hmm wait,, what?
Climate Change Is Turning All the Sea Turtles Female 

 kurtster wrote: 
Kurtster, while China is a huge economy and rapidly growing I don't think a policy of targeting them per se for burning so much carbon is a very good approach. The entire western world has been doing it for decades if not centuries.

If
a) you seriously think climate change is a threat and
b) you accept that it is a global issue that needs a global response
then
c) we must get a global consensus on the way forward.  

Dissension, which is inevitable in the approach you are taking of blaming China, is not going to cut it. This is not an ethical argument I am making. Purely practical. 

But if you want to make an ethical argument, I suggest you find another country to do it from.

EDIT:
and btw China also has a robust nuclear energy program if you are such an opponent of fossil fuels (which I hope)

 kurtster wrote: 

Under your reasoning, unless something significant can be done to curtail pollution by China, nothing should be done by other countries on any global scale. So, no international agreements unless those agreements can be effectively enforced against China.

Ist that your position?     
  

 aflanigan wrote: 
If there is a consensus on that, doesn't it at some point become relevant as to who is offending the most ?  All the politically motivated arguments seem to totally ignore that part of the debate as did the personal note link.  It calls for more intervention of government here and no mention at all of offshore threats to our environment that will undo everything we can even think of doing, let alone succeeding.  And these offshore threats over which we have zero influence, because if for no other reason, it requires a committed foreign policy.  Something of which with the current administration is impossible.  Lead from behind, waiting for what will never happen is not how things get done.  That is also related to political will.  The problem in that then goes to having any standing and leverage.  While we have the standing of leading by example, due to our debt and foreign policy (lack of) we have no leverage (with China).

And incorporating politics, there is more interest in changing society in the US in the name of Climate Change than there is in calling China on the carpet and drawing a red line.  The red line that so many here want to impose on us, but not on the main offender.  That is where the legitimacy of the agenda ends and the suspicion begins.

 kurtster wrote: 
I did a lot of research and getting up to speed on education issues because when my kids were becoming of school age, the high stakes testing/standards movement was in its infancy. I saw the changes that were coming (and were instituted in every state, pretty much, despite the protests of parents and teachers) as potentially harmful to kids, and to our society in general.

As far as articles on climate change, I think it's always helpful to distinguish between op eds that toss in a few select facts or summaries of reports, and actual reporting that strives to be somewhat balanced (for example, articles appearing in Scientific American, NOVA episodes, etc.) In many of the posts I've done on this topic, I have cited websites that collect a wealth of information on this topic, so that people interested can dig down as far into the weeds as they wish, and draw their own conclusions.

For example, Spencer Weart's website, based on information he put together in researching a book he did on the topic (he's a physicist by training, so perhaps I am partial to his opinions for that reason).

RealClimate is an extremely comprehensive site that has a compendium of information, data, and articles on everything climate-related from soup to nuts. If you've got the time, you can find more information than you can absorb in a lifetime, and I've found that most of the stuff on these sites is presented in a fairly even-handed, apolitical way.

It is not possible to take politics out of this issue, however, because as Spencer Weart points out in his personal note, Climate change is ultimately a political issue/problem. In other words, if climate science suggests, with a high level of certainty, that human activity is generating unnatural changes in our climate, then a modification of such activity will likely be needed to undo or counteract these changes. That, of course, requires political will.

 islander wrote: 
You missed my point because I left the context deliberately vague so as not to bring up the case in point since it was a personal remark that I shared to make a bigger point.  I said it in an effort to make amends, not to ruin a wonderful day that we shared.  A few years ago rd had the courage of his convictions to express a political belief and the reasons behind it.  I went too far and took advantage of his honesty and dogged him on it to an excessive degree.  But it was only because I had such a strong reaction to the belief and felt compelled to keep going.  I took his belief and used it against him.  Not nice and looking back, mean.  Its his honest belief and I have come to respect it and will never go there again.  Having met him, from this point on, I hope it goes the way of two guys who had a fight on the playground and became good friends later on because there were so many things they shared in common to get hung up one thing about them.  

On the percentage, heh ...  I look at it as 75% meaningful (at least).  I really do believe that chemtrails are real.  I don't claim to be 100% sure of their content, but I believe that I am 75% sure of their purpose(s).  I am also not afraid to be stigmatized by these beliefs.  I also think that the so called phony scandals are not phony.  Benghazi, the IRS, ... and now the VA scandal.  The accepted narrative here is that they are phony.  I go against that grain.

But on climate change.  This is the most dangerous.  This is where it all comes together.  The narrative is that I and people like me are dismissed in the most pejorative term possible in a debate, a denier.  On the subjects I mentioned above, I do not look at the people who disagree with me as deniers.  The way that the term denier has evolved, it infers the worst.  It brings the attachment of racism, phobiaism of many kinds, narrow thinking, faulty thinking based upon the sources used, and worst of all intolerance of the thought being put forth.

When denier is invoked, it shuts down all reasonable debate and dialogue.  This thread isn't for the purpose of denying or calling those who disagree with what I might post or others, deniers.  It, in my mind is about pointing out the agenda of those who call it "settled science".

I do not know of anyone who thinks that the climate is not changing.  The term denier claims that though and all the other things I previously mentioned.  Those who put forth arguments that end in denier are executing an agenda and twisting their "science" to that end.  Marx laid out the ground work for social change back when he was just getting started using ecology as the most effective and most durable means to the end.

All this stuff that I am reacting to is about how the agenda focuses on the evil conservatives who want dirty air and water for everyone at the expense of social justice.  That is the narrative I am reacting to.  It is also the narrative that is accepted here apparently.  But the biggest flaw in this narrative is that it focuses on how evil the US is and how it must be punished for its evil ways and the best way is to do it is economically by imposing impossible actions and costs that require change in everything to accomplish an end that is impossible.

The flaw is that it totally ignores how futile any efforts that the US undertakes are because that the biggest gross polluters are ignored and given a pass.  Here's a factoid that I will make an effort to find support for eventually, but I'll present it now without support.  China and India are directly responsible for 85% of the current increase of global greenhouse gases.  There is no way that we can do enough here to compensate for that.  And further, why should we ?  I recently heard that the US has reduced its output of greenhouse gases to just 17% of the level it produced in 2005.  This is the heart of my debate.  China is the problem, not us.  Regardless of how good the science, it does not change the real source of the problem.  All of this climate change debate is meant to change the way of the evil US and not China.  I didn't start this thread to be contrary.  That is my point and where I am going.
 
Feel free to comment or ignore it.  But this is where I am headed.  I do not believe that this is a CT, although most everyone else will. 

 aflanigan wrote: 
It is kinda what happens when the primary content to reply to in certain and in many cases, is nothing more than articles.  It becomes a proxy issue.  The poster is doing what in that process ?  Not making a statement or committing their own thoughts for the record.  Then when replying or commenting there is deflection from the poster if there is an attempt to link the article to the poster's intentions or motivations and infer their intentions and motivations.  It seems to me to be trying to have things both ways or having your cake and eating it, too.  Which is it ?  Posting in your own echo chamber or being an agent provocateur ?   If its the former, then what ?  If its the latter, then when a reply is made that disagrees with the view expressed, what follows is not a personal response, but simply another article.

The best analogy I can come up with is its like asking someone, when did you stop beating your wife ?  Every reply is a set up for failure on the respondents part.  Or its putting out a proposition and after every response what follows is just and ?  and, and, and ...  Its a wonderful technique if you can get away with it.  Its fun to watch if you share the views of the person saying and over and over again.  But it is dishonest.

I'm a lot of things, but my reason for being here is not that of being an agent provocateur.  Many years ago, I tried that, but found that it, besides being dishonest, it was mean and ugly and reflected back that way on me. 

Somehow I'll work this thought in on what you are doing in the education thread.  I've been catching your posts on Common Core.  Your interest in the subject seemed to have been sparked by the brief flurry over that email that was circulated showing the example of the new math.  It has fallen back off of everyone's radar, but you keep digging and have come up with some really interesting stuff that  really challenges the narrative being pawned off by the media at large and the teachers union.  We've had some interesting conversations in there a few years ago so I know that your interest is sincere.  I haven't responded because a) digging up stuff on that is difficult for a complex issue and  b) I agree with what you are finding and it makes me happy to see and move on without a comment because my head just doesn't want to stop and embark on a new tangent at that point in time.  Its such an important topic that I can't start thinking about it without going deep, so I don't, at least not at this time.  And thinking that I know where you are coming from over the years, you aren't posting these items just to stir the pot.  So keep it up, someone has too.  There are just only so many things one can focus their attention on.

Years ago, this was a place that was all over on current events and real breaking news.  For a bunch of reasons that we all know, its not anymore.  That and there is simply so much in the way of "current events" to discuss if one is trying to pay attention, how do you pick and choose what to bring up, especially when the reaction is going to be predictable.  But with long running topics some things are worthy of facing the predictable response even it erupts into a flurry of kittehs.  Every once in awhile a conversation breaks out instead of kitteh pictures flooding the landscape.  That's a good thing and still worth the chance, imho.

 kurtster wrote: 

You're welcome.

It seems like your original context for the "intolerance" remark concerned the forums. Nice conversational pivot, but if you want to complain about intolerance in the conversation being had on various media, why are you bellyaching to us? It's not like we have any more control than you over who talks or what gets said on MSNBCFOXNEWSCNNCBSABC etc.

Now, buy a round of beers, and we'll tolerate you even more.

 kurtster wrote: 
The problem isn't tolerance, it is reputation.  When you throw out everything just because it is contrary, you aren't forcing people to think you are asking them to debunk. When 75% of what you throw out is nonsense, unsubstantiated rumor, demonstrably false or simply gibberish, people tire of looking for the 1/4th that might be meaningful.

You said "I only play an a**hole here". The problem is that we are having trouble telling when you are playing. And the play is so frequent that even to a non-casual observer, most days you look like an asshole.  There is plenty of crazy to go around, you don't need to manufacture it. And you can bring up contrary points and indeed even be a contrarian without being an asshole.

 

 aflanigan wrote: 
Yes, I truly believe in free speech.  The intolerance that I am referring to is more towards the discussions taking place in the media that we seem to be discussing here more than here itself.  This place is actually getting better from what I see.

I know what the term means.  I know what all the terms mean.  My point is how this old term is currently being used, officially in government and also all the agendas of the UN.

My remarks regarding the copy and paste are nothing new.  Every once in a while I trot out the old dead horse and kick it a couple more times, kicking it instead of making it a personal attack.

One thing that some may not realize is that I know I take on the wrong and sometimes losing sides of arguments.  I use it as a learning experience.  I really do give a shit about the discussions I choose to participate in.  The longer I am here and the more of the RPeeps I actually meet or directly interact with here, the more I like it here and the more I respect it and the actual people here.  The levels of intellect and experience to be found here are truly inspiring.  We have a high bar here for interactions and somehow all work together to keep that bar high which is a great thing in of itself.

The views I express or arguments I try and take on wouldn't likely be expressed at all if I didn't bring them up or present them.  I know  some share a few of the views I see, but certainly not all of my views.  But there are few regardless who present alternative views.

In the process I might appear to be an arse and take some shit along with it, but I see it as part of territory I seem to inhabit and let it roll or slide.  And on this thought, I met Dave and Paula yesterday in the flesh, and while we are on the opposite sides of politics, it didn't stop anyone from having a good time enjoying a shared love and common ground.  When we said goodbye, I said a really stupid thing thing to RD, I only play an a**hole here.  I actually lost a little sleep over saying it.  Hopefully it was taken as an admission of some past rotten behaviour on my part and let's let it be water under the bridge now.  At the same time, it made me think about my presence here and how "You are vigorously tolerated here.".  If that is true, well thank you, all of you.  I didn't know it was that bad.  At the same time, I have never publicly or privately asked anyone to leave with the exception of one.  Hell, I even got over exxo.  I didn't celebrate the departure of hc, I just remarked it as a turning point.  So back at y'all.

But tell me, what is so offensive about mentioning things like chem trails and some alternative views that are regarded here as pure CT (without a grain of truth or proof) by nearly most ?  What is so offensive about trying to bring forth the possibility of other causes of climate change, especially those that might be natural ?  What is offensive about putting together a post that attempts to connect some dots now and then as long as they are put forth in the appropriate threads, while keeping them out of unrelated threads ?  Many have made that transgression, while I make every effort to keep that part tidy on my end.

So I claimed this term for this thread to present alternative views and the "other side" of the discussion that is underway in the other two on this subject.  I'll let the other two roll along and might take a peek now and then, but there I see little point in commenting on the endless pasting there.  I'll just consider it a bulletin board for the majority view and not interfere.

.
 Thanks again for the tolerance ...

 kurtster wrote: 
Climate change - a term used since the 1950s - is not the same phenomenon as global warming (which happens to be the newer phrase).  There have been no name changes regarding those two terms, despite what Rush Limbaugh has told you.

 kurtster wrote: 

I don't think that this word means what you think it means. Freedom of speech doesn't require your audience to concur with what you are saying. Calling bs on someone who is spewing nonsense is not intolerance, it is the other side of the free speech coin.

You are vigorously tolerated here. If my recollection is correct, you have never been asked to leave or stop posting.

If you really believe in free speech and in the search for truth you should welcome the scepticism aimed at what you post here.

 Zep wrote: 
Thanks.  I did look at the term before posting and there was a wiki reference to an org on the google search page by that name.  I see / saw no reference to that group in the statement by Fabius.  He used it as a terminology, hence the nature of my remarks.

I use it and will use it as a term, not as a reference to the organization. To me it is the latest attempt by those who seek to promote social justice and change towards policies that limit greenhouse gases and other activities deemed harmful by the same and keep their cause in the headlines, since the original term Global Warming and the subsequent term, Climate Change are slowly being discredited as being what was originally claimed by those who promoted their cause under those names / terms.

Because you are a long standing and well respected member of this place I'll tell you why I started this thread.  It is a reaction to what I see as relentless and obsessive spamming in the two existing threads dealing with this subject.  And the intolerance towards anyone who has a different take on the matter.  There is no dialogue.  Just incessant copy and pasting and mocking of any contrary opinions.  There is 100% certainty in these views.  There are no possible alternatives allowed.  Even the possibility of naturally occurring cycles contributing are deemed impossible.  That is beyond reason and rational behaviour, imho.

So this thread is named after the latest term used to demean and demonize those who disagree.  The term is ludicrous in the first place and therefore fitting for a thread to counter the relentless insecure expressions of someone who claims to be so secure in their position.

Make no mistake about my thoughts on the matter.  There is change going on with our climate.  But there are more possibilities than what is being claimed as the reason(s) for it as I see it.  But the causes that I consider are outside of the realm of man's ability to deal with them, and therefore have no political, social or financial interests to those claiming to be the only ones who legitimately care about this subject.

Then, even if these causes are indeed manmade, when there are no efforts by major contributors such as China and India for example to work for the common good of mankind, their cause that is being run down our throats is hopeless.  HOPELESS.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  The US has done its part already and has exceeded the goals of the Kyoto Protocols for a decade and still there has been no impact.

I am not willing to see this country bankrupted and destroyed by these hypocritical hashtag narcissists who jet around the world with massive carbon footprints and their waterboys telling us that we must sacrifice more and more.  Do as I say not as I do ain't working for me.  Get tough on India and China first if you want me onboard.  Otherwise they can STFU.

Peace to you, my friend.


 

 steeler wrote: 
Nope.  I am beginning to find this all rather amusing.  The fear factor is escalating.

This is not my terminology.  It comes from within the movement to induce panic.  Its the third name change.

If not panic, then what ?

What is not amusing is the trillions of dollars, the civil liberties and personal property rights at stake in this shakedown. 

You appear to be one who is in a lather.

Don't forget to scare the children !

 

The desperation of those who are crying wolf about Global Warming, excuse me, Climate Change are getting so desperate to scare everyone into submission that they have now come up with a new, third term Climate Chaos.

We have until September 25, 2015 before the end of the world as we know it happens.  We were given exactly 500 days from the time of this declaration before all hell breaks loose.