rassillon

Joined

• started 50 topics
• posted 368 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by rassillon

• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  OK, I have been swamped, but it looks like I will get a little time here in the next couple of days to reply. Thanks for being patient. -r
• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  just so you are concerned that I am ignoring you, I have just been busy, I will reply later when I get some free time.
• 
  75

  Were you a "Born-In", or were you "Converted"?

  by Warlock in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i was converted in the early 1980's.. warlock .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  Born,

  3rd gen paternal

  2nd gen maternal

  Haven't been to a beating in 3mos, went to the memorial.

  Wife still in - trying to see what is going to happen there......:(
• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  Prank or just someone who is humorus? As I said in an earlier post you completely ignore my humor and that is unacceptable.

  assuming there actually are those incapable of exerting even the slightest efforts in understanding where they are profoundly mistaken,

  you are definitely an example of this.

  The simple act of examining the front page of the IPCC's website reveals (at the very top) the information that the reports are the work of:

  "2500+ scientific expert reviewers, 850+ Contributing authors, 450+ lead authors, from over 130 countries, working for the last 6 years"

  Sorry dude, I am unable to find your quote on the IPCC front page as you claim....sloppy....hmmm.....I am sure though that it is on the site some where so I will forgive that. (JIC: i even searched, and selected all the text and pasted in to notepad and searched there) I could be retarded but then you would be debating with a retard, at least I would have an excuse and I would be the freakin' smartest retard ever.

  I see that you selectively replied to my post.....and poorly at that.

  Please read again and try to comprehend what I am asking.

  The sum is greater than the parts.

  -r
• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  OK diclitoris,

  That was exactly my point when I said I take things on the web with a grain of salt.

  I had not read the IPCCSPM but I did so as to respond to your ba.

  Have YOU read it?

  The IPCCSPM reads like a freakin' Watchtower, there are enough outs in there that if they are wrong they can come back and say well we said "blah blah blah". I am suprised that it wasn't printed in Brooklyn.

  I have not looked at the research that they based the report on, come on I have a job. But from the specific evidence they presented I would have to say I question their findings.

  Why?

  I will tell you

  1.) Have they checked the research themselves which they base their claims on?

  2.) Has the IPCC report been peer reviewed?

  3.) Do you suspect that an organization who's sole purpose is to

  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by WMO and UNEP to assess scientific, technical and socio- economic information relevant for the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

  might be just a little apprenhensive about publishing a report which gives them no reason for being, no reason to continue to fund them and their trips around the world to meet with each other and eat catered food and sniff each others A55E5?

  Hell, if I was in their position I would probably say the same thing.

  In my "not so" professional "OPINION" i would say that it is "very likely" they are full of sh*t.

  OH Yeah, My statement stands, it has NOT been "proven"! It is only their opinion and a biased one at that.

  Does this translate into me not caring about the planet or environment? NO!

  I am all for eco friendly ventures.

  Grow hemp for oil/food/fiber.......meds?

  Bio-diesel

  Solar power

  Wind power ----------------This is where the IPCC can really help out, let's put windmills infront of them, that will solve our power problems.

  etc....ect...etc...

  -r
• 
  48

  MIT Scientist: 'Alarm over climate change is based on ignorance...

  by Bryan in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  the earth will always be changing.. what ever happened to the acid-rain, sky is falling, bs?.

  learning to live with global warming.

  by richard s. lindzennewsweek international"the current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.".

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  There are a lot of people who just don't get it.

  They think GW is caused by humans and they don't use the capacity to reason on the matter.

  So no matter what you say to them, they just won't get it.

  They will attack with vicious scathing remarks and a superiority complex that they are right and there is no other option.

  They somehow feel that if you disagree with them you MUST be working for big conspiracy. Not that you could possible have an original thought or valid reason for how you feel.

  Their points are the only valid ones.

  RRRRRIIIIIIGGGHHTT!

  -r
• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  dilaceratus wrote

  Rassillon : "I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000."

  Oh, for crap's sake-- doesn't anybody even try to find out whether their counter-arguments aren't fraudulent?

  From Sourcewatch:

  Oh, for crap's sake - Do you not know what a wiki is?

  Who wrote the article which you cite?

  Do they have an agenda?

  Are all the facts correct?

  Did you research and find out whether your counter-counter argument isn't fradulent?

  Or did you just post it cause it agrees with how you feel?

  Since it agrees with you, you don't have to check, right?

  ===========================================================================

  Ok dude, I think you are taking this a little too seriously.

  First I don't think you addressed the humor of my post and that is unexcusable!

  Fact is that ANYTHING you find on the internet will have flaws, I take everything with a grain of salt.

  Fact WIKIs are more prone to flaws, they are just one step up from blogs.

  Fact if human induced global warming was proveable it would have been done, it has not.

  You people are so high up on your OPINION that you think you are the only ones who are right.

  Moderation is where it's at.

  In emergency situations do you want someone running around yelling "OH MY GOD! OH MY GOD!" ?

  No you don't, calm heads are better, such as the time when my brother saved a guys life who was in a car accident.

  When other people who witnessed the car accident were freaking out, he set there and held a guys face together so the guy could breath until the ambulance arrived. This is a person who can't stand the sight of blood.

  There is as of yet no conclusive proof that global warming is anything more than the natural cycle of geological/atmospheric/solar events which have happened several times in this planets history.

  Besides I don't see any of these people who preach GW to be changing their lifestyle and living in mud huts or flying electric jets arround....Guess they don't think it is that urgent after all.

  You know what you could do to help, stop using a computer, every post you make you are killing the planet.

  If you reply to this post it means you don't care about the planet.

  If everyone buys into your theory and say they are successful in cutting back the things that you "believe" are responsible for GW and you are wrong and GW continues that is time wasted in figuring out what changes need to be made to live on a warmer earth.

  Be a little balanced dude.

  -r
• 
  31

  Are you a "Leader" or a "Follower"?

  by JH in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i'm a "loner", so no one is following me, and i'm not following anyone.. maybe i tend slightly towards being a follower, but it better be worth my time, or i'll be back to a loner once more.

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  Leader, cause I can't get lost that way.
• 
  68

  ANOTHER 200 Scientists Document Global Climate Change - Yo Deniers!

  by Seeker4 in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/science/earth/07climate.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin.

  another international slate of scientists have released their findings regarding global climate change and human's effect on that (see the above link).. after the last major study released by several hundred scientists a few months ago, it does seem there is a serious concensus here among the leading thinkers and scientists on this issue.

  i know i've banged heads with a few who disagree with this, but it does seem as though that handful of folks who disagree with the science are looking more and more like deniers, as in holocaust deniers, moon landing deniers, etc.. in other words, out there on the lunatic fringe.. so, do you folks think it might be time to reconsider?.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  I will see your 200 and raise you 17,000.

  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm

  Global Warming Petition

  We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

  There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

  http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

  During the past several years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

  Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

  Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

  Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

  Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

  The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

  The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

  This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

  The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.
• 
  25

  Had The Big Chat with my wife...

  by besty in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  after being a long time fader and lurking here for a few years i finally had the courage to speak to my wife the other day

  she was complaining about how we never get invited back to other jw's houses despite being fairly hospitable ourselves and how she's made some new worldly friends that werre non-judgemental and just nice people.

  she also mentioned her mum (also jw but weak - split up from her jw husband) was struggling with the routine and had lots of nice friends out of the kh.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  rassillon

  Hey, all that time as a witness proved helpful.....you knew the right time to strike, when she was down!!! Yeah!!

  Happy for you, I wish I could have had the same with my wife. :( oh well, you never know.

  -r