Regular American

[DonziJon]

As a Regular American, I've always had an open mind when it comes to things which affect life and liberty in this country. However, I've been pretty skeptical about the New and Politically Correct, not to mention Trendy term "Carbon Footprint", so I looked it up in Wikipedia.

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

GAG ME with a Spork! :yes: Does ANYONE.... know what the HELL all that CRAP means?"

Pay particular attention to the paragraph way at the bottom of all that gibberish that has to do with Christmas and how YOU can help the Planet. :screwy: Just Sayin. John

EDIT: One Kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds.

[Ghost]

I could not agree more.

<rant>

The worst abuses of religion throughout history are incredibly analagous to the Gore/carbon nazis. (Uh-oh, after that comment, somebody may demand I apologize to the nazis. :)) I got interested in this some years back and I am amazed and appalled at the new religion of junk science.

One thing is certain: Regardless of what is happening, virtually all of the people who ardently insist that a global climatic disaster is coming because of human burning of fossil fuels do not know what they are talking about. Whether the phenomenon is even happening, much less whether it is driven by human action, they have absolutely no idea. It is simply a matter of in whom they have placed their unquestioning faith.

It is incredibly sad to me how as a society we teach history, mocking the sheep who for hundreds and thousands of years before us blindly followed priests and seers into wars and destructive social campaigns that were disguised power grabs. Entering into all sorts of ridiculous behavior changes because "God told me to tell you what to do" seems so ridiculous to our "sophisticated" world. But substitute a bunch of unknown politicians quoting completly unknown "scientists" analyzing (or not) completely unknown "evidence" and we become an even sillier breed of sheep that again takes misguided direction on faith.

At least when the superstitious sheep of history fell victim to such scams, there was relatively little common notion of real scientific method suggesting they should be more skeptical. We have no such excuse. It is truly sickening. Where the he11 is Missouri show-me-ism when you need it?

(And with religion, the subjects discussed and preached are matters of everyday living and philosophy and morality, such that those being directed by religious officials have a pretty firm personal foundation of their own beliefs to give context to the merit of what is being preached. And (in most sensible places), worship and obedience are voluntary.)

The pattern I have observed amongst those choosing sides on global warming is that the people who study the geological record generally are extremely skeptical that human activity is the major cause of climate change. The rest are the ones who write their own computer models with their own assumptions and logic about carbon dioxide levels built in, run those models, and surprise, get out a computer prediction that we are causing the problem and it's the apocalypse. I could write my own model like that based on pubic hair levels and reach the same conclusion about climate.

By the way, I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm saying that the people who claim they do have the answers are almost entirely people who have not examined any evidence for themselves, and are thus full of it. They claim science is on their side but they are themselves the exact opposite of scientific in arriving at their opinions.

</rant>

[mjw930]

I could not agree more.

<rant>

The worst abuses of religion throughout history are incredibly analagous to the Gore/carbon nazis. (Uh-oh, after that comment, somebody may demand I apologize to the nazis. :)) I got interested in this some years back and I am amazed and appalled at the new religion of junk science.

One thing is certain: Regardless of what is happening, virtually all of the people who ardently insist that a global climatic disaster is coming because of human burning of fossil fuels do not know what they are talking about. Whether the phenomenon is even happening, much less whether it is driven by human action, they have absolutely no idea. It is simply a matter of in whom they have placed their unquestioning faith.

It is incredibly sad to me how as a society we teach history, mocking the sheep who for hundreds and thousands of years before us blindly followed priests and seers into wars and destructive social campaigns that were disguised power grabs. Entering into all sorts of ridiculous behavior changes because "God told me to tell you what to do" seems so ridiculous to our "sophisticated" world. But substitute a bunch of unknown politicians quoting completly unknown "scientists" analyzing (or not) completely unknown "evidence" and we become an even sillier breed of sheep that again takes misguided direction on faith.

At least when the superstitious sheep of history fell victim to such scams, there was relatively little common notion of real scientific method suggesting they should be more skeptical. We have no such excuse. It is truly sickening. Where the he11 is Missouri show-me-ism when you need it?

(And with religion, the subjects discussed and preached are matters of everyday living and philosophy and morality, such that those being directed by religious officials have a pretty firm personal foundation of their own beliefs to give context to the merit of what is being preached. And (in most sensible places), worship and obedience are voluntary.)

The pattern I have observed amongst those choosing sides on global warming is that the people who study the geological record generally are extremely skeptical that human activity is the major cause of climate change. The rest are the ones who write their own computer models with their own assumptions and logic about carbon dioxide levels built in, run those models, and surprise, get out a computer prediction that we are causing the problem and it's the apocalypse. I could write my own model like that based on pubic hair levels and reach the same conclusion about climate.

By the way, I'm not saying I have the answers. I'm saying that the people who claim they do have the answers are almost entirely people who have not examined any evidence for themselves, and are thus full of it. They claim science is on their side but they are themselves the exact opposite of scientific in arriving at their opinions.

</rant>

Ghost,

I'm with you on this one. I have a degree in Meteorology and studied synoptic (long term) meteorological as well a oceanography and geology. Even with that background I don't consider myself qualified to draw absolute conclusions that lay people preach as gospel (aka Gore).

What saddens me is feel good science de'jour has run amuck to the point where I refuse to renew my alumni support for the university I graduated from because they have taken it to the radical conclusion that A) Humans are the primary cause of global climate change and B) our actions can prevent, yes, they use the word "prevent" global warming....... It just makes me want to return my diploma.