Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Kerry, Gingrich announce climate showdown
#1
It looks like the first of perhaps more public debates on Climate Change and Global Warming, is coming to us, courtesy of Newt Gingrich and Jooohn Kerry. This should be Great! I can only hope that the entire debate makes cable TV, or UTube, right after it is over. I will immediately place my bets on Gingrich, who is a consumate debater. Wink1

Quote:Former House Speaker and possible presidential candidate Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (Mass.) are set to square off on climate change next week, their staffs announced Thursday.

The debate, hosted by New York University’s John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, will take place next Tuesday, April 10, at 10 a.m. in the Russell Senate Office Building.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#2
Kerry is plugging his new book. Gingrich will tear him a new a**hole. I'd love to hear it but I just can't stand to listen to Kerry's massapharisaic voice anymore.
Reply
#3
mr_yak Wrote:Kerry is plugging his new book. Gingrich will tear him a new a**hole. I'd love to hear it but I just can't stand to listen to Kerry's massapharisaic voice anymore.
I can't find that word in the dictionary. Is it close to being an intoned, boring litany? :lol: I imagine his standing in front of a mirror for hours expounding in endless detail on his massive knowledge on everything, with appropriate gestures to the imaginery crowd groveling at his feet.
Solo~

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. --Thomas Jefferson
Reply
#4
Massachusetts Pharisee - It describes Kerry on a number of levels. Originally, Pharisee defined a group that sought to set themselves apart from the rabble. Pretty typical of folks like Kerry and Gore and Edwards (gosh, what else do they have incommon?) Wink1 that perch themselves on the modern versions of Olympus (eg 28,000 sq ft mansions) and direct the commoners toward poverty in the name of virtue. Then again, there's the more accepted contemporary interpretation ... you make the call.
Reply
#5
I saw a clip of it and Newt is shrewd. He agrees with the basic GW premise,but he says free enterprise and not bureacracy will be better prepared to ameliorate the problem.

I disagree with the basic premise,but if you have a political debate,you have to debate it on political lines.
Reply
#6
Palladin Wrote:I saw a clip of it and Newt is shrewd. He agrees with the basic GW premise,but he says free enterprise and not bureacracy will be better prepared to ameliorate the problem.

I disagree with the basic premise,but if you have a political debate,you have to debate it on political lines.

Do you have a link for us?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#7
No,I watched it on TV. It was a clip only from O'Reilly the other night. Newt entirely accepts the GW mantra,just takes the enterprise methodology over Kerry's bureacratic side.
Reply
#8
I thought it was refreshing, both agreed on the fact man has had an effect on climate change yet differed on what to do about it.

At least someone from each side is talking about it constructively as opposed to just whining about it and pulling a couple of whacky right winger scientists out of their b-holes that the rest of the scientific community consider quacks.

More power to them.
Reply
#9
Bushed, you are too young to remember an equally big "firestorm" during the 1970s about... "WE ARE ENTERING THE NEW ICE AGE" with accompanying gnashing of teeth and doom prophets preaching to people to move south.
OK...the earth MIGHT be warming. That's good, not bad.
Bean
Reply
#10
Mr. Bean, you need to forget about those old and tripe predictions. Those were made before we had serious core sample studies from every part of the planet going back hundreds of thousands of years, before we had comprehensive computer simulations and modeling capabilities. Before we had collected mountians of data and had all the facts that are now currently at our disposal.

Right now only a few scientists who are considered a bit on the "whacky" side are fighting the currents of global warming. I my opinion they serve their purpose. They make science check the facts. Which is a good thing, we need a few of those to keep the rest of the scientists honest. Like keeping Gore honest!

Sorry, I'm majoring in Geology and we talk about this stuff all the time. And study the hell out of it.
Reply
#11
Also, not so good if you live on the coast. And as Hurricane Katrina taught us all, and the GOP, you can't depend on the government to help you if you happen to have caught a bit of the future as you watch your house wash away in a storm surge.

It's going to be highly destructive, like a slow motion train wreck all over the coastal areas on the planet. Especially for the poorer nations. Though scuba diving businesses will thrive, imagine exploring new york under one of our new undersea dive excursions!
Reply
#12
Bushed: at which university do you study geology? In what year are you (F, S, Jr, Sr)?

Can you cite references that show that the computer models have been validated?
Reply
#13
Western Washington University and honestly I have not studied the various models in detail well enough to tell you whether or not they have been validated. All I can tell you is that as far as I know, none of the models have been seriously disputed.

Like all data sets and models that are designed to make sense of chaos theory in relation to atmospheric predictions, they seem to vary subtlely according to what data is plugged in. And they cover a lot of ground from ocean water temperature variance, ocean currents, water vapor and heating and cooling interactions, atmospheric particulates and fluctuations on man made as opposed to natural atmospheric discharges over a great amount of time. But I caution you that a lot of this is still very early in it's conception and that many of the models are incomplete simply because a lot of the data is incomplete.

The sum total of the data suggests very strongly that man has had an influence on the environment. And that we are in for some serious changes over the next few hundred years.

It's an emotionally charged issue and we argue about it alot in class. But it's fun and it's science. Warts and all.

I respectfully suggest you do a little research yourself and come to your own conclusion. Try doing a key word search on climate change, global warming, computer modeling or a variation of all of these and see what pops up. Pretty fascinating information is just waiting out there if you take the time to look!

Try this one link, it covers some of what you're trying to prove. And If I read you correctly, you have doubts about CC.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
Reply
#14
Bushed Wrote:Western Washington University and honestly I have not studied the various models in detail well enough to tell you whether or not they have been validated. All I can tell you is that as far as I know, none of the models have been seriously disputed.

Like all data sets and models that are designed to make sense of chaos theory in relation to atmospheric predictions, they seem to vary subtlely according to what data is plugged in. And they cover a lot of ground from ocean water temperature variance, ocean currents, water vapor and heating and cooling interactions, atmospheric particulates and fluctuations on man made as opposed to natural atmospheric discharges over a great amount of time. But I caution you that a lot of this is still very early in it's conception and that many of the models are incomplete simply because a lot of the data is incomplete.

The sum total of the data suggests very strongly that man has had an influence on the environment. And that we are in for some serious changes over the next few hundred years.

It's an emotionally charged issue and we argue about it alot in class. But it's fun and it's science. Warts and all.

I respectfully suggest you do a little research yourself and come to your own conclusion. Try doing a key word search on climate change, global warming, computer modeling or a variation of all of these and see what pops up. Pretty fascinating information is just waiting out there if you take the time to look!

Try this one link, it covers some of what you're trying to prove. And If I read you correctly, you have doubts about CC.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

I am going to suggest a few things for you.

-First, again, learn to think positive. All this nagative stuff is detrimental to your mental health. Perhaps some reading of the late Julian Simon could change your attitude.

-Second, it is the Sun that is making almost all the changes. Man has done little to change the global temperatures.

-Third, since you are studying geology, then spend some time studying the Pleistocene, which we are still within. We are in an Ice Age, and only the warmest period of the cycle. We are headed back into it again...................real soon. If you think a warm earth is bad, try reading up about climate conditions during a full blown ice age.

- Fourth, Realize that a warmer earth is a more healthy earth. The temperature during the Medieval Warming was warmer than today. And also the period during the early Roman Empire. We go through cycles that are even warmer than today. YOu are being spoon fed all this doom and gloom for two reasons: scientific grant milk cow; and the Statist power grab. All a scientist has to do is request a grant and put a global warming title in it, and he/she gets money. And politicians get to use the State to gather more power to spend your monies and gain more power and prestigue,.............at your expense. You have better get with it, and realize this before it is too late.

I have been accumulating a GW Skeptics thread right here. I suggest you try reading the other side of the argument, before you fall for all this AGW stuff, hook, line, and sinker.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind is made up” — Saint Al of the Gore -
Reply
#15
Global temperatures can and are being effected by our own interactions with the planet. Be it with carbon emmisions, destruction of huge swaths of natural habitat or just simple over population. No scienctist claims that we are the only reason for the changes. But what little effect we have on it is significant simply because we have to live here.

I know more about the planet and it's geological history then most people (at least the avergae guy) and I've had to map out the various shorelines for the past 200 million years for a paper. When you take away continental drift, plate tectonics and use just the ocean levels and shorelines as a marker of where we've been in that time period, we have alternated between global floods and droughts so many times that anyone with half a brain can see the planet has cycles of changes. Everyone should know that.

But the difference is that we live here now. We have cities on every coast on the planet. And a simple rise of even a couple of feet of ocean level or a few degrees of warming in cooler parts of the seas can have a huge and negative impact on the world and the people who live here. Weather, floods and all the impacts these changes will bring to the world are huge.

If we have sped this up even a little it's well worth the effort to see how we might mitigate the coming disasters as much as humanly possible. And even if this is all totally natural, what's so bad about preparing the population of the entire world for the changes ahead?

So I don't really see the point of your argument. You seem to be saying lets just sit still and do nothing. Well, in my lifetime I will see changes and my kids will see even more. I would like them to be as prepared as possible.
Reply
#16
John Wrote:Third, since you are studying geology, then spend some time studying the Pleistocene, which we are still within.
John, we are no longer in the Pleistocene epoch, the Pleistocene ended some 11,550 years BP, the present geological epoch is the Holocene. Though at the end of this interglacial we will return to conditions similar to those of the Pleistocene.
Bushed Wrote:Global temperatures can and are being effected by our own interactions with the planet..... etc, etc
Welcome to Jane, though I might caution you to save your breath, I too am a geologist but I've all but given up with the 'head in the sand crew' S1
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)