ended the GD.

We entered the War in 1941, the Depression was largely over by the Polish Invasion.

Oh, is it because he was a Democrat? :juggle2:

[Strike For The South]

We entered the War in 1941, the Depression was largely over by the Polish Invasion.

Oh, is it because he was a Democrat? :juggle2:

No it wasnt and no its not.

[KarlXII]

No it wasnt and no its not.

If you would like to correct me, please, it has always been my understanding that the worst parts of the Depression were over around the start of the War, and that FDR's policies helped. Thanks.

[Strike For The South]

If you would like to correct me, please, it has always been my understanding that the worst parts of the Depression were over around the start of the War, and that FDR's policies helped. Thanks.

The answer is in this thread. FDR was not a democrat or a republican. His expansion of presidential powers is mind-boggling and one of the reasons why we have unreasonable expectations for all presidents since. Bush Crossed the line FDR annihilated it.

[seireikhaan]

FDRs government programs didnt end the depression. WWII did. our economy boomed b/c of WWII, not FDR, unless he is the one who commisions all the factories. but he definitely wasnt a disaster.
A) You're putting words in my mouth, please stop.

B) Sorry, but you're frankly wrong. Link. (http://%22http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions_2.htm)


Before the Great Depression of the 1930s any downturn in economic activity was referred to as a depression. The term recession was developed in this period to differentiate periods like the 1930s from smaller economic declines that occurred in 1910 and 1913. This leads to the simple definition of a depression as a recession that lasts longer and has a larger decline in business activity.

So how can we tell the difference between a recession and a depression? A good rule of thumb for determining the difference between a recession and a depression is to look at the changes in GNP. A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe. By this yardstick, the last depression in the United States was from May 1937 to June 1938, where real GDP declined by 18.2 percent. If we use this method then the Great Depression of the 1930s can be seen as two separate events: an incredibly severe depression lasting from August 1929 to March 1933 where real GDP declined by almost 33 percent, a period of recovery, then another less severe depression of 1937-38. The United States hasn’t had anything even close to a depression in the post-war period. The worst recession in the last 60 years was from November 1973 to March 1975, where real GDP fell by 4.9 percent. Countries such as Finland and Indonesia have suffered depressions in recent memory using this definition.Great depression was actually two different depressions accompanied by recessions. The DEPRESSION ended in 1938. The recession continued to varying degrees until WWII.




I find it ironic that we got this whole FDR debate going after I queried Seamus regarding economic activity during and after his reign, and everyone henceforth decided to ignore my actual points, except for one person to put words in my mouth AND spew falsehoods in the same sentence.

[Strike For The South]

I don't think there should be any question if FDR's policies "helped" there is tangible evidence that they did. However the real argument is that his polices ruined us for the longer term and made the president more like a king. IMO FDR is the closest thing to a fascist we have had.

[seireikhaan]

Imperial presidents are the price of power.

[Strike For The South]

Imperial presidents are the price of power.

I beg to disagree.

[seireikhaan]

I beg to disagree.
United States as superpower: WWII onwards.

President's in that time period:

Franklin Roosevelt- I think we can agree he was an imperial president.

Harry Truman- Invaded Korea without congressional declaration of war.

Dwight Eisenhower- Federal Highway system.

John Kennedy- Bay of Pigs, begins military operations in Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson- Actually invaded Vietnam. Again, no congressional approval.

Richard Nixon- Must I even say?

Gerald Ford- Was a lame duck from the beginning.

Jimmy Carter- Operations in Iran and Latin America, again no DOW.

Ronald Reagain- Escalates Iran/Contra dealings.

George H. W. Bush- Invades Iraq, again no congressional declaration of war.

Bill Clinton- Topples Haiti regime, again no Congressional approval for war, sends troops into Kosovo.

George W. Bush- Invades Iraq and Afghanistan without congressional declarations of war. Gitmo.


Your turn.

[Strike For The South]

United States as superpower: WWII onwards.

President's in that time period:

Franklin Roosevelt- I think we can agree he was an imperial president.

Harry Truman- Invaded Korea without congressional declaration of war.

Dwight Eisenhower- Federal Highway system.

John Kennedy- Bay of Pigs, begins military operations in Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson- Actually invaded Vietnam. Again, no congressional approval.

Richard Nixon- Must I even say?

Gerald Ford- Was a lame duck from the beginning.

Jimmy Carter- Operations in Iran and Latin America, again no DOW.

Ronald Reagain- Escalates Iran/Contra dealings.

George H. W. Bush- Invades Iraq, again no congressional declaration of war.

Bill Clinton- Topples Haiti regime, again no Congressional approval for war, sends troops into Kosovo.

George W. Bush- Invades Iraq and Afghanistan without congressional declarations of war. Gitmo.


Your turn.

You misread my statement. I meant power does not necessarily come with a strong Pres. I agree that all these men have overstepped there bounds thats the unfortunate state that was America.

I agree with you sweetheart.

I will disagree with you on IKE. The I-system went through the leg and is a good use of taxpayer money. Ford also is more important than people like to think.

Not to mention all these men have used less power that FDR

[seireikhaan]

You misread my statement. I meant power does not necessarily come with a strong Pres. I agree that all these men have overstepped there bounds thats the unfortunate state that was America.

I agree with you sweetheart.

I will disagree with you on IKE. The I-system went through the leg and is a good use of taxpayer money. Ford also is more important than people like to think.

Not to mention all these men have used less power that FDR
Ah, ok, I was interpreting the reverse.

However, by the logic you presented of the interstate program, could we not justify huge expanses in government? The ability of government officials to sell any program as a "good use of taxpayer money" is pretty all encompassing.

[JR-]

Not directed at Melendil:



Reagan is disliked mostly because he introduced, together with Thatcher, the neo-liberal policies that we all loathe in Europe.

If i replaced "in Europe" with the words "on the continent" that may prove to render the statement as a defining moment in the discussion about Britain in europe.

One of the reasons why i like Reagan and Thatcher so much was precisely because of political persuasion.

It would be interesting to see how much the revised statement above polarised orghahs here, and whether that exposed a cultural/political difference between Britain and the continent...............?

[LittleGrizzly]

Maybe you should change ¨on the continent¨ back to ¨in europe¨ with the exception of england... southern england... ? There is no great love loss for thatcher (and i guess that would extend to reegan) in Wales...

[Hooahguy]

We entered the War in 1941, the Depression was largely over by the Polish Invasion.

Oh, is it because he was a Democrat? :juggle2:
nope. there was still a 14.6 unemployment rate. with WWII, it was shot down by the draft.
maybe if we had a draft today.... :rolleyes:

[yesdachi]

United States as superpower: WWII onwards.

President's in that time period:

Franklin Roosevelt- I think we can agree he was an imperial president.

Harry Truman- Invaded Korea without congressional declaration of war.

Dwight Eisenhower- Federal Highway system.

John Kennedy- Bay of Pigs, begins military operations in Vietnam.

Lyndon Johnson- Actually invaded Vietnam. Again, no congressional approval.

Richard Nixon- Must I even say?

Gerald Ford- Was a lame duck from the beginning.

Jimmy Carter- Operations in Iran and Latin America, again no DOW.

Ronald Reagain- Escalates Iran/Contra dealings.

George H. W. Bush- Invades Iraq, again no congressional declaration of war.

Bill Clinton- Topples Haiti regime, again no Congressional approval for war, sends troops into Kosovo.

George W. Bush- Invades Iraq and Afghanistan without congressional declarations of war. Gitmo.


Your turn.

Nice job proving that the US doesn’t need a congressional DOW to go to war.

[Strike For The South]

Ah, ok, I was interpreting the reverse.

However, by the logic you presented of the interstate program, could we not justify huge expanses in government? The ability of government officials to sell any program as a "good use of taxpayer money" is pretty all encompassing.

I think an interstate road system was a dang good use of taxpayer money. One of the few things I like. I agree the term is open to interpretation but what isn't?

[seireikhaan]

nope. there was still a 14.6 unemployment rate. with WWII, it was shot down by the draft.
maybe if we had a draft today.... :rolleyes:
Do you have me on ignore or something? :inquisitive:

[Hooahguy]

Do you have me on ignore or something? :inquisitive:
maybe..... dunno what you are talking about....

EDIT: nm, read your post. (didnt both the last time.)
sorry about that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not quite. What we see in America is an over optimistic child of a nation, with more power than responisbility and the usual imperial human accounting that sees one american worth a hundred foreigners.

We made those same mistakes before you and see clearly the path you will too walk down.

Right. As Englishmen, you have somehow lived longer than Americans and personally viewed historical occurrences through the ages. You clearly have a stronger and more mature government than we do.

Worth is relative. I'm the one suggesting that we send out troops to other nations because human life is human life no matter where it is. You are the one suggesting because we have done just that that we are ruining the world.

Re-consider the patronage point of view. You are just as old as we are on an individual level, have read the same books, and have a government that successfully governs 56 million (rather ethnically heterogeneous) citizenry.

We, even more successfully, govern 300 million people with a much more extreme cultural divide. You have around 1/5th the amount of people who have much more in common culturally. We even beat you slightly in per capita GDP by most standards.

Don't lecture us as some sort of a father figure. Get off of your high horse.

Would anyone argue that American internationalism has been as ethically bankrupt as the British Empire was or that the U.S. agenda truly is worse than any other internationalist run, historically?

(I have a naturally scolding writing style - I actually like and respect you, Idaho:clown:)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...I find it ironic that we got this whole FDR debate going after I queried Seamus regarding economic activity during and after his reign, and everyone henceforth decided to ignore my actual points, except for one person to put words in my mouth AND spew falsehoods in the same sentence.

Sorry, 'khann, but every time I tried to get off a more detailed reply I had to head off for a meeting or some such. I will gladly enumerate my problems with FDR, but will endeavor to do so politely and without presuming to know your mind on the issue.

FDR's New Deal efforts were, at best, a mixed bag. In terms of materially reducing the impact of the Great Depression, a number of recent studies (such as those pointed out by Strike above) suggest that the New Deal made little difference and, according to some, may even have lengthened the depression a bit. However, he did create an impression that things were happening and that America was "getting back to work." While this was mostly "P.R.," Meneldil is correct in asserting that image management and direct appeals to the public are very much presidential tools -- TR's famous "bully pulpit. FDR did accomplish much to improve the mood and the public morale, and these things did, at least indirectly, help the USA begin to pull out of the Depression and achieve a less severe "down" cycle condition. WW2 ended the recession phase of the Great Depression and set the stage for the USA's phenomal growth thereafter. The great economic successes and growth that occurred in the aftermath of WW2 were a product of America's huge industrial base, the damaged industrial bases of our recent Allies and Enemies, and a reduction of taxes that allowed businesses to hone the profit margins. The combination built an enviable standard of living.

FDR did, however, set the stage for later disasters with his penchant for ignoring problems until they became crises (a real crisis-manager type was he) and his failure to establish clear lines of authority (he was famous for creating new bureacracies whose duties superceded the previous iteration....without bothering to de-establish the previous one. Bureacratic politics ran amok in Washington in the 1930s and 1940s). FDR transformed the US government from a quaint anachronism that did little damage into a massive byzantine bureacracy of constantly competing entities that -- by pursuing their own bureacratic political agendas for survival -- intrude ever more constantly into the daily lives of every American. This bureacracy and its influence have become MORE pervasive in every single administration since save for Reagan -- and Ronnie did little more than to provide a 6 year pause in that growth.

FDR was the champion of Labor -- while permanently gelding them. Yes, he backed all sorts of things that were pro labor and set a fairly pro-labor tone for the NLRB. Encouraged collective bargaining efforts etc. However, FDR is also the chap who saw to it through many of those same legislative efforts that no "Wobblie" approach was ever able to re-emerge and subsumed enough of the socialist agenda into the body of the Democrat party that no Labor party and no unified Labor movement could really exist in the USA. He planned to introduce legislation to end the Social Security program in favor of requiring private annuities...but never made the effort to make it happen (so instead we have the current boondoggle, made worse by Johnson's "great" :dizzy: society.

By the middle of 1939, FDR could see that the USA was beginning to turn the corner on the Great Depression. The "great challenge" that had prompted his Presidency had been met. As did many, he clearly forsaw that Europe would be at war sometime in the next few years. He then made the fateful decision that he, and only he, was a good enough leader to help us meet that challenge. He decided, against the will of the majority of the American people, that we not only needed to be in the war, but in the war as rapidly as he could make it happen. He then outright lied about it in his campaign to regain the office. But he was the "savior" and he got his third term.

History has suggested that he was right to do so. The USA was, under FDR, marginally more prepared for war than it would have been under a Republican administration or the administration of Harriman or some other Democrat "light."

However, I'd argue that FDR put far more effort into getting us into the war than he did in preparing us, but that's another debate. However, by taking a third term he ended up transforming the Presidency into its modern, "imperial" form. He started as the "Savior" with his new deal. When that had run its course, he traded on the cult of personality he had enacted to take on WW2 as his next project. He ended up marginalizing Congress and running the show for more than 12 years. Today, all economic policy begins with the Presidency. All Foreign Policy begins with the Presidency. The Presidency decides what the speed limit should be and has even featured lectures on where we should set our thermostats!

Moreover, in the last portion of his third term and throughout his abbreviated 4th, FDR was simply too sick to properly discharge the duties of his office. He was almost certainly aware of this prior to his 4th term. Nevertheless "FDR" was too important to step aside. The cult of personality had become so deep that it was unthinkable to prosecute the war without him. His Vice President was barely invited to the White House, much less prepared for a transition to power -- only FDR mattered. So FDR let himself be "persuaded" to continue. Stalin ate his lunch at the later conferences and FDR managed to do little or nothing to control his warring bureacracy during the last year of his life. It can be argued that the entirety of the Cold War was worsened because of the weaknesses in leadership displayed by an ailing FDR and a kept-in-the-dark until the last moment Truman.

All-in-all, FDR is a very mixed bag for me. I'd have probably loved to have a martini with him (he supposedly mixed fine one) but I'd have preferred him to have been OUT by 1940 so that some of his lasting (though somewhat unintentional) harm could have been abated early before it took deep root.

[seireikhaan]

Sorry, 'khann, but every time I tried to get off a more detailed reply I had to head off for a meeting or some such. I will gladly enumerate my problems with FDR, but will endeavor to do so politely and without presuming to know your mind on the issue.
My apologies, Seamus, if I came across as aggressive towards you. I realize you are indeed a busy man. I was instead taking out frustration at others commenting in the thread. Thank you for such a detailed response.


FDR's New Deal efforts were, at best, a mixed bag. In terms of materially reducing the impact of the Great Depression, a number of recent studies (such as those pointed out by Strike above) suggest that the New Deal made little difference and, according to some, may even have lengthened the depression a bit. However, he did create an impression that things were happening and that America was "getting back to work." While this was mostly "P.R.," Meneldil is correct in asserting that image management and direct appeals to the public are very much presidential tools -- TR's famous "bully pulpit. FDR did accomplish much to improve the mood and the public morale, and these things did, at least indirectly, help the USA begin to pull out of the Depression and achieve a less severe "down" cycle condition. WW2 ended the recession phase of the Great Depression and set the stage for the USA's phenomal growth thereafter. The great economic successes and growth that occurred in the aftermath of WW2 were a product of America's huge industrial base, the damaged industrial bases of our recent Allies and Enemies, and a reduction of taxes that allowed businesses to hone the profit margins. The combination built an enviable standard of living.
Regarding the New Deal- I agree that it was indeed a mixed bag. Some parts of it worked better than others. I also agree that attempting to improve the morale of a country which was facing hardships far beyond what it had faced in a very, very long time was also quite important, particularly in motivating people to have confidence in both the government and the banking industry in particular.

As for Economic growth following WWII. Yes, part of it comes from a relative lack of competition for years due to Europe having been shelled into near oblivion, Japan in economic infancy, and the USSR with a vastly inferior overall GDP due to its collectivist economy. However, I must question the idea that taxes were reduced much following WWII. A couple examples here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) and here (http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml). As you can see, top marginal tax rates(ones which theoretically should have a significant, though by no means only, impact on business) were still incredibly high from '46 to '81. As well, during the Korean war, tax burden shot back up to 19% as a share of GDP, 1% less than during WWII.


FDR did, however, set the stage for later disasters with his penchant for ignoring problems until they became crises (a real crisis-manager type was he) and his failure to establish clear lines of authority (he was famous for creating new bureacracies whose duties superceded the previous iteration....without bothering to de-establish the previous one. Bureacratic politics ran amok in Washington in the 1930s and 1940s). FDR transformed the US government from a quaint anachronism that did little damage into a massive byzantine bureacracy of constantly competing entities that -- by pursuing their own bureacratic political agendas for survival -- intrude ever more constantly into the daily lives of every American. This bureacracy and its influence have become MORE pervasive in every single administration since save for Reagan -- and Ronnie did little more than to provide a 6 year pause in that growth.
I will point out that faulting a man for not realizing problems until they become a crisis seems to be a fairly human attribute- as a general rule, only the most savvy of people are skilled enough to preempt crisis. I agree that gov't became far, far more powerful during FDR's reign, and that much of it has not been undone. My point, however, is that economic growth, fear of another great depression, the United State's role as a superpower, as well as anti-Soviet sentiment did just as much as FDR in maintaining the enormous size of the gov't.


FDR was the champion of Labor -- while permanently gelding them. Yes, he backed all sorts of things that were pro labor and set a fairly pro-labor tone for the NLRB. Encouraged collective bargaining efforts etc. However, FDR is also the chap who saw to it through many of those same legislative efforts that no "Wobblie" approach was ever able to re-emerge and subsumed enough of the socialist agenda into the body of the Democrat party that no Labor party and no unified Labor movement could really exist in the USA. He planned to introduce legislation to end the Social Security program in favor of requiring private annuities...but never made the effort to make it happen (so instead we have the current boondoggle, made worse by Johnson's "great" :dizzy: society.
I'm afraid you'll have to further explain this point to me.


By the middle of 1939, FDR could see that the USA was beginning to turn the corner on the Great Depression. The "great challenge" that had prompted his Presidency had been met. As did many, he clearly forsaw that Europe would be at war sometime in the next few years. He then made the fateful decision that he, and only he, was a good enough leader to help us meet that challenge. He decided, against the will of the majority of the American people, that we not only needed to be in the war, but in the war as rapidly as he could make it happen. He then outright lied about it in his campaign to regain the office. But he was the "savior" and he got his third term.

History has suggested that he was right to do so. The USA was, under FDR, marginally more prepared for war than it would have been under a Republican administration or the administration of Harriman or some other Democrat "light."

However, I'd argue that FDR put far more effort into getting us into the war than he did in preparing us, but that's another debate. However, by taking a third term he ended up transforming the Presidency into its modern, "imperial" form. He started as the "Savior" with his new deal. When that had run its course, he traded on the cult of personality he had enacted to take on WW2 as his next project. He ended up marginalizing Congress and running the show for more than 12 years. Today, all economic policy begins with the Presidency. All Foreign Policy begins with the Presidency. The Presidency decides what the speed limit should be and has even featured lectures on where we should set our thermostats!
Please explain how FDR marginilized congress. I fail to see how he himself did this. Not only was FDR the last president to submit a DOW to congress, but it was congress itself which thus mandated after FDR that no President could attain 2 terms in the oval office. Again, I would attribute the rise of the Presidency to fear. Fear of another Depression. Fear of the Soviets. Fear of losing our newfound place at the top of the world. Yes, FDR made the Presidency more powerful through his examples of a New Deal, as well as guiding the country through WWII. But it was the people and congress who allowed it to live as his legacy and "gift".


Moreover, in the last portion of his third term and throughout his abbreviated 4th, FDR was simply too sick to properly discharge the duties of his office. He was almost certainly aware of this prior to his 4th term. Nevertheless "FDR" was too important to step aside. The cult of personality had become so deep that it was unthinkable to prosecute the war without him. His Vice President was barely invited to the White House, much less prepared for a transition to power -- only FDR mattered. So FDR let himself be "persuaded" to continue. Stalin ate his lunch at the later conferences and FDR managed to do little or nothing to control his warring bureacracy during the last year of his life. It can be argued that the entirety of the Cold War was worsened because of the weaknesses in leadership displayed by an ailing FDR and a kept-in-the-dark until the last moment Truman.
I agree on the point of Stalin. While it was important to be diplomatic with our necessary ally, Stalin, he should have listened to Churchill more on the matter. Of course, the other matter is that Stalin had the leverage in that if the Soviets made peace with Germany, the UK and US would have lost the punching bag which the Soviets provided to wear down the German army so badly. Even still, I agree it could have been handled much better.


All-in-all, FDR is a very mixed bag for me. I'd have probably loved to have a martini with him (he supposedly mixed a fine one) but I'd have preferred him to have been OUT by 1940 so that some of his lasting (though somewhat unintentional) harm could have been abated early before it took deep root.
If he is indeed a mixed bag, I feel then, that declaring him to be a "disaster" to be a bit of a stretch. I agree that many of his programs should have been halted once their usefulness had ceased, and that his polio did hamper his third and fourth administrations. However, I feel that both undue credit/blame (depending on one's view) is given to him. He was what he was. We had the opportunities to absolve his more harmful projects, yet we did not. To blame him for their continued existence is, in my view, unjust.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As for Economic growth following WWII. Yes, part of it comes from a relative lack of competition for years due to Europe having been shelled into near oblivion, Japan in economic infancy, and the USSR with a vastly inferior overall GDP due to its collectivist economy. However, I must question the idea that taxes were reduced much following WWII. A couple examples here (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213) and here (http://www.treasury.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml). As you can see, top marginal tax rates(ones which theoretically should have a significant, though by no means only, impact on business) were still incredibly high from '46 to '81. As well, during the Korean war, tax burden shot back up to 19% as a share of GDP, 1% less than during WWII.

Actually, I was referring to the tax reductions made in 1948. USA real GDP shrank nearly 3% between war's end and 1948. From 1948 to 1954 it grew nearly 4%. From 1954 (progressive income tax instituted, top rate 91%) to 1958 growth slowed by over a full point.


I will point out that faulting a man for not realizing problems until they become a crisis seems to be a fairly human attribute- as a general rule, only the most savvy of people are skilled enough to preempt crisis. I agree that gov't became far, far more powerful during FDR's reign, and that much of it has not been undone. My point, however, is that economic growth, fear of another great depression, the United State's role as a superpower, as well as anti-Soviet sentiment did just as much as FDR in maintaining the enormous size of the gov't.

I would concur that all of those factors played a significant role. FDR was notorious for NOT resolving things, but letting subordinates fight it out and eventually picking up a winner. Still, he is hardly the only national leader to have had these qualities. My point was that the "messianic" character of his presidency let him do things that others could not have -- and with fewer counterbalances.


I'm afraid you'll have to further explain this point to me.

Labor won many of its "rights" during FDR's terms, notably with the Wagner act. While this is usually cited as a labor victory in that it acknowledged/supported the ideas of collective bargaining and the right ot organize, it also set up the NLRB. The NLRB acts as a "break" on both management and labor and tries to channel/restrict the behavior of both. Prima facie, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this and it seems fair, but it also serves to keep the focus on individual strikes and negotiations -- USW v. U.S. Steel -- and keeps things individuated. This actually makes it almost impossible for labor to coalesce into a single political force. They are a political player, but no Labor party or national laboring class movement could ever really develop.


Please explain how FDR marginilized congress. I fail to see how he himself did this. Not only was FDR the last president to submit a DOW to congress, but it was congress itself which thus mandated after FDR that no President could attain 2 terms in the oval office. Again, I would attribute the rise of the Presidency to fear. Fear of another Depression. Fear of the Soviets. Fear of losing our newfound place at the top of the world. Yes, FDR made the Presidency more powerful through his examples of a New Deal, as well as guiding the country through WWII. But it was the people and congress who allowed it to live as his legacy and "gift".

He sidestepped them so well and so often that, once they'd declared war -- and it wasn't a choice as the only "no" required police protection until she was removed from office by her state's voters -- Roosevelt essentially ignored them except of having them pass -- almost without debate -- his war budgets. By the end of the war, there was a large bureacracy, a large military industrial complex, and an entire government framework that was used to receiving directives from the President and putting them into practice. Congress has never officially been diminished, but in practice it has. Budgets were supposed to be designed by the House of Reps, modified by the Senate to reflect the will of their states, and then signed and implemented by the President. After Roosevelt, the President's admin decides what they want to do, makes a proposal, and then Congress adds pork it wants and occasionally hammers at certain individual programs. Its a fundamental shift in approach and, while not unheard of before FDR, was more or less sacrosant when he passed.


[/QUOTE]If he is indeed a mixed bag, I feel then, that declaring him to be a "disaster" to be a bit of a stretch. I agree that many of his programs should have been halted once their usefulness had ceased, and that his polio did hamper his third and fourth administrations. However, I feel that both undue credit/blame (depending on one's view) is given to him. He was what he was. We had the opportunities to absolve his more harmful projects, yet we did not. To blame him for their continued existence is, in my view, unjust.[/QUOTE]

I didn't declare him a "disaster" as a presidency. My comment said I was tempted to do so. He accomplished much good as well, so for me "mixed" is the most accurate.

[Idaho]

Right. As Englishmen, you have somehow lived longer than Americans and personally viewed historical occurrences through the ages. You clearly have a stronger and more mature government than we do.

Would anyone argue that American internationalism has been as ethically bankrupt as the British Empire was or that the U.S. agenda truly is worse than any other internationalist run, historically?

(I have a naturally scolding writing style - I actually like and respect you, Idaho:clown:)

Not at all. Our government is incompetent and self serving in it's own way. The US govt is just as bad as all the other internationalist runs. And like those before it, will have a period of soul-searching and regret once the current decline gets fully underway.

It's not that European's are cleverer or personally seen it all before. But that our national expectations and cultural beliefs with regard to imperialism are different.

And don't worry about offending me - I'm far too thick-skinned :)

[CountArach]

nope. there was still a 14.6 unemployment rate. with WWII, it was shot down by the draft.
maybe if we had a draft today.... :rolleyes:
Decreasing the unemployemnt rate by 11% ISN'T ENOUGH!?!?

Besides the statistics you are using are not comparable to today's statistics. Clinton changed what number is used in official government statistics when he came into office. If you look at the below link you will see U3 and U6. U3 is what is quoted in the media. U6 is what used to be used:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

[JR-]

Decreasing the unemployemnt rate by 11% ISN'T ENOUGH!?!?

Besides the statistics you are using are not comparable to today's statistics. Clinton changed what number is used in official government statistics when he came into office. If you look at the below link you will see U3 and U6. U3 is what is quoted in the media. U6 is what used to be used:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

funny that, Blair did exactly the same with employment statistics when Nu-Lab rolled into town.

[Hooahguy]

Decreasing the unemployemnt rate by 11% ISN'T ENOUGH!?!?

Besides the statistics you are using are not comparable to today's statistics. Clinton changed what number is used in official government statistics when he came into office. If you look at the below link you will see U3 and U6. U3 is what is quoted in the media. U6 is what used to be used:
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm
i didnt say it wasnt enough.

[CountArach]

there was still a 14.6 unemployment rate.
Quadruple emphasis mine.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Question - I read a paper today about how blacks were treated in the New Deal and Depression. Does anyone have opinions on this matter, namely on how it effects your opinion of the United States during the Depression?

[CountArach]

Question - I read a paper today about how blacks were treated in the New Deal and Depression. Does anyone have opinions on this matter, namely on how it effects your opinion of the United States during the Depression?
According to wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal#African_Americans) there were several Progressive things put in place for them - which is great by me. That said he should have lynching a crime and found a way to get rid of the poll taxes.

[Lord Winter]

Question - I read a paper today about how blacks were treated in the New Deal and Depression. Does anyone have opinions on this matter, namely on how it effects your opinion of the United States during the Depression?

It also marked the shift of blacks from the Republican party to the democrats. So like CA said they made modest gains. However there was nothing extraordinary that they gained, that would have to wait until JFK and LBJ.

[Strike For The South]

It also marked the shift of blacks from the Republican party to the democrats. So like CA said they made modest gains. However there was nothing extraordinary that they gained, that would have to wait until JFK and LBJ.

The black vote literally did not matter before the civil rights movement. People seriously underestimate they racism at all levels of society.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The paper claimed that blacks suffered far more in the depression, namely due to workplace discrimination, were paid significantly less than whites, 2/3rds of blacks went into debt or earned no money, that the Democrats refused to pass an anti-lynching bill in the Senate, the phrase of "first fired, last hired" was mentioned, the fact that government seemed to concentrate entirely on whites instead of blacks, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration forcing blacks off land, etc.

Essentially, in light of these things, do you think that in fact, instead of in theory, that the status of blacks was improved in any significant way? Or, during the depression and the New Deal, were blacks hurt more than whites in your opinion?

Just noting, by the way, that I'd link this to you if I could, but I unfortunately only have it in text form.


It also marked the shift of blacks from the Republican party to the democrats.

Yes, that was noted in the paper, but the question is whether it ended up helping blacks or not.

[CountArach]

Just noting, by the way, that I'd link this to you if I could, but I unfortunately only have it in text form.
May I please have this text form?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

May I please have this text form?

It is on paper, I would have to type it all out.

[CountArach]

It is on paper, I would have to type it all out.
Oh, sure.

[Strike For The South]

The paper claimed that blacks suffered far more in the depression, namely due to workplace discrimination, were paid significantly less than whites, 2/3rds of blacks went into debt or earned no money, that the Democrats refused to pass an anti-lynching bill in the Senate, the phrase of "first fired, last hired" was mentioned, the fact that government seemed to concentrate entirely on whites instead of blacks, the Agricultural Adjustment Administration forcing blacks off land, etc.

Essentially, in light of these things, do you think that in fact, instead of in theory, that the status of blacks was improved in any significant way? Or, during the depression and the New Deal, were blacks hurt more than whites in your opinion?

Just noting, by the way, that I'd link this to you if I could, but I unfortunately only have it in text form.

Blacks always got the short end of the stick and in economic recession things got worse for everyone including them. All the things you mentioned happened before and after the depression. The demos the refused to pass the Dyer Anti-lynching bill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyer_Anti-Lynching_Bill) because the solid south filibustered it. Not that it would've mattered anyway due to the justice system down south.

Essentially nothing much changed and wouldn't for awhile.

[CountArach]

Blacks always got the short end of the stick and in economic recession things got worse for everyone including them.
Yep, that's always the way with minorities.

[Strike For The South]

Yep, that's always the way with minorities.

We agreed. I don't like that. That means I'm wrong!

[Crazed Rabbit]

I have to laugh at those 'civilized, refined' folks who spit on Reagan because he was so good at advancing his principles. Really, I don't care for their opinion. Western Europe can hate him all they want. The people on the other side of the wall he demanded be torn down have a different opinion, and I think its theirs that matters more.

Also, vis a vis FDR: he and Hoover did so many stupid, stupid things.

Hoover started it off with the huge tariff hike that began a round of protectionism worldwide, which of course hurt trade terribly. A truly stupid move.

FDR and his advisors didn't seem to really understand economics - they thought if they could keep wage prices and prices of goods high, the economy would recover. So they drafted a whole bunch of laws that let businesses collude and violate unenforced anti-trust laws, set minimum prices and wages controlled the market, and gave handouts to labor. Think of that - working to keep prices high while people became poor. Of course that stopped the market from correcting itself.

And then he passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which destroyed food - livestock and crops - while people went hungry. Why? The same idiotic notion - to keep prices high to help farmers.

That was just the beginning, literally, of FDR's stupid policies regarding the economy. His programs lengthened the depression. His spat of spending after the second economic nosedive in the late 1930s didn't end the recession.

And both FDR and Hoover sat around while the Federal Reserve, created for the type of financial disaster present in the Great Depression and preventing private firms from fixing things as in 1907, screwed the pooch and let the monetary supply shrivel up.

Perhaps worse than all the continued suffering FDR caused from his foolish policies was the massive changes he put into the federal government.

CR

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Essentially nothing much changed and wouldn't for awhile.

Thank you, that is my opinion also.

[Fragony]

and refuse to believe in climate change?

New report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Secular scientists outnumber globalwarmists 12 to one, which should hardly a surprise, considering what we are talking about manmade-climatechangelol

[CountArach]

New report http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9

Secular scientists outnumber globalwarmists 12 to one, which should hardly a surprise, considering what we are talking about manmade-climatechangelol
:laugh4:

Frag, you realise that is the US Minority Report, right? You know the ones produced SOLELY by Republicans? Also, that list of 650 is based on the earlier list of 413 which included:

20 economists
44 TV Weathermen
84 people connected to the fossil fuel industry (Many accepting payments)
70 who have no expertise in the subject
People who were put on there without permission and in fact have spent their career arguing the EXACT OPPOSITE.
Please do better next time you post 'evidence'.

[Fragony]

:laugh4:

Frag, you realise that is the US Minority Report, right? You know the ones produced SOLELY by Republicans?

So? Republicans must be smarter people.

There is obviously no consensus like global-warmists insist, quite the contrary. Nobody believes this crap anymore except those that feed from it. Got a nice video where they are confronted with the scientific data, guy used to be a believer but he made a full recovery, is sadly in dutch but it's hilarious to see them squirming.

watch the body language http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/321691/e966ad99/klimatosoof_pwnd_global_warming_hoaxers.html

[CountArach]

So? Republicans must be smarter people.
Whatever gets you through the night.

[Furunculus]

I am a skeptic* because i am a geologist by training.

But i was surprised to find that geologists were among the most skeptical of Earth Science disciplines when it comes to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as currently 'understood'. Surprised because I never became a practicing geologist and was therefore unconnected to the geology hive mind.

* see political leanings for full explanation.

[Fragony]

Whatever gets you through the night.

Let us examine the mind of a believer. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION -> comclusion, there are no weapons of mass destruction. Makes sense, at first. Yet, no rise in temperature -> IT IS RISING ANYWAY YOUSUCK

Repiblicans are apprantly gifted enough to understand that when something isn't happening, it isn't happening.

[Idaho]

Interesting Fragony.

Look at these statements:

There is no global warming
There is no man-made global warming
I am skeptical about man-made global warming
I am skeptical about the climate models used in regard to global warming
I am skeptical about the climate models used in regard to man made global warming

Obviously to a man of great intelligence all these statements are the same :laugh4:

[CountArach]

But i was surprised to find that geologists were among the most skeptical of Earth Science disciplines when it comes to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as currently 'understood'. Surprised because I never became a practicing geologist and was therefore unconnected to the geology hive mind.
The most commonly cited reason is that geologists often see trends in the earth over hundreds of thousands of years, whereas Climate Change is only a recent and relatively short-term phenomenon.

Repiblicans are apprantly gifted enough to understand that when something isn't happening, it isn't happening.
Like Iraq funding Al-Qaeda? :idea:

[Fragony]

Like Iraq funding Al-Qaeda?

See what just happened?

[CountArach]

Like Iraq funding Al-Qaeda?

See what just happened?
No, I can't get it through my mind clouded by all the CO2 - could you fill me in please?

[Ironside]

Let us examine the mind of a believer. NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION -> comclusion, there are no weapons of mass destruction. Makes sense, at first. Yet, no rise in temperature -> IT IS RISING ANYWAY YOUSUCK

Repiblicans are apprantly gifted enough to understand that when something isn't happening, it isn't happening.

Yes, the unusually cold year of 2008 (with a strong La Nina) ended up as the 10:th warmest year since the data started in 1850... And according to the preliminary data for 2009 it will lose its top ten place next year.

I think it's obvous that we can debunk global warming as a myth right now. :juggle:

Judging from the siny+x behavior with siny with a 50-60 yearish cycle it's gonna take until about 2035-2040 until the next big heating period comes, x' also seems to be growing, but alas there isn't enough data points to be certain. The one who lives will see

[Fragony]

I think it's obvous that we can debunk global warming as a myth right now. :juggle:


Not enterily of course since we got a whopping increase of 0.6 degree celcius since 1850 may god help us all :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

The most commonly cited reason is that geologists often see trends in the earth over hundreds of thousands of years, whereas Climate Change is only a recent and relatively short-term phenomenon.

Yes, we have spent a great deal of our education looking at climate trends and their impacts, and we have seen these trends repeatedly.

But by the same token we are also aware of climate change events that have been catastrophic, i.e. very rapid and sudden with catastrophic effect of biodiversity, so it isn't just a case of seeing nice and smooth repeating bell-curves spanning hundreds of millions of years.

But that does not mean that we/I accept Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as is currently understood by the IPCC, which to deconstruct that statement reads:
1) We accept that human activity does have an impact on climate, and thus causes it to change
2) We accept that climate change can be catastrophic, and thus disastrous to us as examples of biodiversity

However:
a) Are we about to experience catastrophic climate change?
b) How much are humans the cause of this change?
c) How effective the current proposals might be at effecting a deviation against a catastrophic trend?

Because:
a) If it isn't catastrophic then why not adapt.
b) If it ain't caused in large part by us then the measures proposed will have little effect.
c) If the science is incomplete/incorrect then they vastly expensive measures will be ineffective, why not build houses and sanitation for the third world instead.

To conclude; and this is down to individual geologists to decide for themselves, but as it happens quite a number of geologists have grave doubts about the latter three questions.

[CountArach]

To conclude; and this is down to individual geologists to decide for themselves, but as it happens quite a number of geologists have grave doubts about the latter three questions.
Yes, but Climatologists don't...

[Fragony]

The most commonly cited reason is that geologists often see trends in the earth over hundreds of thousands of years, whereas Climate Change is only a recent and relatively short-term phenomenon.


:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

How did I miss that, it's indeed a relativily short phenomenom, about 20 years or so before it it was acid-rain that would finish us all of. Barren lakes in Sweden where all fish had DIED, poisened crops, DEATH AND DESPAIR IF WE DO NOT ACT NOW (put your money here) if I remember correctly I died 3 years ago, good thing I was able to teach my parents about acid rain, let's hope this generation will be able to teach their parents about global warming.

Yes, but Climatologists don't...

The ones working for the UN, and they don't believe it either but it's the fastest way to getting funding, but that is really a very small group that makes the rest seem bad.

[CountArach]

Yes, but Climatologists don't...

The ones working for the UN, and they don't believe it either but it's the fastest way to getting funding, but that is really a very small group that makes the rest seem bad.
So you truly believe that all the Climatologists in the world who believe that Climate Change is real work for the UN?

[Fragony]

So you truly believe that all the Climatologists in the world who believe that Climate Change is real work for the UN?

Nope, only the conclusion of the climatohoaxists that work for the UN have been used, the IPCC. I believe that's also what Al Gore used for his completily annihilated movie that as you probably don't know didn't get as favorable a reception among serious scientists as it did with lobbyists.

[CountArach]

Nope, only the conclusion of the climatohoaxists that work for the UN have been used, the IPCC.
The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.

[Fragony]

The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.

[Furunculus]

Yes, but Climatologists don't...

that's nice for them.

[CountArach]

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.
Would you care to use... you know... evidence...?

[Fragony]

Would you care to use... you know... evidence...?

How about that the earth isn't warming up?

[Devastatin Dave]

Guilt is such a silly thing for we are all guilty of something, so embrace it.

[Lord Winter]

How about that the earth isn't warming up?

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?

[CountArach]

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?
Not to mention it was still the 13th hottest year on record...

[Fragony]

Oh wow one year out of the past what is it seven or so?

0.6 degrees celcius since 1850 with equipment from 1850, that might be impressive to people who don't know that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia once snow but secular scientists don't mentally block that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia was once snow.

[Ironside]

Didn't say it is a tool it turned out their predictions are wrong, a fact that is made sure to be mentally blocked by Global warming lobbyists. They understand fully well that if you keep presenting something as a fact people will actually fall for it even when there isn't anything happening, like acid rain and global warming. Every generation has it's apocalypse crowd that is normal just human nature's desire to believe in something.

Yas, yes that acid rain thing caused by SO2 emissions. I wonder what happened with it. "Wanders
on the net."

US emissions from 1970 (http://www.ldesign.com/Images/Essays/GlobalWarming/PartEU/USSO2Emissions.jpg)
US emissions 1995 and 2004 (http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/files/images/1995_2004_emissions.gif)

The first SO2 regulations came at about 1970 and has progressivly been stronger. If anything, it's a big proof that noticing a problem can make sure that it's treated before it gets totally out of control.




Not to mention it was still the 13th hottest year on record...

Tenth actually.

Edit:

0.6 degrees celcius since 1850 with equipment from 1850, that might be impressive to people who don't know that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia once snow but secular scientists don't mentally block that Antartica was once forest and Saudi-Arabia was once snow.

I'm not sure about the time scale for Saudi-Arabia with a lot of snow (aka how much you'll need to consider the teutonic plate changes), but the current cold Antarctica is mainly due to the water streams that causes an effect opposite to the Gulf stream. It has been ice-free before though (there have been periods without ice on both poles), but the thing here is the rapid change and lack of knowledge on how large the change will be that's the main problem. That will cause political turmoil that can very well end up in massive refugee streams and wars.

[Fragony]

Acid rain was caused by acid rain lobbyists, acid rain doesn't exist, never did.

I'm not sure about the time scale for Saudi-Arabia with a lot of snow (aka how much you'll need to consider the teutonic plate changes), but the current cold Antarctica is mainly due to the water streams that causes an effect opposite to the Gulf stream. It has been ice-free before though (there have been periods without ice on both poles), but the thing here is the rapid change and lack of knowledge on how large the change will be that's the main problem. That will cause political turmoil that can very well end up in massive refugee streams and wars.

That sounds absolutely terrifying

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

https://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7016/globalwarminggraphzi5.png

[Fragony]

https://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7016/globalwarminggraphzi5.png

Which the Asyrians already understood when they put down the Zodiac, I guess some have a hard time catching up.

[CountArach]

https://img56.imageshack.us/img56/7016/globalwarminggraphzi5.png
Or not...

'No sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)

Scientists have produced further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity.

The research contradicts a favoured theory of climate "sceptics", that changes in cosmic rays coming to Earth determine cloudiness and temperature.

The idea is that variations in solar activity affect cosmic ray intensity.

But UK scientists found there has been no significant link between cosmic rays and cloudiness in the last 20 years.

Presenting their findings in the Institute of Physics journal, Environmental Research Letters, the University of Lancaster team explain that they used three different ways to search for a correlation, and found virtually none.
[...]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its vast assessment of climate science last year, concluded that since temperatures began rising rapidly in the 1970s, the contribution of humankind's greenhouse gas emissions has outweighed that of solar variability by a factor of about 13 to one.

According to Terry Sloan, the message coming from his research is simple.

"We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right.

"So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."
Or this report (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/), written by a climate scientist...

In summary, although solar forcing is real, the implications of that are often rather overstated. Since there has been a clear history of people fooling themselves about the importance of solar-climate links, any new studies in the field need to be considered very carefully before conclusions are drawn, especially with respect the warming over recent decades, which despite all of this discussion about solar activity, is almost all related to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
Anyway as it turns out, that graph is false and outdated (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html) (I assume this is the same original source).

If Mr Durkin had gone directly to the Nasa website he could have got the most up-to-date data. This would have demonstrated that the amount of global warming since 1975, as monitored by terrestrial weather stations around the world, has been greater than that between 1900 and 1940 - although that would have undermined his argument.

"The original Nasa data was very wiggly-lined and we wanted the simplest line we could find," Mr Durkin said.

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

Other graphs used in the film contained known errors, notably the graph of sunspot activity. Mr Durkin used data on solar cycle lengths which were first published in 1991 despite a corrected version being available - but again the corrected version would not have supported his argument

[Ironside]

Only one "minor" flaw with that graph. The sunspot cycle length was shortest by around 1985 (it's an inversed scale) and has since then became longer. The temperature has increased quite a bit since that. Or to put it differently, that pattern is thrown out of the window for the last 20 years. :book:

It was a good theory when presented in 1991 though. :juggle:

BTW Fragony, wich part of acid rain haven't existed? That rain cannot be acidic? That SO2 emissions doesn't cause it? That calcinations of (some) lakes to keep them healthy (and been used to ressurect lakes suffering from mass death due to pH drop) haven't been done and is currently still being done? That marble (a very acid sensitive material) has been degenerated more in 100 years than the 1900 years before it? That an acid soil is worse to grow crops on and releases heavy metals and alumina (aka bad stuff) and also causes leaching of nutients from the soil?

Edit: source for the graph is:
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar
activity closely associated with climate, Science 254 (1991) 698.

Not sure if that one is under dispute.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Only one "minor" flaw with that graph. The sunspot cycle length was shortest by around 1985 (it's an inversed scale) and has since then became longer. The temperature has increased quite a bit since that. Or to put it differently, that pattern is thrown out of the window for the last 20 years. :book:

Not necessarily. Harvard Observatory. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/The%20Varying%20Sun%20&%20Climate%20Change%20Soon%20&%20Baliunas.pdf)


Edit: source for the graph is:
E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen, Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar
activity closely associated with climate, Science 254 (1991) 698.

Wasn't Friis-Christensen was trying to disprove that solar activity and climate were related?


Or not...

'No sun link' to climate change (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm)

Or this report (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/), written by a climate scientist...

Anyway as it turns out, that graph is false and outdated (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-real-global-warming-swindle-440116.html)

O RLY? (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf)

Your second link doesn't even give an author.

Even Solanki, an alarmist, recognizes that solar activity may have an effect on temperature:


The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures...

Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics:


[Solar activity] can account for major climate changes on Earth for the past 300 years, including part of the recent surge of global warming.

[Marshal Murat]

MIT scientists confused by methane (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39973/113/)


Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

The two lead authors of a paper published in this week's Geophysical Review Letters, Matthew Rigby and Ronald Prinn, the TEPCO Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry in MIT's Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science, state that as a result of the increase, several million tons of new methane is present in the atmosphere.

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.

NASA faked October Temperatures (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html)
While I don't know the reputation of the Telegraph, it does make the point that the IPCC, and by extension those sources it derives it's figures from, isn't completely unbiased.

But, to cut down on this thread, I decided to create a little graph to show the next 5 pages of this thread.

BBC Special News Report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm)

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Climate struggle again....

If you "Global Warming is real" folks are correct (let's stipulate) and global warming is man-made as a product of the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing mass of humanity in general...

1. Why is warming bad? Is only the status quo c. 1800 appropriate and all other climates counter-productive to human survival?

2. What can be done about it?

3. Who has to shoulder the burden, and how much of a burden will it be?

4. What is the likelihood that it would make a significant impact?


Remember, if it all boils down to "you yanks suck and need to cut your standard of living down," that will NOT play well in Peoria.

Thoughts?

[Fragony]

NASA faked October Temperatures (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3563532/The-world-has-never-seen-such-freezing-heat.html)


How very naughty of them :balloon2:

[Xiahou]

How very naughty of them :balloon2:Their data has been a disgrace (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/) for sometime now. It seems every year they call it the 'hottest evar' and shortly thereafter are forced to retract it. The latest incident where they just copy/pasted a warmer month's data and (surprise!) found warming, is just another in a string of screwups- deliberate or otherwise.

How is anyone supposed to take GISS temperature data seriously? Hansen is a consumate global warming zealot and has been caught peddling false data on numerous occasions. :juggle2:

[Xiahou]

The IPCC is one of the most Conservative Climate Change panels. Everything is done through a consensus position and as such the scientists who are appointed there must all agree on every point. These include scientists from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Japan, etc - countries who are largely opposed to action on Global Warming at a Governmental level. To claim that it is a tool of the UN completely misrepresents the work that it does. Further it uses no new research, it simply puts together the collated research of those who are on the panel.
Consensus again, hmmm (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html)?

The IPCC has misled us into believing the primary claims were widely endorsed by authors and reviewers but in fact they received little support and came from a narrow self-interested coterie of climate modellers.

[Ironside]

Not necessarily. Harvard Observatory. (http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/The%20Varying%20Sun%20&%20Climate%20Change%20Soon%20&%20Baliunas.pdf)

OMG

The chart stops around 1980 because
the sun’s changes are presumed to operate
over two decades or longer. Yet the
period beyond 1980 is interesting
because it corresponds to the period
when the air’s carbon dioxide content
rose, and also shows a major surface
warming trend. Some say this indicates
that carbon dioxide is responsible for
the warming of the last 20 years.

No the chart stop by 1980, because after that the correlation is out of the window. That's one of most blatant leaving out disagreeing results I've seen.

One of the better pics that have it later than around 1980 (http://www.quaker.org/clq/2007/aux/Temp&SolarActivityRev.png)

Link were it was taken, gives credit to that the solar spot cycle may very well influence the climate (http://www.quaker.org/clq/2007/TQE158-EN-GlobalWarming-V1.html)

Simular graph from a sceptic page, notice the dip in activity at the end and its lack of correlation with the temperature (http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Sunspot%20cycle%20global%20temp.jpg)



Wasn't Friis-Christensen was trying to disprove that solar activity and climate were related?

Not sure, didn't read the article, but Friis-Christensen seems to be very focsed on the effect space have on the climate on earth, currently wokring with cosmic rays.


O RLY? (http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf)

Your second link doesn't even give an author.

Uhm, I take it you didn't bother read the conclutions right? Remember that post 1980-1985 thing I mentioned?

5. Conclusions
There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar
variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some
detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was
a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century
and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism
that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates
about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in
global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability,
whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar
variation is amplified.


The Climate struggle again....

If you "Global Warming is real" folks are correct (let's stipulate) and global warming is man-made as a product of the increasing use of fossil fuels and the increasing mass of humanity in general...

1. Why is warming bad? Is only the status quo c. 1800 appropriate and all other climates counter-productive to human survival?

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=state-of-the-science-beyond-the-worst-climate-change-case&page=1
Short version (but not really said openly in the article), it's the change itself that's bad, too large global cooling would have a simular negative inpact aswell.


2. What can be done about it?

Well, you could get more energy efficient, use less fossile fuels and try to storage the CO2 somehow (converting it to something useful requires energy). Fusion power ffw.


3. Who has to shoulder the burden, and how much of a burden will it be?

Global problem, so the world should de facto shoulder the burden, otherwise it won't do any good. Hard to say how large the burden will be, but quite large in all cases.


4. What is the likelihood that it would make a significant impact?

The warming or the efforts? The warming will get significant in any case, but catastrophic in the worst case scenarios. The efforts will most likely be too small to be of high significance though (atleast for the first decades, particually considering that there seems to be a lag between emissions and temperature change)), but in worst case scenario (nothing happens) it's still a lot of reasearch that's beneficial in other areas (energy efficiency for example) and in the best case scenario it will prevent a catastrophe.


Remember, if it all boils down to "you yanks suck and need to cut your standard of living down," that will NOT play well in Peoria.

Thoughts?

Well, what's Peoria?

[CountArach]

Consensus again, hmmm (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24315169-7583,00.html)?
He works for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, a spin-off of a right-wing Corporate-funded think tank (Corporations include most of the major Australian Subsidiaries of oil producers). As such his words are utterly meaningless to me.

[Fragony]

He works for the Australian Climate Science Coalition, a spin-off of a right-wing Corporate-funded think tank (Corporations include most of the major Australian Subsidiaries of oil producers). As such his words are utterly meaningless to me.

But obviously there is no consensus, can't just decide there is consenus it doesn't work like that. You can decide to have steak for dinner, can't decide the earth is warming up

[Lord Winter]

I'm curious what all the skeptics think is the motive for this apparent evil manipulating secret circle of climatologists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

[Banquo's Ghost]

I'm curious what all the septics think is the motive for this appearent evil minipulating secert circle of climatoligists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Personally, I consider septics to be poisonous.

:wink:

[Hosakawa Tito]

I'm curious what all the septics think is the motive for this appearent evil minipulating secert circle of climatoligists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Rumor has it the grass is greener over the septics...~;)

[Lord Winter]

Fixed the mispelling, my spelling skills have never been good.

[Fragony]

I'm curious what all the skeptics think is the motive for this apparent evil manipulating secret circle of climatologists. Or did they just decide to do this for fun?

Why would mass hysteria need a motive. And why would lobbyists want political power, well that one is somewhat easier. These lobbies are as powerful now as the catholic church was during the dark ages that's why they get away with this.

[Marshal Murat]

Some scientist pitch the idea that "global warming" can cause international disaster, they get air-time for this doom-and-gloom scenario they create. Other scientists figure that they can get in on the action by "studying" global warming, producing "green technologies", etc. So they run experiments, tests, models, studies, all funded to prevent the great disaster of "global warming".

People start to pay money for this "global warming" gear, especially when they notice warmer temperatures. Solar panels, green technology, new books about how to prevent global warming, reduce global warming. Books that tell you every thing you're doing wrong. The media continues this cycle, since more "unusual weather events" means more people watch for a confirmation of their fears.

[CountArach]

Why would mass hysteria need a motive. And why would lobbyists want political power, well that one is somewhat easier. These lobbies are as powerful now as the catholic church was during the dark ages that's why they get away with this.
If by "these lobbies" you mean Oil Companies, then yes you are absolutely correct.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Personally, I consider septics to be poisonous.

:wink:

It depends how they're prepared. :devilish:

[Fragony]

If by "these lobbies" you mean Oil Companies, then yes you are absolutely correct.

:juggle2:

[CountArach]

:juggle2:
Well argued...

[Fragony]

Well argued...

In case you hadn't noticed, your case is on the defend, so, defend. Something to do with consensus if I remember correctly (which would be a small miracle to forget given the number of times I have heard that there is consensus). Of course oil company's also lobby, and the pope is a catholic ice is cold and water is wet.

[Lord Winter]

Why would mass hysteria need a motive. And why would lobbyists want political power, well that one is somewhat easier. These lobbies are as powerful now as the catholic church was during the dark ages that's why they get away with this.

No wait, so let me get this right, there's this lobbyist block that's pushing global warming just for the fun of creating chaos? and they have the power to sway all these scientist to put out research supporting them without any major funding, am I getting this right? :inquisitive:

Yes, there's been a trend to bring up global warming in the media recently and yes the world will not end because of global warming. Humanity will probably come out in pretty good shape too; but a few alarmist scientists does not invalidate the rest of the research.

[Fragony]

No wait, so let me get this right, there's this lobbyist block that's pushing global warming just for the fun of creating chaos?

How would I know I'm not doing it. A$k them. I am pretty $ure Al Gore can an$wer your que$tion though being the little hermit that he is.

[Lord Winter]

Al Gore isn't the entire force behind global warming you know.

[Fragony]

Al Gore isn't the entire force behind global warming you know.

Nope that volleyballboy isn't, hence them :juggle2:

[Lord Winter]

I have a feeling theres eaiser ways to make money then to fabricate global warming.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Fixed the mispelling, my spelling skills have never been good.

Didn't mean to single you out for the malapropism, but it was a classic Yogism, and I hope you realize BG & I were laughing with you not at you.

However, on the topic of the controversy surrounding global warning. The summary for the book "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Fear) gives one something to think about. The bibliography & summary are better than the story itself.


As a result of potential conflicts of interest, the scientists conducting research on topics related to global warming may subtly change their findings to bring them in line with their funding sources.

The above quote from the summary works both ways, pro & con, on the debate over man's effects on global warming. It's highly politicized and there's money to be made. Considering human nature that in itself makes me septical skeptical till we learn more.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.

So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?



I did.... But I still believe the Iraqi war was and still is needed, Bush isn't the best President, but not a total screw up. And for Climate change?....


There was a ice age before, and humans weren't around then, were they? :laugh4:


The world is in hell, just getting deeper. I pretend I don't notice :beam:.

[Boyar Son]

Strange thread, usually American always save the world. ESPECIALLY europe.:inquisitive:

[CountArach]

Strange thread, usually American always save the world.
I lol'ed.

Oh Boyar Son, I have missed you and your blind Nationalism.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Strange thread, usually American always save the world. ESPECIALLY europe.:inquisitive:

It's kinda like the fireman who sets fires then becomes the hero who puts them out.~;)

[Boyar Son]

I lol'ed.

Oh Boyar Son, I have missed you and your blind Nationalism. its a religion



It's kinda like the fireman who sets fires then becomes the hero who puts them out.

yes we started the yugoslav war in the 90'z, WW1, WW2, korea, the spanish war ! NATO is DEFINITELY warmongering for the hell of it, what else can a superpower be blamed on just because they're top?

[CountArach]

yes we started the yugoslav war in the 90'z, WW1, WW2, korea, the spanish war ! NATO is DEFINITELY warmongering for the hell of it, what else can a superpower be blamed on just because they're top?
NATO didn't exist until post-WWII... Besides NATO really just follows the US.

[Boyar Son]

NATO didn't exist until post-WWII... Besides NATO really just follows the US.?? wat does its existence date have to do with blaming USA. and u pointed out the 2nd sentence bkuz?..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

and u pointed out the 2nd sentence bkuz?..

Could be because you are indisputably correct on everything else. ~;)

[CountArach]

?? wat does its existence date have to do with blaming USA. and u pointed out the 2nd sentence bkuz?..
I pointed it out bkuz...

You say that NATO was warmongering.
So...

I point out that NATO didn't exist for 3/5 of the wars you mentioned (WWI, WWII and the Spanish Civil War).
Then...

I point out that the NATO comparison is superfluous and not important at all because NATO largely follows US foreign policy.

[Boyar Son]

I pointed it out bkuz...

You say that NATO was warmongering.
So...

I point out that NATO didn't exist for 3/5 of the wars you mentioned (WWI, WWII and the Spanish Civil War).
Then...

I point out that the NATO comparison is superfluous and not important at all because NATO largely follows US foreign policy.

Those wars were mentioned because we're talking about USA, THEREFORE i mention NATO, THIS MEANS since u said nato follows USA, WE CAN SEE that US conflicts involve the help of NATO too.

WHAT does THAT mean? all that? USA (and nato) has been involved in quite a few conflicts in modern times. which is why i said warmongering, to poke fun at soviets who have an obvious hatred for NATO.

i HAD to add up all that in the 1st sentence so u could understand the 2nd. nato primarily in modern wars, usa primarily farther in the past conflicts.

[CountArach]

Those wars were mentioned because we're talking about USA, THEREFORE i mention NATO, THIS MEANS since u said nato follows USA, WE CAN SEE that US conflicts involve the help of NATO too.

WHAT does THAT mean? all that? USA (and nato) has been involved in quite a few conflicts in modern times. which is why i said warmongering, to poke fun at soviets who have an obvious hatred for NATO.

i HAD to add up all that in the 1st sentence so u could understand the 2nd. nato primarily in modern wars, usa primarily farther in the past conflicts.
Yet you completely ignore the statement that NATO is a tool of US Foreign policy...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yet you completely ignore the statement that NATO is a tool of US Foreign policy...

Right up until the wheels came off the cart, the Warsaw Pact nations did what they were told by the Bear. On the rare occasions that they made a complaint, they got squashed.

I freely admit that the USA was trying to be the lead voice of NATO, almost treating it like a puppy at times, but NATO never did lock step quite so clearly with the USA as the Pact did for the CCCP.

[CountArach]

Right up until the wheels came off the cart, the Warsaw Pact nations did what they were told by the Bear. On the rare occasions that they made a complaint, they got squashed.

I freely admit that the USA was trying to be the lead voice of NATO, almost treating it like a puppy at times, but NATO never did lock step quite so clearly with the USA as the Pact did for the CCCP.
Yes, I absolutely agree. Yet, nevertheless, NATO only goes to war when the US does and often on the pretence of supporting the United States.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I can't help but laugh at the alarmists who refuse to believe anyone or anything that contradicts their faith in man made global warming. It truly is a religion.

Now I haven't read the whole thread and so I don't know if this has been posted, but here's an excerpt of a Michael Crichton speech (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html) dealing with "consensus science":


I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy…the list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.

Seamus brings up a good point - why must we adhere to 1800 temperatures even if the earth is naturally moving away from that? Might not our actions to force a solution on the global climate have far reaching unintended consequences?

CR

[seireikhaan]

The inherent problem with trying to decipher anything on global warming is that both "sides" have poisoned both their opponent's well, and, at times, their own well too.

Global warming a myth to you- those darned NASA folks following Al Gore's whims.

Global warming real to you- that darned George trying to intimidate scientists for his own political gain.

[Boyar Son]

Yet you completely ignore the statement that NATO is a tool of US Foreign policy... WTF??? as long as we make dumb inquiries that were actually implied how bout "THE FACT U IGNORED DIDNT MENTION NATO DIDNT EXIST 4 HALF THE WARS I SAID"

take THAT

[Ironside]

Seamus brings up a good point - why must we adhere to 1800 temperatures even if the earth is naturally moving away from that? Might not our actions to force a solution on the global climate have far reaching unintended consequences?

CR

Why a small temperature span is preferable is quite simple. If you were living at the end of the latest ice age, then after it ended it a generally better climate than before. That is of course if you didn't live at the beach as the water level rose more than 100 meters.

Isn't the second line a kind of oxymyron? If our actions is to limit our own impact (who according to the sceptics are none), how would this have unintended consequences?

Now if we would develop a system for controlling the global temperature, then it could have such consequences, but that's far into the future.

[CountArach]

WTF??? as long as we make dumb inquiries that were actually implied how bout "THE FACT U IGNORED DIDNT MENTION NATO DIDNT EXIST 4 HALF THE WARS I SAID"

take THAT
Take what? My own point?

[Furunculus]

I can't help but laugh at the alarmists who refuse to believe anyone or anything that contradicts their faith in man made global warming. It truly is a religion.

Now I haven't read the whole thread and so I don't know if this has been posted, but here's an excerpt of a Michael Crichton speech (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html) dealing with "consensus science":

CR

to add another example of false consensus i give you a howler from my own discipline:

50 years ago the consensus said that plate tectonics was a ridiculous notion that couldn't possibly be true!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_tectonics

Geological paradigm shift

The acceptance of the theories of continental drift and sea floor spreading (the two key elements of plate tectonics) may be compared to the Copernican revolution in astronomy (see Nicolaus Copernicus). Within a matter of only several years geophysics and geology in particular were revolutionized. The parallel is striking: just as pre-Copernican astronomy was highly descriptive but still unable to provide explanations for the motions of celestial objects, pre-tectonic plate geological theories described what was observed but struggled to provide any fundamental mechanisms. The problem lay in the question "How?". Before acceptance of plate tectonics, geology in particular was trapped in a "pre-Copernican" box.

However, by comparison to astronomy the geological revolution was much more sudden. What had been rejected for decades by any respectable scientific journal was eagerly accepted within a few short years in the 1960s and 1970s. Any geological description before this had been highly descriptive. All the rocks were described and assorted reasons, sometimes in excruciating detail, were given for why they were where they are. The descriptions are still valid. The reasons, however, today sound much like pre-Copernican astronomy.

One simply has to read the pre-plate descriptions of why the Alps or Himalaya exist to see the difference. In an attempt to answer "how" questions like "How can rocks that are clearly marine in origin exist thousands of meters above sea-level in the Dolomites?", or "How did the convex and concave margins of the Alpine chain form?", any true insight was hidden by complexity that boiled down to technical jargon without much fundamental insight as to the underlying mechanics.

With plate tectonics answers quickly fell into place or a path to the answer became clear. Collisions of converging plates had the force to lift the sea floor to great heights. The cause of marine trenches oddly placed just off island arcs or continents and their associated volcanoes became clear when the processes of subduction at converging plates were understood.

Mysteries were no longer mysteries. Forests of complex and obtuse answers were swept away. Why were there striking parallels in the geology of parts of Africa and South America? Why did Africa and South America look strangely like two pieces that should fit to anyone having done a jigsaw puzzle? Look at some pre-tectonics explanations for complexity. For simplicity and one that explained a great deal more look at plate tectonics. A great rift, similar to the Great Rift Valley in northeastern Africa, had split apart a single continent, eventually forming the Atlantic Ocean, and the forces were still at work in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge.

[Furunculus]

maybe my prediction won't be too far off the mark:

the fact that it might be the coldest year in 15 years does not prove or disprove anything, however before another 15 years are up this may well be considered the year the tide started to turn against the catastrophic CO2 induced anthropgenic climate change alarmists.

James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic - Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’, ‘Was Never Muzzled’, & Models ‘Useless’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

[HoreTore]

I can't help but laugh at the alarmists who refuse to believe anyone or anything that contradicts their faith in man made global warming. It truly is a religion.

So we agree that religion is bad?

[Furunculus]

religion has its place, but if an electrician rewires my house, or the global climate 'consensus' proposes spending a large portion of future world growth reducing atmospheric CO2, I don't want faith involved in the outcome.

[Fragony]

So we agree that religion is bad?

So we agree that global warmism is a religion?

[HoreTore]

So we agree that global warmism is a religion?

Unlike you Fragony, I honestly don't care.

[Fragony]

Unlike you Fragony, I honestly don't care.

I care about my money, not about what people believe, howl to the moon all you want but I don't want to be taxed for a hoax, simple as that. 175.000.000.000 euro a year on this nonsense in the EU alone, nobody knows what's done with it, all we know is that it's gone.

[HoreTore]

I care about my money, not about what people believe, howl to the moon all you want but I don't want to be taxed for a hoax, simple as that.

Well, as of now, I can't see any bad effects of the co2-stuff in place here. CO2 aside, there's a lot of great stuff done/in progress, all of which is good regardless of whether the world will end or not;

- More focus on renewable energy. This one is undeniably good, CO2 emissions or not. Oil won't last forever, the quicker we find something else, the better.
- Less CO2 also means less a lot of other things. An unfiltered factory pipe isn't just spewing out CO2, it's spewing out dozens of chemicals, etc. Almost none of them good.
- A focus on consuming less energy. Very good, and a money-saver. The less you spend, the more you have.
- Less individual driving. Also good. It would be bad if it reduced our mobility, but I can't honestly say that it has. Having more people drive the same vehicle(ie. bus or train) is undeniably more efficient than driving separately.

I can live with a couple of nonsense policies, as long as the majority are sound. And to me, the majority is very sound. So I don't really care either way.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Why a small temperature span is preferable is quite simple. If you were living at the end of the latest ice age, then after it ended it a generally better climate than before. That is of course if you didn't live at the beach as the water level rose more than 100 meters.

Isn't the second line a kind of oxymyron? If our actions is to limit our own impact (who according to the sceptics are none), how would this have unintended consequences?

It's not an oxymoron at all, but simple fact. The environment is extraordinarily complex. We don't know what effect our actions are going to have. Some people might hypothesize, but they cannot foresee everything. So unless you're arguing that the climate change alarmists can predict with absolute certainty ever single event that will occur if we follow their advice, then of course there's going to be unintended consequences. And those might well be on the global scale that the alarmists want us to act on.


So we agree that religion is bad?

No - each must be judged individually. In this case it is bad because blind faith has no place in science.

CR

[Fragony]

I can live with a couple of nonsense policies, as long as the majority are sound. And to me, the majority is very sound. So I don't really care either way.

I can't, over here 99% (yes 99%) of all the extra revenues of the new taxes doesn't even go to the enviroment, it's robbery pure and simple just an excuse to up the taxes, it's damaging to our economy's.

[HoreTore]

I can't, over here 99% (yes 99%) of all the extra revenues of the new taxes doesn't even go to the enviroment, it's robbery pure and simple just an excuse to up the taxes, it's damaging to our economy's.

Wah-wah, baby's gotta pay his taxes wah-wah.


Pay your tax with pride!:whip:

[Furunculus]

Wah-wah, baby's gotta pay his taxes wah-wah.


Pay your tax with pride!:whip:

if there really isn't a problem with CO2 derived catastropic anthropogenic global warming then would it not be better to spend the money providing the third world with safe housing, sanitation and clean water, and probably still have a bundle left over to maintain infrastructure in your own country?

[HoreTore]

if there really isn't a problem with CO2 derived catastropic anthropogenic global warming then would it not be better to spend the money providing the third world with safe housing, sanitation and clean water, and probably still have a bundle left over to maintain infrastructure in your own country?

There certainly is an environmental disaster around. Reducing emissions(general, not just co2) is undoubtedly important, and not because of global warming, but because of smog, allergies, asthma, etc.

And you'll have to forgive me, but there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

[Fragony]

Tbut there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

I give about 200 euro a month to real charity. I support "Friends of Iran", who save people from the gallow, and a have adopted several African family's. My Moldavian adopted grannies have died by now, one of them never existed but hey.

[Furunculus]

There certainly is an environmental disaster around.

Reducing emissions(general, not just co2) is >>>undoubtedly<<< important................

And you'll have to forgive me, but there's a small part of me doubting that Fragony will happily pay taxes to build houses in the 3rd world...

Agreed, and we have been making perefectly good environmental legislation for 50+ years.

Surely the point is that there is a great deal of doubt of the warming potential of anthopogenic CO2.

Holland has aid programs just like most other developed countries, the point being they could have even more.

[Fragony]

Holland has aid programs just like most other developed countries, the point being they could have even more.

We have aid clubs, all the money goes to the stock market (I gave up 'War Child' when I learned they invest in clusterbombs) the surpluss minus the not uncommonly 400.000 saleries of several board-members goes straight into the pockets of the Mugabe's of the world, no I am not particulary pleased to pay for that.

[Ironside]

It's not an oxymoron at all, but simple fact. The environment is extraordinarily complex. We don't know what effect our actions are going to have. Some people might hypothesize, but they cannot foresee everything. So unless you're arguing that the climate change alarmists can predict with absolute certainty ever single event that will occur if we follow their advice, then of course there's going to be unintended consequences. And those might well be on the global scale that the alarmists want us to act on.


That's only applied to geoengineering and there I agree that's something that should be treated with very great care and I wouldn't support any large scale attemts in the next few decades. I do doubt it will be relevant before 2050 though and at that point the global warming alarmists should have been proven correct or wrong, making the issue completely different.

But to put it simple, if the extra CO2 doesn't have an inpact on the temperature then reducing it to pre-industrial levels (by some magical reason atm) should have no influence, agreed? If it has an influence and reducing it could have unforseen consequences, then it would be best to wait an see to gather more data, correct? Point is that wait and see is to shut down all industry tomorrow. That is the crux, we are running a gigantic experiment where we cannot forsee the consequences of.

And you go about warning that slowing it down can have unforseen consequences... :juggle:

[CountArach]

No - each must be judged individually. In this case it is bad because blind faith has no place in science.

CR
Which is why Science has proven things :idea:

[lenin96]

I'm not American but I don't believe climate change is much, we nether hear the oppinions of climate change skeptics, it's always just hippies and their crap.

[CountArach]

I'm not American but I don't believe climate change is much, we nether hear the oppinions of climate change skeptics, it's always just hippies and their crap.
Yeah. Damn those scientists with their love-ins and refusing to get a real job.

[Lemur]

I think FDR's legacy, Bush's legacy, the Iraq War and global warming would all be resolved if we just outlaw abortion and establish a national ID card.

[lenin96]

Yeah. Damn those scientists with their love-ins and refusing to get a real job.

I still strongly support scientists, just not Al Gore and his daemonic hordes of supporters...

[CountArach]

I still strongly support scientists, just not Al Gore and his daemonic hordes of supporters...
What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?

[Furunculus]

because for the son-of-kyoto to become national legislation, and then working regulation, and thus start sucking vast amounts of money it needs public acceptance.

what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.

this is dangerous because it will lock the world into a regulatory framework, at vast expense to the competitive advantage of my nation, which may not solve any pertinent problem.

cart before horse in short.

[CountArach]

this is dangerous because it will lock the world into a regulatory framework, at vast expense to the competitive advantage of my nation, which may not solve any useful problem.
Actually every nation will be bound to it. That is the very meaning of consensus decision making.

[Hooahguy]

What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?
nah, we just love how his famous movie has so many holes in it.

[Furunculus]

Actually every nation will be bound to it. That is the very meaning of consensus decision making.

you kind of missing the point, which is that son-of-kyoto may well be the wrong response to a problem only poorly understood.

which is only more galling when you consider that it will be the rich countries that are expected to bear the brunt of this response.

ergo Britain will make itself poorer achieving no good end.

[HoreTore]

which is only more galling when you consider that it will be the rich countries that are expected to bear the brunt of this response.

Uh......

It would've been better if the poor countries took the hit...?

[Furunculus]

you are misunderstanding me.

if there is no world saving benefit then why should my country reduce its competitive advantage and hence its future wealth by instituting expensive measures that create no good?

[Furunculus]

All of the above discussion is a fantastic evasion of the most recent part of this debate, i.e. whither the consensus now?

Well, here is one more in the eye for the consensus:

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/


Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

[Banquo's Ghost]

... why should my country reduce its competitive advantage and hence its future wealth by instituting expensive measures that create no good?

Well, you already did that by electing New Labour. :evil:

[Furunculus]

lol, very true. :embarassed:

Re: the forecasting article, i found this excerpt that perfectly describes the problem i have with kyoto/son-of-kyoto, which few people seem to grasp:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.

Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

If I did ruined the world......


Oh Well, We all going to die anyhow :laugh4::laugh4:!!

[LittleGrizzly]

In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green

Well if an economist doesn't believe in global warming it can't be true!

Could you tell me what relevant scientific qualifications mr armstrong holds... all too often global warming skeptics seem to have a doctorate in completely the wrong area of science to make such statements...

ohh never mind, i have come across the information myself...

J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_26), 1937 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937)), Ph.D., is Professor of Marketing at the Wharton School (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wharton_School), University of Pennsylvania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Pennsylvania),

So we have an economist and a professor of marketing, admittedly with experience in the field of weather but very much the wrong scientific qualifications

Are you going to post an article about how an oil company CEO or a coal company CEO are also skeptics ?

so who does that leave.. dr theon i belive... lets have a look shall we...

Seems im having trouble finding his relevant qualifications, if anyone can get hold of them ?

Well he has experience in the area at least... albeit he's retired and there's another who worked with him who isn't a skeptic... this leaves me back at my original position... which is trust the scientists with the relevent qualifications over alot of people who seem to have a personal interest in the matter but no scientific (or the wrong scientific) education...

[Furunculus]

well lets see.....................................

Armstrong is da-bomb at forecasting:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]
which lets face it, is where the doom-sayers spring their 'forecasts' from.

why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. the “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”.


but lets not forget Dr Theon:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

John S. Theon Education: B.S. Aero. Engr. (1953-57); Aerodynamicist, Douglas Aircraft Co. (1957-58); As USAF Reserve Officer (1958-60),B.S. Meteorology (1959); Served as Weather Officer 1959-60; M.S, Meteorology (1960-62); NASA Research Scientist, Goddard Space Flight Ctr. (1962-74); Head Meteorology Branch, GSFC (1974-76); Asst. Chief, Lab. for Atmos. Sciences, GSFC (1977-78); Program Scientist, NASA Global Weather Research Program, NASA Hq. (1978-82); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch NASA Hq., (1982-91); Ph.D., Engr. Science & Mech.: course of study and dissertation in atmos. science (1983-85); Chief, Atmospheric Dynamics, Radiation, & Hydrology Branch, NASA Hq. (1991-93); Chief, Climate Processes Research Program, NASA Hq. (1993-94); Senior Scientist, Mission to Planet Earth Office, NASA Hq. (1994-95); Science Consultant, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (1995-99); Science Consultant Orbital Sciences Corp. (1996-97) and NASA Jet Propulsion Lab., (1997-99).
who was Hansens boss, who also attacks climate models.

again, why not try tackling the ball rather than the man, i.e. "the the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit,”

not to mention the myriad of other links included in the first article.

and these articles are not exactly published by a crank, given that they are from the best science blog of 2008:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/15/winners-announced/



in short: whither. is. your. consensus?

[CountArach]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
You are quoting a weatherman as a source for climatology?

[Furunculus]

weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.

this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.

and he is reporting on science, not inventing it himself, specifically hansens supervisor repudiating his employee, and the big-cheese or forecasting saying that climate models used by the IPCC are unsuitable.

i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.

it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.

[Fragony]

You are quoting a weatherman as a source for climatology?

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v494/Fragony/al-gore.jpg

[CountArach]

weathermen often being meteorologists, and climatology really being an off-shoot of earth-science, a discipline that has been studied by geologists, physicists and more for decades.
That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.

this weatherman running the best science blog of 2008.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?

Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.

i love this attitude of play the man, it demonstrates zero interest in discussing the possible shortcomings of the science, and only reinforces my opinion of how dangerous this religion is.
Allow me to quote something that seems relevant to me.

what gore is managing to do (in my opinion), is bring public acceptance of the problem in advance of science confirming that anthropogenic CO2 is indeed the problem, by creating a faith in the public consciousness that the scientific world has already reached a consensus on what the problem is and therefore what direction to go in applying the solution.
Play the... ahh, bugger it.

it is not that i consider the IPCC to definately wrong, it is the amount of damage that can be done by the entranced public as they stampede in the wrong direction chasing after the redemption of consensus.
The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?

Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/)

[Furunculus]

That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
Because it is sooooo hard to set up a macro to spam the voting... He received less than 40% of the vote and I believe every competitor was to his left-wing, thus splitting the vote. Why am I even arguing this...?
Al Gore has a hit movie... does that mean he is also a perfectly valid source? I'm going to take a wild guess that would you would disagree with that idea.

Play the... ahh, bugger it.

The IPCC says urgent action is needed. Every major non-partisan science organisation says urgent action is needed. And yet people claim that urgent action is not needed. Why is that sir? Are you simply picking whichever parts of the IPCC report follow your line of thought to agree with?

Meanwhile, Antarctica keeps on warming. (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/)

still blithely ignoring anything to do with the articles on hand..................

does Gore or does Gore not see it as his job to radicalise the masses about AGW?

because more and more of the scientific establishment is peeling away from the IPCC consensus.

and there are very good local explanations before you need to look at CO2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/

[CountArach]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/
Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.

When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/index.php?p=625)(Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/
Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/antarctica-warming/) in the warming of the station he was talking about.

[Furunculus]

Oh, another convenient excuse. IT WAS THE VOLCANOES ALL ALONG.
When you average out the heat released by the volcanoes across the entire continent of Antarctica you come up with 1/1000th (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/index.php?p=625)(Comment 93) of the energy required to light a bulb. Certainly not enough to heat up the continent at the levels being talked about here.

Problems with that article:
1) Hays has spent 1 or 2 summers there. The authors of this paper have collectively spent 8 seasons on the ice in Antarctica, 6 in Greenland and 1 on Baffin island.
2) it is based on anecdote.
3) He ignores the longer-term trend (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/antarctica-warming/) in the warming of the station he was talking about.

the point was that no effort was made in steigs paper to rule out volcanism as a source of warming, which is important because although the total heat output may be crazily small when spread out over a huge continent, you are refering to a dataset composed of less than half a dozen surface stations to cover a whole continent that have at least 50 years of data, most of which lie on the western peninsula which is where the volcanism is.

Meanwhile: climate forecasting as practiced by the IPCC is still dodgy - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/

and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/

[Xiahou]

and hansens 'poppa' say his little boy should still have his training wheels on - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/Hansen is such a drama queen. :drama2: :laugh4:

[Fragony]

How are YOU going to educate your parents about global warming?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pmcaleer/2009/01/26/why-small-irish-eyes-need-big-hollywood/

[King Jan III Sobieski]

Ok - so we all now agree that Bush was a disaster, that the Iraq invasion was a disaster and that man made climate change is going to screw us over.

So did you vote for Bush, support the war and refuse to believe in climate change?

Last time I checked, nobody can foresee the %&#@-ups that a person they voted for will commit, I believe we should take the war on terror to where ever we darn-well please in the Mid-East (I know 9/11 wasn't an overriding issue with the whole WMD argument, but hey, the Mid-East is the mid-East), and the last I checked, I doubt that the cavemen were driving around SUVs when the last ice age ended 10,000++ years ago (humans definitely do have a major impact on global climates, but the Earth is going to heat and cool regardless of whether we off-road in diesel-spewing behemoths or sit around a field beating each other with clubs while waiting for a mammoth to come by).

[Furunculus]

80% of the IPCC have absolutely no dealings with climate and less than that are actual climate scientists:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/

whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?

[Fragony]

owwwwwwwwwwww expertologues, a shame it won't change anybody's mind the decision has been made. There. is. con.sen.sus. you sir can't handle the truth.

[CountArach]

80% of the IPCC have absolutely no dealings with climate and less than that are actual climate scientists:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/

whither is the consensus of uber-expert climatologists?
And the majority of actual climate scientists think what exactly...? Also, please link to real sources.

[Fragony]

And the majority of actual climate scientists think what exactly...?

Why would any serious scientist want to try to explain a 0.6% increase of world-temperature in a hundreds years? Especially since these figures were taken with equipment that isn't really that accurate compared to what we have now hanging in our living room.

But I think you said this; That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.

[Furunculus]

lol. :D

[CountArach]

Why would any serious scientist want to try to explain a 0.6% increase of world-temperature in a hundreds years? Especially since these figures were taken with equipment that isn't really that accurate compared to what we have now hanging in our living room.

But I think you said this; That is irrelevant. He has no speciality in that area and as such he cannot be quoted as an authority.
I... don't get it...? Am I being mocked? I just... don't know...?

[Fragony]

I... don't get it...? Am I being mocked? I just... don't know...?

Well yes

[Crazed Rabbit]

What is it with Al Gore? Does the entire Right-wing of politics have a huge man-crush on him or something?

Since when is a guy with a username with lenin in it and a fervent supporter of communism a right wing person?

CR

[CountArach]

Since when is a guy with a username with lenin in it and a fervent supporter of communism a right wing person?

CR
You obviously aren't familiar with this user. For example, I've disagreed with him almost constantly here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/group.php?groupid=58).

And on this particular issue he is right-wing due to being a severe Authoritarian.

[Fragony]

no consensus huh

[Furunculus]

nb. being authoritarian does not equate to being right wing, or left wing for that matter.

[CountArach]

no consensus huh
None of us are climatologists so I don't see what you are saying...

[Fragony]

None of us are climatologists so I don't see what you are saying...

Don't worry, neither are the people who have consensus we are in great company.

[CountArach]

Don't worry, neither are the people who have consensus we are in great company.
Wow, I see what you did there. I almost got caught up in that clever web of words.

[Fragony]

Wow, I see what you did there. I almost got caught up in that clever web of words.

You didn't almost got caught by a clever web of words since you actually believe there is consensus over the earth warming up.

[CountArach]

You didn't almost got caught by a clever web of words since you actually believe there is consensus over the earth warming up.
:confused:

[Fragony]

:confused:

Don't worry, I was also confused when my parents told me Sinterklaas isn't real. There is no Sinterklaas, and the earth isn't warming up. I have learned to live with Sinterklaas not existing, it's possible, you just need to let go.

[LittleGrizzly]

Funnily enough isn't santa claus based off a real person who did exsist ?

So there you go... Global warming and Santa Claus... both real!

you heard it here first...

[Fragony]

Funnily enough isn't santa claus based off a real person who did exsist ?

So there you go... Global warming and Santa Claus... both real!

you heard it here first...

Yes Saint Nicolas, a Turkish bisshop

[Marshal Murat]

Faulty Sensors misunderestimate arctic ice. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY)


A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.

Nothing to see here....move along (SF, wearing his Euro-beanie Global Warming Must Die hat)

[Fragony]

They missed an area the size of California? dude... maybe they should use google earth instead.

Ah well isn't going to change anyone's mind, there.... is... con...sen....sus..... be afraid...

[Furunculus]

NASA CO2 satellite in trouble:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/space/4797808/Nasa-global-warming-satellite-fails-to-reach-orbit.html




















* conspiracy theory - hansen knows he's in trouble sabotaged the satellite :skull:

[Fragony]

"Nasa global warming satellite fails to reach orbit"

Man can't they get anything right we didn't make a hole in the ozon-layer for nothing.

[Furunculus]

japanese boffins reject IPCC conclusions:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translation/

[Fragony]

Tough days for the hoaxers, crumble. You have to be particulary dim-witted if you fell for that crap in the first place. Manmade climatechange lol