this is just getting embarassing now
?
Human rights? Not important (eg torture, injustice, poverty)
Climate warming? Malarky.
But kids phucking? ALARUM!!!!!!!
To quote John Cleese..."You have to remember that you are dealing with people who are functioning at a very low level of mental health."
Quote:Evangelical's Focus on Climate Draws Fire of Christian Right
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: March 3, 2007
Leaders of several conservative Christian groups have sent a letter urging the National Association of Evangelicals to force its policy director in Washington to stop speaking out on global warming.
The conservative leaders say they are not convinced that global warming is human-induced or that human intervention can prevent it. And they accuse the director, the Rev. Richard Cizik, the association's vice president for government affairs, of diverting the evangelical movement from what they deem more important issues, like abortion and homosexuality.
The letter underlines a struggle between established conservative Christian leaders, whose priority has long been sexual morality, and challengers who are pushing to expand the evangelical movement's agenda to include issues like climate change and human rights.
"We have observed," the letter says, "that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time."
Those issues, the signers say, are a need to campaign against abortion and same-sex marriage and to promote "the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children."
The letter, dated Thursday, is signed by leaders like James C. Dobson, chairman of Focus on the Family; Gary L. Bauer, once a Republican presidential candidate and now president of Coalitions for America; Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council; and Paul Weyrich, a longtime political strategist who is chairman of American Values.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/us/03evangelical.html
From my favourite encyclopedia
conservapedia (more
here)
Quote:Global warming is a phrase which commonly refers to a scientific theory and to political proposals that follow if the theory is accepted. The scientific theory is widely but not universally accepted within the scientific community. Conservatives who are opposed to the political proposals that flow from acceptance of the theory, are properly skeptical of the motivations of the theorists, and challenge the scientific validity of portions of the theory.
...
It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field . Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.
That's exactly THE argument to convince me.
LOL! Walter, that is a truly brilliant focusing on the matter.
Sigh. The "close their eyes, ears, and nose tunnel visioned let's go with the poltiically correct and consider absolutely nothing else group' is apparently completely out of ammunition because, in typical fashion, they have turned their focus from any discussion of issues to attacking, accusing, and/or ridiculing those who still have open minds.
And they call us silly.
Did you write that entry to conservapedia, Foxfyre?
But you're right. We really should have a look at the first post again ...
Wherever the shoe fits, Walter. Wherever the shoe fits.
I am curious what the difference is between an open mind and an empty mind?
parados wrote:I am curious what the difference is between an open mind and an empty mind?
Empty minds aren't interested in facts that don't fit or that they don't understand. Open minds look at and consider all the facts even if some don't fit with what they want to believe.
I thought that was rather obvious, but apparently not.
You mean like the second law of thermodynamics?
I don't know. Put it into context and let's see if it is pertinent to the discussion. My son is a mechanical and petroleum engineer and knows a lot about thermodynamics. I can assure you, he got absolutely nothing of that from me however. I admit to being quite uneducated on that subject.
Foxfyre wrote:
Empty minds aren't interested in facts that don't fit or that they don't understand. ...
I thought that was rather obvious, but apparently not.
We had a rather lengthy discussion where you claimed that heat was created by ice forming which was pointed out violated the second law. Followed by you denying you ever claimed it as a theory.
Foxfyre wrote:Sigh. The "close their eyes, ears, and nose tunnel visioned let's go with the poltiically correct and consider absolutely nothing else group' is apparently completely out of ammunition because, in typical fashion, they have turned their focus from any discussion of issues to attacking, accusing, and/or ridiculing those who still have open minds.
And they call us silly.
Pretty clearly, the individual resisting 'political correctness' is Cizik.
parados wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
Empty minds aren't interested in facts that don't fit or that they don't understand. ...
I thought that was rather obvious, but apparently not.
We had a rather lengthy discussion where you claimed that heat was created by ice forming which was pointed out violated the second law. Followed by you denying you ever claimed it as a theory.
When you can cite what I actually DID say Parados instead of what you want me to have said, we'll probably have more productive discussions. I did NOT say that heat was created by ice forming. At least I certainly did not intend to say that heat was created by ice forming. I did say that heat is emitted (i.e. released, given up) when water freezes. I think you'll have a really hard time disputing that, too. And I don't even put that one into the theory class.
Foxfyre wrote:...I did NOT say that heat was created by ice forming. At least I certainly did not intend to say that heat was created by ice forming...
well it is so you were correct, but I think you dont appreciate the difference between heat and temperature.
Steve 41oo wrote:Foxfyre wrote:...I did NOT say that heat was created by ice forming. At least I certainly did not intend to say that heat was created by ice forming...
well it is so you were correct, but I think you dont appreciate the difference between heat and temperature.
Isn't temperature a measurement of the amount of heat that is present? If it has a different definition I would be grateful to know that.
Foxfyre wrote:
Isn't temperature a measurement of the amount of heat that is present?
no its just a number, without dimension.
more later dinner on table gotta go
Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. Heat is a term used for a quantity of that energy that is transferred from one material to another. Changes of phase (solid to liquid and liquid to gas & the reverse) occur at constant temperature. They involve substantial heat transfer (input) to break down the chrystalline bonds (ice to water), or to break the liquid bonds (wator to vapor) among the molecules, which otherwise maintain a constant average kinetic energy in the process. The amount of heat required to melt a pound of ice at 32 deg F (at sea level) is about 1000 times the heat required to raise its temperature one deg. F.
georgeob1 wrote:Temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the molecules of a substance. Heat is a term used for a quantity of that energy that is transferred from one material to another. Changes of phase (solid to liquid and liquid to gas & the reverse) occur at constant temperature. They involve substantial heat transfer (input) to break down the chrystalline bonds (ice to water), or to break the liquid bonds (wator to vapor) among the molecules, which otherwise maintain a constant average kinetic energy in the process. The amount of heat required to melt a pound of ice at 32 deg F (at sea level) is about 1000 times the heat required to raise its temperature one deg. F.
Okay, for us thermodynamically challenged, could you put that into layman's terms as to what happens to the heat that is released when water freezes or becomes colder?
okie asked :
Quote:A thought here, just what qualifies a person to be a "scientist?" A BS good enough? Or is a Masters or PhD (piled higher and deeper) required? Do you have to actually practice the science degree for a number of years, or does a degreed person still wet behind the ears qualify?
just listing the first page of the ninety canadian scientists who signed the open letter to the prime minister of canada (all ninety names are in the link given previously .
imo these scientists represent a good cross-section of disclines and faculties :
Quote:Dr. Philip H. Austin
Associate Professor, Earth and Ocean
Sciences University of British Columbia
Principal Investigator, NSERC/CFCAS Clouds
and Climate Research Network
Dr. David Barber
Canada Research Chair in Arctic System
Science
Faculty of Environment
University of Manitoba.
Dr. Danny Blair
Associate Professor
PARC-MB Hydro Climate Change Research
Professor Department of Geography,
University of Winnipeg
Dr. Jean-Pierre Blanchet
Professeur au Département des sciences de
la Terre et de l'atmosphère,
Institut des sciences de l'environnement,
Université du Québec à Montréal
Dr. George J. Boer
Senior Scientist, Canadian Centre for Climate
Modelling and Analysis
Environment Canada
Dr. James Bruce, O.C., FRSC
Canadian Policy Representative
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Dr. William Mark Buhay
Assistant Professor
Department of Geography
Center for Forest Interdisciplinary Research
University of Winnipeg
Dr. Ian Burton, FRSC
Professor Emeritus, University of Toronto.
Independent Scholar and Consultant.
Scientist Emeritus, Meteorological Service of
Canada
Dr. Andrew B.G. Bush
Co-Editor, Atmosphere-Ocean
Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
University of Alberta
Dr. Stephen Calvert, FRSC
Professor Emeritus
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences
University of British Columbia
Dr. Alan Manson
Chair, Institute of Space and Atmospheric
Studies (ISAS),
Professor, Department of Physics and
Engineering Physics,
University of Saskatchewan
Dr. Hank Margolis
Professor
Université Laval
Program Leader, Fluxnet-Canada Research
Network
Dr. Robie W. Macdonald, FRSC
Senior Research Scientist
Institute of Ocean Sciences Fisheries and
Oceans Canada
Dr. Shawn Marshall
Associate Professor
Department of Geography
University of Calgary and
W. Garfield Weston Chair in Earth System
Science, Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research
Dr. Randall Martin
Assistant Professor
Department of Physics and Atmospheric
Science
Dalhousie University
Dr. J. C. McConnell, FRSC
Distinguished Research Professor,
Professor of Atmospheric Sciences
York University
Dr. Gordon McBean, FRSC
Professor, Institute for Catastrophic Loss
Reduction
University of Western Ontario
Chair, Board of Trustees
The Canadian Foundation for Climate and
Atmospheric Sciences
Dr. Norman McFarlane
Director, SPARC International Project Office
Adjunct Professor
Department of Physics, University of Toronto
Scientist Emeritus
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and
Analysis
Environment Canada
Professor and Associate Chair, Graduate Studies
Department of Applied Mathematics
University of Waterloo
Dr. John M. Casselman
Adjunct Professor Department of Biology
Queen's University
and
Senior Scientist Emeritus
Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
Applied Research and Development Branch
