Thread: The Constitution?

Originally Posted by gssixgun

Bob try typing DDT and the word MYTH along with it into Google to read the other side of the story..

Always remember there are usually 3 sides to every story the Pro the Con and the Truth you have to at least know the two so you can chose what is your truth...

So true the 3 side bit and the truth is usually different for each one of us. All I do know is that I am see more birds, particularly raptors, now locally than I did growing up. Might be just coincidental but you never know.

Bob

A very wise man once told me that politicians can do the things they do, say the things they say because " The masses are asses." I agree.

Another "wise" politician once said, when asked about a particular issue, "Some of my friends are in favor of this issue and some of my friends are opposed to this issue. As for me, I stand with my friends."

Originally Posted by straightrazorheaven

DDT changed the way the habitats of the waterways work. Eventually toxifying the streams and killing the fish. You really should have gone to elementary biology, like the governments scientific advisers did.

You are believing the lie. Do any research into DDT online, even in the VERY Liberal Wikipedia and you will find words like "might cause", "may cause". All aimed at "possible" environmental impacts. All this concern started by one woman, not a scientist, that wrote a book called Silent Spring. There was never any proof that DDT caused problems. Even what they did eventually claim, things like egg shell thinning, are conjecture.

What is proven is that the rise of malaria has killed MILLIONS of people. Why all this care about birds and no one cares about human suffering and death? What is the life of a bird compared to the life of a man?

Ecofreaks look at man as a cancer. When they cause water to be shut off in California, ruin tens of thousands of jobs, and cause very productive farmland to dry up over a tiny fish that is living in a man made aqueduct, something is seriously wrong with our country.

Originally Posted by ScienceGuy

Here's some info on the "other" side of the DDT story. Google scholar is a great resource. ddt birds myth - Google Scholar

However, as a scientist I am deeply concerned about the environment and strongly support the strengthening of the EPA, and have read extensively on the problems associated with global warming. I feel that government should indeed have increased power as far as concerns such as energy use regulation and emissions, as long as it is based in solid science.

Where do you go to find this "solid science". NOAA is constantly "revising" temp models. They are showing 2012 as the warmest year yet, but even their own people are questioning the numbers because they are being manipulated. How can you trust models that forecast decades away when they can't tell us if it is really going to rain tomorrow or not?

Have you ever looked at ALL the forecast models of a hurricane path? There are usually at least 8 and 1/2 of them aren't even close to the others.

Crotulus

DDT has been in use for some time to fight Malaria in heavily malaria infested areas BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | WHO backs DDT for malaria control . The wide spread outdoor indiscriminate use of it is still banned. Can't recall too many worries about malaria in North America or Europe pre ban either.

Bob

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Where do you go to find this "solid science". NOAA is constantly "revising" temp models. They are showing 2012 as the warmest year yet, but even their own people are questioning the numbers because they are being manipulated. How can you trust models that forecast decades away when they can't tell us if it is really going to rain tomorrow or not?

Have you ever looked at ALL the forecast models of a hurricane path? There are usually at least 8 and 1/2 of them aren't even close to the others.

Journal of the American Chemical Society, NOAA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc.

I am involved in research in carbon dioxide reduction catalysts. I can PM you some papers on the carbon dioxide subject if you want. The main concern is with trends. CO2 atmospheric concentration has been correlated with temperature rise, and the trend for CO2 increase is straightforward (see the Mauna Loa data on the NOAA site). The consensus within the scientific community is much more so than a lot of politicians make it out to be.

Also it is almost useless to try to compare forecasting rain and local events like hurricanes or other storms with climate change; climate change tends to make these events erratic. The same pitfall is seeing rising local temperatures and equating that with global warming (i.e. it is hottest on record at this place in America these past few years), it is the global average temperature that is rising. Global warming and climate change is not an obvious trend until you look at the hard data from over the world.

One thing that is different about the US and our Constitution, that is hard to understand is that Oaths of public service in the US all revolve around the same base..

We do not swear alligence to a country, king, queen, organization etc: etc: we swear to Protect the Constition of the United States of America and the principles that it implies...

Here are many oaths from around the world to get an idea of the differences

Oath of office - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is one of the reasons Americans tend to put a bit more importance into that old piece of paper, changes were designed to come through slow hard work to weed out any drastic changes..

Just look at the history behind the simple supreme court case of Roe v Wade which is right now begining to lose it's power, many US states have less and less abortion clinics, some say because of the Religious pressure, some say because of lack of public funding and other say because of better birth control..
Things are slowly changing though, regardless of the ruling...

The difference is in the laws themselves and the rulings, as society changes things slowly change to follow in the US, but that slow change is by design.. Look at the slow chnages from Women not even having a Vote, to them having a say over their own bodies, it took quite a length of time, it took until 1920 for women to finally get a voice.. Then another 53 years for Roe v Wade, now after 40 more years things are slowly reversing again... So yes you can say that the Constitution is a "Living Document" but it ages much slower than we do

Originally Posted by ScienceGuy

Journal of the American Chemical Society, NOAA, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, etc.

Not saying you are right or wrong, not saying that Pollution isn't bad and we should do everything possible to cut it down..

What I am saying is that the science is very shaky and has had many set backs because of an agenda, that agenda and the funding supporting that agenda has damaged the reputation of the science.. Also the science has changed its predictions too many times in the last 50 years for anyone to put much faith in it any longer.. ie: We no longer accept the science as fact so easily, the community has lost that shine long ago...

Also let's not forget that when Man was just a small bunch of wandering groups, that barely made it through each winter the earth had huge tempature shifts without any influence from us..
So if we listen to "Science" it tells us the this ball of rock has been many different worlds, from a Fire world, to an Ice world to the Temperate world we now occupy, and Man had no influence on those changes over the last 4.3 billion years.. See why we have a hard time with the whole man caused it agenda??? Science has told us the opposite too Right now the money is fueling the Carbon agenda so we have a bit harder time accepting the science as fact..

That's the thing, though, most of the science is really not that shaky. The agenda of skeptics has caused the public to think that. There is always data that supports the other side, and it is considered, but on the whole there is very good consensus within the community that anthropogenic climate change is a major problem. The problem, then, is conveying that to the general public and government. And as far as predictions, they are predictions. Science is based on change and revision. It is an issue when extremists and alarmists distort and overblow that.

True, the earth has experienced many cycles of temperature change. Some of them disastrous and wiping out a lot of life, some of them smaller. Not all drastic climate changes have the same root cause though. The recent changes (4e5 years), the latter part of which we have lived in, have been correlated with carbon dioxide concentration, and we are experiencing CO2 levels now that have not been experienced. True, while we survived before, life as we know it now stands to be drastically altered in the event of climate change (even with small changes in ocean level, new storm patterns, precipitation distribution). And the bottom line is that scientists generally agree that what we are experiencing now is anthropogenic. I wouldn't call it an agenda, this is just the summation of what these people are studying and finding.