Space cadet
From the UPI earlier today:
NASA administrator at odds with scientists"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," said National Aeronautics and Space Administration chief Michael Griffin. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.
"To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."
NASA scientist James Hansen took exception to Griffin's assessment.
"It's an incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement," Hansen told ABC News. "It indicates a complete ignorance of understanding the implications of climate change."
Discuss.
|
May 31, 2007
Posted in in the news 2007. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
9:08 p.m.
May 31, '07
It's not the best climate we could ever have, a specious idea anyway. But is the climate on which we as a species have built our complex adaptations (e.g. high population concentrations & urban investments in coastal areas), along with the maladaptations causing accelerated climate change.
Although Griffin seems to think he's taking an Olympian view from geologic time scales, he apparently misses the point that on those scales, deep change is happening incredibly fast. The "purely natural" historical fluctuations that do-nothingers like to point to are quite real. But they took place over much longer time periods. It is this deep rapid change, leaving little time for adaptations, not only by humans, but other species of fauna and flora. That is why it is "a problem we must wrestle with."
In the long run we're all dead, and in the long run, all species are extinct. Human agricultural society, of which industrial and information societies are but tiny, brief subsets, is only 10,000 years old. Agriculture as main food source for a majority of humans probably is less than 4,000 years old, maybe even less. Modern humans as a species have only been around about 200,000 years.
A good Ice Age (such ages being measured in hundreds of thousands of years) could put paid to much of what humans have developed in our current, still relatively brief interglacial period. But meanwhile, and on the scale of human rather than geologic time, there's a lot of predictable misery to try to forestall from accelerated human-caused overall warming & attendant growth in violence of climatic fluctuations.
May 31, '07
uh... space program manager =/= climate scientist
May 31, '07
Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate forcing scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions. Scenarios that accurately fit recent and near-future observations have the best chance of bringing all of the important players into the discussion, and they also are what is needed for the purpose of providing policy-makers the most effective and efficient options to stop global warming. ( from http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html, bold added)
In other words it is ok to lie to get your attention, but I am telling the truth now. GIVE ME A BREAK!!
AlGore: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions. (From Grist, 09 May 2006, grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ bold added)
Doesn’t this bother anyone?
Thanks JK
Jun 1, '07
The fact that this story is news is a rather sad critique on the ability of people to recognize the strengths and limitations of the method of science. Griffin's statements are analytically true, regardless of what your opinions on climate change. Every belief is based on certain presuppositions, which are by nature "pre-science." All he did was draw attention to a presupposition that is currently the dominate paradigm. If you happen to agree with the current dominate presuppositions, admit it and move on. Setting the frame as "NASA administrator at odds with scientists" implies that either the author of the original article is ignorant of philosophy of science, or worse, that the scientists themselves are. This feels like a scientific Inquisition, with a fairly heavy amount of abuse of the term "scientific."
That's how I'm reading it right now at least.
Jun 1, '07
The title of the UPI article is ignorant. It is a scientist with 7 degrees - the boss of NASA - who is at odds with religious bigots.
His statement is obviously true. There is no moral justification that could promote the present climate or the climate of October 1917 in Russia to a standard that should be valid forever. Climate has been always changing and it always will.
While the bigots are stunned, he should continue to act, for example he should fire Hansen. After one day it seems that he will survive in his job.
Click my name to get to my article about it.
Jun 1, '07
I wonder what Lars Larson is going to do now that He Who Can Do No Wrong has, verbally at least, admitted there is a problem maybe we as humans ought to address.
Jun 1, '07
Doesn’t this bother anyone?
Yes, Jim, it bothers me. If your quotes are accurate, I look forward to a response from those who would defend Hansen, Gore, and Schneider's statements.
Jun 1, '07
Once again, we can always count on Jim "trees cause crime" Karlock to post lies, fabrications, and gross distortion of the truth to further his own personal agenda.
From Media Matters, Newshounds, and others:
Michaels made his comments during a discussion with co-host Sean Hannity about the upcoming documentary film An Inconvenient Truth (Paramount Classics, May 2006), which chronicles Gore's travels speaking about global warming. When Hannity asked Michaels whether the film is "more Al Gore hysteria and fear mongering," Michaels responded that "global warming is a very real thing," but that "what people do on this issue is they exaggerate it." To back up his claim, Michaels pointed to a comment Gore made during a recent interview with Grist Magazine, in which Gore stated: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is." Michaels highlighted the quote to assert that Gore "says it's appropriate to over-represent the danger on this issue."
In fact, as the website News Hounds noted, Gore's use of the term "over-representation" referred to the amount of time spent informing people about the dangers posed by global warming (at the expense of discussing possible solutions to the problem); it did not amount to an endorsement of exaggerating those dangers. In the Grist interview, Gore was asked whether the "best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated" is to "scare people or give them hope." Gore replied that, given that "[n]obody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem," it is "appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are." He added: "Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
Michaels is the author of three books critical of global warming theory, all published by the Cato Institute -- Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (November 2004), The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming (May 2000) and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (January 1992). In a review for Meltdown, Publishers Weekly noted that Michaels "acknowledges that the earth is warming because of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, but he insists that the warming will probably be modest and that nature and humanity will easily adjust to it."
Publishers Weekly further noted:
[Michaels] sometimes allows his own agenda to intrude. Advocates of the precautionary principle will note that he fails to demonstrate his claim that "there is no known, feasible policy that can stop or even slow these climate changes." And while he chalks up global warming alarmism to an unholy alliance of climatologists hungry for grants and media sensationalism, his remedy for biased science is not better science but a "wider source of bias" in the form of more funding of climatology by the fossil fuel industry.
Indeed, Michaels's ties to the energy industry are many. For example, in an October 11, 2005, article, The Seattle Times reported that "Michaels has received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal." As Media Matters for America has noted, Michaels is chief editor of the World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. Michaels participated in a February 24 roundtable discussion at the George C. Marshall Institute in Washington, D.C., an organization Congressional Quarterly described as "a Washington-based think tank supported by industry and conservative foundations that focuses primarily on trying to debunk global warming as a threat." According to an Exxon Mobil report, the Exxon Mobil Foundation donated $80,000 to the institute's Climate Change program in 2002.
This is not the first time misinformation originating with Michaels has surfaced on Fox News. As Media Matters has documented, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume apparently relied on a misleading article by Michaels that attacked the credibility of a World Bank scientist in order to discredit a recent United Nations report on world ecosystems written by a panel the scientist co-chaired.
From the May 9 article in Grist Magazine:
Q.: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?
A. [Gore]: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there's going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions.
From the May 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
GORE [clip]: We have to act together to solve this global crisis. Our ability to live is what is at stake.
HANNITY: That was the trailer for Al Gore's new film about global warming called An Inconvenient Truth. Gore says the film exposes the misconception about what he calls "an environmental crisis."
But what is the real scientific truth behind the film? Does global warming exist, or is this just a liberal scare tactic? Joining us now is University of Virginia professor, Cato senior fellow of environmental studies, Patrick Michaels. Patrick, is that more Al Gore hysteria and fear mongering?
MICHAELS: Well, it's an exaggeration. Global warming is a very real thing. People have something to do with it in the last several decades of the 20th century. But what people do on this issue is they exaggerate it. I have a quote from him, from Grist magazine recently.
He said, "I believe it's appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is."
HANNITY: Yeah.
MICHAELS: He says it's appropriate to over-represent the danger on this issue. You have to realize what he said and take that as you see this movie.
I won't even bother with a discussion of Hansen and Schneider's remarks - I leave that to everyone to do their own research. Needless to say if you take Jim "trees cause crime" Karlock's statement as fact, you enter this debate at an extreme disadvantage.
Jun 1, '07
Scott in Damascus Once again, we can always count on Jim "trees cause crime" JK: That is YOUR distortion. I merely claim that trees are a place that criminals can hide. Do you dispute this?
Scott in Damascus Karlock to post lies, <b<jk:< b=""> Prove it or shut up you anonymous accusatory fool.
Scott in Damascus fabrications, <b<jk:< b=""> Prove it or shut up.
Scott in Damascus and gross distortion of the truth to <b<jk:< b=""> Prove it or shut up. I provided full quotes and full references - you had to introduce a right wing talk show to discredit my quotes. Why not just read the quotes and understand them?
Scott in Damascus further his own personal agenda. <b<jk:< b=""> Yeah, the truth. What is your agenda? To force your vision of a world full of happy (ignorant), peasants in little walkable villages on the rest of the world? And global warming is just a convenient excuse to force people to give up their modern lifestyle (and long life span.)
For some science see: co2science.org/ junkscience.com/ To understand that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, see this page at a site advised by the creator of Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” temperature chart: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Then learn how CO2 only causes, at most, 33% of the greenhouse effect: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
Thanks JK
Jun 1, '07
Let me waste some time correcting anonymous Scott: Scott in Damascus (Quoting FOX TV:) MICHAELS: Well, it's an exaggeration. Global warming is a very real thing. People have something to do with it in the last several decades of the 20th century. But what people do on this issue is they exaggerate it. JK: That pretty much sums up the facts: 1. The earth is warming. But Keep in mind that the last major climate event was “the little ice age”. Would you rather we hadn’t warmed up after the little ice age? 2. CO2 is, at most, 30% of the greenhouse effect. realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 3. Man emits about 3% of the CO2. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/printall.php
Overall, man, perhaps, is responsible for 1% of the overall warming. Based on this, many say that man is contributing, but not enough to make a difference. That also means if we stopped ALL CO2 the earth would still warm. Just like it has many times in the past.
Scott in Damascus I won't even bother with a discussion of Hansen and Schneider's remarks - I leave that to everyone to do their own research. JK: Just read them and understand them. You will see that anonymous Scott is wrong.
Scott in Damascus Needless to say if you take Jim "trees cause crime" Karlock's statement as fact, you enter this debate at an extreme disadvantage. JK: Have you ever looked at some real science: co2science.org/ junkscience.com/ To understand that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, see this page at a site advised by the creator of Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” temperature chart: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Then learn how CO2 only causes, at most, 33% of the greenhouse effect: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
BTW, answer this: What would the temperature be in the year 2100 if we continued on our current course and if man INSTANTLY STOPPED ALL CO2 emissions? Is that good or bad?
Thanks JK
12:50 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
"JK: Have you ever looked at some real science: co2science.org/ junkscience.com/"
CO2science.org, the website sponsored by the Exxon-funded, Western Fuels Association-affiliated Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? Those guys? Yeah, that's real science, all right. And guess who is one of their "scientific advisors?" Oregon hack George Taylor!
Junkscience.com, the website run by a guy who refuses to note his funding sources, but was a registered federal lobbyist on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, FMC Corp, Fort Howard, International Food Additives Council, and Monsanto? That site? Yeah, that's real science, all right.
Give it up, Jim.
Jun 1, '07
Jim: Every single one of your citations is directly and fully funded by the petroleum or petrochemical industry.
I stand by my post.
p.s. I've made it through 5 years of the Oregonian and still haven't found a single felony commited by a criminal hiding in a tree prior to the crime. I'll keep you updated as I work my way back into the 90s.
Jun 1, '07
torridjoe CO2science.org, the website sponsored by the Exxon-funded, Western Fuels Association-affiliated Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change? Those guys? Yeah, that's real science, all right. JK: Joe, you have to learn how to look at facts and claims, instead of making assumptions based on funding..
For instance if you only looked at funding, you would dismiss Hansen as a NASA hack groveling for federal funding for his department at NASA.
And you would have to consider Al Gore little more than a sore looser, who runs a mutual fund that hawks stocks that make money when people get scared about global warming. Why would anyone believe anything coming out of the mouth of a politician, especially one who went to bible college?
torridjoe And guess who is one of their "scientific advisors?" Oregon hack George Taylor! JK: How many meteorological science degrees do you have? Taylor has at least one. How many years experience do you have with weather? George has many. How many journal articles on climate have you read? Taylor has read plenty.
torridjoe Junkscience.com, the website run by a guy who refuses to note his funding sources, but was a registered federal lobbyist on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, FMC Corp, Fort Howard, International Food Additives Council, and Monsanto? That site? Yeah, that's real science, all right. JK: Guess you haven’t figured out how to look up journal articles mentioned by those sites. Are you making the mistake of believing what they say without checking the papers they refer to? Well you probably are, because if you checked most of Gore’s crap, you would find that he spews, well ,crap.
Why not check out the web site with the creator of Al’s “hockey stick” as a science adviser: To understand that CO2 DOES NOT cause global warming, see this page at a site advised by the creator of Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick” temperature chart: realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
Then learn how CO2 only causes, at most, 33% of the greenhouse effect: realclimate.org/index.php?p=142
You will fins some of the finest spinning of science this side of Portland’s own Metro. But they both admit enough facts to see that their claims are BS.
I particularly like the claim that something unknown starts warming, then, 800 years later CO2 takes over. Huh!! Why introduce CO2, instead of accepting the fact that the something unknown could have continued with CO2 being irrelevant?
Thanks JK
Jun 1, '07
Scott in Damascus Jim: Every single one of your citations is directly and fully funded by the petroleum or petrochemical industry. JK: No they aren’t - what world do you live on? Citation 1: Are you saying that James Hansen writing at http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh6.html is funded by oil? Hansen is a Federal Government employee. Your claim is simply ridiculous.
Citation 2: Are you saying that Al Gore or Gist at grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/ is funded by oil? Your claim is simply ridiculous.
Citation 3: Are you saying that Stephen Schneider, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (at the time of his quote), or DISCOVER Magazine was or is funded by oil? Again, your claim is simply ridiculous. (Schneider is now editor of a peer reviewed journal, Climate Change.)
Now I see why you prefer to be anonymous.
Thanks JK
2:17 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Jim, the bottom line is that the people and organizations you cited as propounding "real science" are in fact shills for the fossil fuel industry. Their total lack of credibility is what greatly impugns yours. In other words, what you say is NONSENSE. Got it? NONSENSE.
2:19 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
oh, and forgive me--but isn't James Hansen's boss George W Bush? We all know how trustworthy the science coming out of the mouths of his spokesmen have been since he took office...
2:20 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Griffin, not Hansen--sorry.
4:22 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
JK, you got your ass handed to you in this thread. Quite while you are behind.
5:46 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Ditto what Luke.
Jun 1, '07
It just boggels my mind how anybody could think that we can take such huge amounts of carbon, that has been stored under ground for eons, pump it all into the air, and not cause any changes. It belies all logic.
8:31 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Re Luke & Lubos Motl -- Griffin's claims are "analytically" or "obviously" true only in the most trivial sense. It is a non-sequitur to say that because climate always varies, this particular variation is not a problem.
The question of what is a problem is not a question about climate per se. It is about the interaction of climate and human activity.
I actually heard the NPR interview with Griffin as it was broadcast here. Jim Karlock may not think that CO2 or or other human agency in the cause of a very substantial proportion of the rapid rise in average global temperature over the past century or so, but Michael Griffin disagrees.
Griffin not only said that he agrees that there is a warming trend, as quoted above. He also says that he believes proponents of human agency as a or the primary cause have successfully made their case.
So he is NOT saying, "Yes there's warming but it could be just what it would be if there were no human effect." He's saying "Yes there's warming, and humans cause most of it, (but, or and) I'm not sure that's a serious problem that we should wrestle with."
He was making that statement in a very specific context, responding to a critic of Bush administration space priorities who thinks Griffin should be more than a yes-man to a huge waste of resources. The critic recently had an article in Wired magazine & NPR had interviewed him & broadcast the interview the day before. One of his main contentions is that the Bush Moon/Mars program is an enormous boondoggle which is decreasing scientific study of earth, including climate dynamics, when such study should be increased.
So Griffin was defending the choice to put the priority for spending some billions of dollars each year on the Moon/Mars vision Bush has enunciated, as opposed to science that could improve our understanding of climate dynamics & other matters at home, and implicitly explaining how he justifies to himself being an uncritical yes-man.
He was not arguing about the validity of the current most widely held scientific view of climate change (significantly anthropogenic and likely to accelerate from anthropogenic causes).
Instead he was putting forward a sophomoric sophistry about lack of absolute standards about what a "good" climate is, to wish away the very real problems, which arise not in relation to an absolute standard, but in relation to the structures and order of current human social, economic and political life.
Such wishing away and misdefinition of problems is grossly irresponsible for someone in his position. His multiple degrees make it worse, not better, because he is abusing his capacity to argue from authority.
8:34 p.m.
Jun 1, '07
Does typing a period after a close italics somehow invalidate it? Anyway, sorry for skipping preview.
Jun 1, '07
Scott in Damascus: Thank you for putting Gore's statement in context.
And Jim K.: Please don't manipulate someone's words to make your point. It really does hurt your credibility.
Jun 2, '07
Scientists have argued over a number of issues throughout the centuries. Different people can look at the same information and come to different conclusions and while the Northern Hemisphere has been heating for sometime, it is obvious that "global warming" has become a political issue as much as it is a scientific one, if not more so. WE do need to clean up the air, but as it has been pointed out elsewhere long range predictions are more difficult than short range ones and as difficult as it is to predict the weather how can we resonably count on science to predict something twenty to thirty years out. The important questions such as how and at what cost and who will benefit and who will lose are being avoided. MW
11:30 a.m.
Jun 2, '07
It may be a scientific "issue," but scientists haven't come to different conclusions on global warming, and that's rather the point. They agree, overwhelmingly, on its occurence and attribution to the actions of man.
There is a political debate, that tries to ignore the fact that there is no longer any scientific debate. None, karlock's krackpots notwithstanding.
Jun 2, '07
There has to be some mass disorder effecting you folks who ignore the enormous, and growing contradictory science and the many experts who can be found throughout the web. Here's just one entirely credible link with plenty of experts and science whihc you pretend does not exist. How is it you are capable of such disregard for the whole story. Even George Taylor has provided incredibly convincing entire graphs which clearly display Gore's cherry picking of the same graphs to use segments that would mistakenly indicate trends that do not exist. Again, Taylor uses Gore's own graphs. He simply shows the rest of the graphs which Gore does not. They are not oil company graphs and they do not project what Gore claims is happening. If you people cannot even look at Gore's partial graphs and see a problem then you are hopelessly intellectualy dishonest. And gore has distorted graphs covering temperatures, snow pack and other measurements.
The hocky stick theory is also bunk yet all it takes is some random notion about man's CO2 production and there must be something horrible we are causing. Not so children. The atmosphere layer where greenhouse gases amass is operating at near full capacity with any additional greehouse gases etiher leaving the atmoshphere or triggering additional water vapor cycling which moderates temperature,,,,offsetting any increased in CO2.
Grow up and do your homework. Especailly you torrid.
ttp://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research
For the mountain of science against man made global warming just google "Global warming fraud". If you are too lazy for this elementary task perhaps you should not be claiming to have done your homework. It is not the deniers or skeptics who neglect to study the other side.
Jun 2, '07
Miles And Jim K.: Please don't manipulate someone's words to make your point. It really does hurt your credibility. JK: Please show what I allegedly “manipulated” by posting an extensive quote, with links to the original sources? Or are you having trouble with English usage by weasels?
Let me make an analogy by inserting George Bush into each of the three quotes and you can tell me if Bush is being truthful in the below: Hansen: Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue,
What Bush might say: Emphasis on weapons of mass destruction may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the Iran issue.
AlGore: . Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
What Bush might say: Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous Iraq is , as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to invasion plans, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
In Bushesque: Bush described the statesmen's dilemma this way: "On the one hand, as statesmen, we are ethically bound to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but-which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just statesmen but; human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous nuclear and other weapons. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might. have. This `double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Please tell me how you can say Bush lied and Hansen, Gore and Schneider didn’t. All of those statements are those of weasels. If any of them were truthful, they would have condemned deception, in the strongest words. Instead they excused it as necessary. They are weasels. Too bad you can’t recognize it when it is your guy.
End of case.
Thanks JK
Jun 2, '07
lestatdelc JK, you got your ass handed to you in this thread. Quite while you are behind. JK: Suggest you take your own advise.
JK
2:57 p.m.
Jun 2, '07
OK, Jim Karlock, you're done here. Let others have a turn at the mike.
Jun 3, '07
I hope I get all this in here, ut check this out torridjoe http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af. MW
10:30 a.m.
Jun 4, '07
Well, I've been commanded to "do my homework" and check out two URLs, neither of which are properly entered so I can actually read what's there. Nicely done!
In any case, four letters for you people: IPCC.
The debate is OVER. Get used to it.
<h2>Discover, October 1989? I mean really, Karlock!</h2>