Wow! A leading personality on the weather channel has openly said that unless local TV news meteorologists accept the theory of global warming, they should be fired.

Holy Intolerance, Batman!

Once upon a time the left was the tolerant side of america, and the right was the heart of intolerance. But now the left has become as intolerant as the right was during the height of the McArthy era.

Seriously, the minute you disagree with the left on any issue, BOOM! They want you silenced, crushed or otherwise neutralized.

I mean, people now can't even disagree with them on global warming with them saying that the people doing so should be punished with the loss of their jobs.

What the fuck happened to tolerance in America? Wasn't forbearance (Tolerance) one of the seven virtues? Now it seems that america is divided between an intolerant lefitst camp and an intolerant rightist camp, and there's no place but out on your ass for anyone who doesn't drink one brand of kool aid or the other.

Disagree with a rightist and you're a terrorist loving tree hugging socialist whacko. Now, disagree with a leftist and you're an ignorant racist corporate apologist.

Calling for people to lose their jobs because they disagree with a dogma sounds like what the McArthyites did in the 50's. Now it seems that the left in america has adopted the same mentality.

A plague on both their houses.

Are you sure you're the right spokesman (or is it spokesperson these days?) for a tolerance campaign?

Drink spit-take...


 Thats what the OP is about?

Koltar, why bother reading Nox's threads if you're not reading Nox? I personally don't believe your "I don't read you, instead I infer what you're talking about" line.

Global Warming is happening.  The Holocaust happened.

The why's are the debate with Global Warming, not that it's not happening.

Quote from: joewolzGlobal Warming is happening.  The Holocaust happened.

The why's are the debate with Global Warming, not that it's not happening.

:raise: *views the OP*

:what:

You know? I'm with the weather channel personality.

I also happen to think we should fire cartographers who believe in a flat earth, geologists who believe in a young earth, astronomers who believe in a young universe, historians who dispute 11 million organized murders in Europe, and game designers who believe in The Impossible Thing.

People who choose orthodoxy in the face of contrary facts simply aren't fucking qualified to say they know facts and can impart them to others.

In my opinion, the "flat-earther teaching geography" argument doesn't apply in this case. The proposal wasn't to strip the scientific certification of those who disagreed that global warming was happening, it was to strip it from those who didn't agree with her on why it was happening.  To quote an article about the controversy:

QuoteThe Weather Channel's (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

So, in effect, she is calling for the de-certification of anyone who doesn't agree with her.  That is not good science.  Science can only work when you can express a dissenting opinion, and then be called on to back it up with real data.  The problem is that climate science is in its infancy.  We really don't know that much about why climate has changed in the past and why it is changing now.  We have some ideas, but they must be rigorously challenged lest an ossified view lead us to a wrong understanding.  It is called scientific debate.

The climate of the planet is changing.  That is fact.  But the climate has always changed.  To use a turn of phrase of Dennis Miller, the Earth's climate is about as stable a Crispin Glover on a triple latte.  There is room for real scientific debate on whether and how much human activity has contributed to climate change.

I gotta agree with Nox on this one.  This is bullshit.


TGA

Well, ya see, there's a difference between actually putting forward the controversy itself and just bitching and railing because everybody's so intolerant (which bugs you because you're a basement-dwelling Criscobeast).

I'm entirely open to discussion as to why it's happening, though I think it's one fuckload of a stretch to deny any human involvement.

Quote from: Christmas ApeWell, ya see, there's a difference between actually putting forward the controversy itself and just bitching and railing because everybody's so intolerant (which bugs you because you're a basement-dwelling Criscobeast).

I'm entirely open to discussion as to why it's happening, though I think it's one fuckload of a stretch to deny any human involvement.

That's why it's good to at least allow for the debate on the why.  Because I think it's one fuckload of a stretch to assume any significant human involvement.

If we both use "fuckload," does that make it a consensus?

:raise:

I'd be interested in your science, sir. I mean that honestly, and I don't feel uncomfortable asking for verifiable links and such in this matter. It is a scientific point, and I'm certain that both sides spare no effort in getting their particular message out there, so there's no absence of linkable pages.

I'll say freely that I believe we are getting warmer; I've noticed it year by year here. I'll also freely admit that I don't know why, but the case for at least a human impact in regard to burning hydrocarbons has been well-made in my view. Can I see your sources?

Quote from: Christmas Ape:raise:

I'd be interested in your science, sir. I mean that honestly, and I don't feel uncomfortable asking for verifiable links and such in this matter. It is a scientific point, and I'm certain that both sides spare no effort in getting their particular message out there, so there's no absence of linkable pages.

I'll say freely that I believe we are getting warmer; I've noticed it year by year here. I'll also freely admit that I don't know why, but the case for at least a human impact in regard to burning hydrocarbons has been well-made in my view. Can I see your sources?

I'll dig something up for you CA - or try to.  If I don't get back to you, PM me.  I know it sounds lame, and I know Pseudo and I have been at it in the Lego thread, but he'll vouch that it works (I did it for him with Gitmo stuff).

I go back and forth on the warmer bit.  And I mean that sometimes I look at the world and go hell yeah.  Then I go outside in April and it's snowing - and the Indians home opener is snowed out, and a little part of me wonders.  I know it's "anecdotal." But that doesn't change that little niggling voice (often drowned out by the "kiiiilll them allll" voice).

My personal opinion, seasons have shifted due to the almost imperceptible precession of the Earth. Here in Chicago Area, December seems an awful lot like Novemeber used to.  Likewise, January (like December).  If I didn't know any better, this start of April is like March used to be as a kid. I think it's like a 30 to 60 year cycle.  None of which is backed up by anything other than my non-scientific ramblings.

Off the top of my head, I'd say the Sun and Other CO2 sources are the more significant culprits. I'll see what I can find.

Well....

One thing I was seeing for years, but has become a fuckload less popular in the last one or two, was that the Earth is still 'recovering' from the last, and not all that long ago on a purely geological scale, Ice Age. Thus it IS getting warmer, and no, the relatively insiginificant forces of humanity (in relation to the SCALE of Earth, say...) isn't much to blame....


Ok, so I added that last part myself.

The thing is that local weathermen aren't in the business of spreading the word about global warming, they're in the biz of giving people their best estimates as to what local weather will be like in the imeadiate future.

The weather channel spokeswoman basically is saying that local weathermen are suppoosed to point out that extreme weather conditions are likely to be caused by GW, thereby turning them into unpaid propagandists for the GW cause, and those that refuse should be fired.

So it's either "Proslytize my cause of lose your job!!" and even if the cause if just I still say "Fuck you." to that mentality.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'll say freely that I believe we are getting warmer; I've noticed it year by year here. I'll also freely admit that I don't know why, but the case for at least a human impact in regard to burning hydrocarbons has been well-made in my view.

The fact that we, as human beings, naturally see everything in the context of our very limited (in geologic terms) lifespans leads us to conclusions that may not be supported by long term data.  Sure, to you it seems like we are going through a period of dramatic global warming, but is it temporary, a blip in a larger climate trend?  Those people who lived through the Year Without A Summer might have drawn some conclusions about the future based on their limited experience that would not have been borne out by the later long-term warming trend.

The real problem with climate science is that we really don't have very good long-term data on temperature.  There have had truly accurate temperature readings for the Western world only for the last few hundred years, and for the rest of the world for less time than that.  The temperatures at the planet's poles have only been consistently scientifically monitored for less than a century.  Most of our data about past climate has been gathered through indirect observation, which is better than nothing, but not precise.

As for alternative explanations to the current warming trend, here is a link to a National Geographic article about a recent warming trend on Mars, and a scientist's theory that it is solar activity that is causing the warming trend on both planets:

http://tinyurl.com/24k59w

Now, does this mean that I don't hold out the possibility that human activity may be a contributing factor?  Nope, but neither do I think that the issue is settled.  That's where good science comes in.  And good science isn't done by quickly coming to a "consensus" and then ignoring any naysayers.  It takes time and a vigorous debate to come to the final product.


TGA

The thing is that I don't deny GW or that humans are behind at least a sizeable part of it. Hell, even my local klan circle has accepted GW as an issue, that's why we've switched to "green crosses" that emit less CO2 when be light them.

But the whole issue of "not only must everyone agree with me, but everyone must proslytize my views or they should be punished, as in losing their jobs." is just a little  intolerant, not to mention arrogant.