Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Axiom]

[Axiom]

[Axiom]

[Axiom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx-t9k7epIk&feature=player_embedded

[Axiom]

I know he is the "second hand smoke" guy, but!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_green_bubble_is_about_to_b.html

The Green Bubble Is about to Burst
By S. Fred Singer

[Axiom]

It's all about momentum.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/11/global-warming-foia-suit-against-nasa-heats-up-again.html#more

Global Warming FOIA Suit Against NASA Heats Up Again

[Axiom]

[Junior]

[Steelrails]

Something to think about when it comes to conservation, the environment, and humanity.

Al Gore preaches for years about this and people listen and attend concerts that generate pollution and trash and still live their lives the same way.

George Bush leads the country and even the most die-hard Republican type is suddenly rigging up their car to run on home-brew ethanol or buying a hybrid thanks to skyrocketing gas prices. Energy Independence suddenly becomes a national security and is jumped upon by the Right.

Sadly, W did more for Americans doing something about energy and whatnot than old Al ever did.


EDIT- I think the whole climate change/greater environmental movement is ultimately a sort of Pascal's Wager. If climate change is not for real than taken steps to prevent it will do no REAL harm. Life will still go on in a good manner. And certainly some efficiencies will be gained because of measures to curtail waste and excess. However if one does nothing and it turns out that its all true, well then we've basically put our species at risk for being extinct. To me emissions and whatnot seem quite similar to cigarettes. Anyone who isn't in complete denial knows that that stuff just can't be good.
To govern you have to truly understand people.

[wintermute]

[Nowhere Man]

I disagree with the OP suggestion that it be a crime against humanity. However, I rarely see the reconciling of positions I propose:

I think the Earth is being affected by AGW while at the same time headed into an Ice Age.

The pragmatic interpretation of that is that freezing at the poles (which we're still waiting on) will happen while places like the Maldives go under.

Meanwhile, I'd be interested in an argument that goes beyond money to explain why we shouldn't be concerned about this.

My experience is that those lined up against climate change are similar to those lined up against gay marriage.

If you have to cite studies commissioned by the GOP and focus on the East Anglia fiasco, then your contempt rings as hollow and somewhat shallow. If anything, it's reactionary.

Bottom line: If we clean up carbon emissions, we clean up the earth.
Is that a bad idea?

The great rebuttal to this is: The earth has no preferred state.

The great correction is: Humans preferred form of the earth is the one that sustains humans.

So, to get back to it, and let's admit one thing:
One group of us will be dragged, kicking and screaming, to the truth.

More kicking and screaming will not affect the outcome.
Why not leave it at that?

[TheUrbanMyth]

[Axiom]

[Nowhere Man]

Yer, OK...

I went and had a brief look at the "last 7 pages" you mentioned, and right here in front of me I have Mr. Axiom's rain forest article.

To preface, at this point, my participation in this forum at this point hinges upon a) evidence and b) decent arguments. I'm kind of beyond providing a valid criticism and someone just rejecting it offhand.

This is the OM of several people here, and there was a time when I'd have enjoyed the chase and combat of such, but... What happens? One mukluk disappears and another emerges. That means we reset the conversation, and we end up repeating things forever, and who has forever to deal with the same issues again and again?

So...while I'm interested in this topic, I no longer care to repeat myself again and again and again.

To be transparent, I support the position of Anthropogenic Global Warming as an important factor in the climate change we are experiencing. Considering that we are also due for an Ice Age, I believe we have competing factors involving both warming and cooling.

Now, let us consider this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
\
What I offer here is an assortment of science academies from around the world voicing support for climate change.

Is this base, which I have just established, of experts in the field from all parts of the globe changing?

There is a simple answer to this: Yes or No.

East Anglia, GOP aside, this is where a valid and proper change, if there is one, should occur.

Is the entire global scientific community being paid off to support climate change? I doubt it, so let's put that silliness aside (or, I will indeed entertain it when the list above changes significantly as a result of some clear conspiracy).

In particular, when considering this issue, I think of the Maldives. That's the country with the lowest average sea level which will be the first to disappear below rising sea levels. Have you ever been to the Maldives? If so, you know that half the country is already half underwater. Tides are already critical daily events, and a slightly higher tide is a very real threat there. The Maldives is the country least removed from how climate change will determine its future.

That's my position. I believe I've made it crystal clear and provided parameters or limits to my position.

Now, we come to the evidence being provided by you....

But wait, Nobel Prize winner says the Earth has no preferred state: Yeah, that's not really news. He then proceeds to do great deal of mathematical jumping jacks to show that...the Earth has no preferred state.

Clarification: TUM, this is your article, no? Why did you post it?

My concern: Arguments about how the Earth prefers to be are a red herring. Clearly, either the Earths doesn't give two hoots, or it's hoping we'll wipe ourselves out. A Larry King interview with the earth might be fun, but the issue at hand is whether we can maintain the earth in a form that supports life. Human life would be the best, and, yes, even with 5 million megatons of nuclear weaponage, it would be hard to actually destroy the earth. The depressing thing is that we have a Nobel Prize winner reducing climate change to killing the earth.

That sucks. Please don't repeat the "earth preferred state" argument. It's irrelevant.

Next, we come to Axiom's, a most prolific poster, article about how the rain forest used to be...

This argument goes...oh, it's that same Earth's-preferred-state argument. Antarctica used to be tropical. So what? If Antarctica's going to become tropical again, then we'd better get on the horn to the Maldives to work that all out.

Then, we have the climate change museum closing...
Why is there a climate change museum to begin with?
Hmm, the climate change museum closes, but the global academies of sciences maintain their position?
Why are you telling us about this?
This is a message board for language teachers.
If the climate museum closing is genuinely significant, then you also alerted the national academies of science, right?
I mean, otherwise, telling a linguistics forum that they have their geology and meteorology wrong is something akin to fighting social injustice at a culinary school.

And that's why I'll leave it elsewhere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
\
Change that, or else you're just talking.

-NM

[Axiom]

Mr Nowhere

Don't be too concerned about The Maldives. They certainly ain't. Or at least the investors in their new US $373 million airport certainly ain't.

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2010/09/28/hong-kong-company-unveils-new-look-male%E2%80%99-airport

Hong Kong company unveils new look of Male� airport