PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum
Jazz Guitar Discussion
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

how is the weather where you are?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Gorecki
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 62518
Location: Davis, CA

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well last I looked it was 8 degrees F here now. So much for the easy going winter. Guess it was too good to last! Crying or Very sad

Now granted, where I live is right on the Mason-Dixon Line so severe winters are simply not common here...but it's damn cold right now! Laughing
_________________

Forums Admin for PlayJazzGuitar.com.

Do you know where all of your F'n B flats are?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This recent cold snap from the midwest into the south has a lot of people wondering about the validity of claims for global warming.

With a PC, it's easy to check Canadian weather sites in the high Arctic...while it was as low as -42 F in Minnesota, way up north and beyond Baffin Island the high temperatures were as much as 40-50F warmer (even almost 60 degrees F warmer at one site I checked)...mid day temperatures approaching the thaw in early February a relatively short distance from the north pole.

This Arctic air mass pushed south, but the unreported/under-reported story this week seems to be the warmer air behind it way up north where it really shouldn't be this time of year.

On edit: Let me correct myself...one of the Canadian Arctic temperatures I checked was closer to 70 F warmer (rather than only nearly 60 degrees warmer) than the low in Minnesota. The temperature at Iqaluit Airport reached a high of +24.3 degrees Farenheit yesterday (February 5). The normal high for that day is -11 F. Right now, or rather, at 9:00AM EST February 6, 2007, Iqaluit Airport is already reporting +19 degrees F...and it's only early morning.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, check this out:

http://www.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?nu-7&unit=i

At Pangnirtung, not far from Iqaluit (and further north), it actually got above freezing yesterday, and it is predicted to get above freezing again today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nezumi



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, cjm

is colder here than there just now.

this site offers normals and recorded highs and lows for Iqaluit airport.

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/weather/alm/pages/YFB.htm?CANU0014

many disturbing weather related trends show up first at the poles, and are told by the inuit people in Canada's north. Shorter cold seasons, permafrost softening up, the ice breaking up too early for hunting seals from land, that kind of thing.
no matter what Igiro says, climate change is happening, and it shows up most at the poles.

Arctic exploration by ship was a very hazardous adventure in the 1800's when Franklin and his kind were trying to get throught the Northwest passage. Ships were frozen in the ice for months, sometimes years!
The Northwest passage, discovered by Amundsen, didn't open up the Arctic as promised, there was always the strong possibility of any passage up there getting so clogged with ice and bergs that no ship could pass, even modern day icebreakers would not have gotten through.

Now ships from all over the world pass through Canadian Arctic waters without permission and we don't even know it. They just slip through here and there, with very little worries of getting frozen in.
_________________
hey, hey, hey
play every day BiteLip
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro, you can complain about it as an insult if you like, but the reality of the situation is that you wrote something very stupid when you demanded a guaranteed result...and that stupid comment demanded a sharp rebuke for there to be any intellectual honesty in this discussion..

Next you compound the foolishness by presenting a false choice, through an implication that reductions in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.are necessarily disasterous to our economy.

Then you reveal your confusion between weather and accuracy of short term predictions of weather events, and long term observations of climate trends.

On top of that, you dispute "the science."

You know, lgiro, you can't prove the "rocket science" that human beings ever traveled to the moon and returned. There are plenty of nut jobs out there who claim that it was all a hoax and that the NASA missions to the moon were faked -- filmed on a sound stage under government control -- and that the deception has been a carefully guarded secret for nearly 40 years.

Let me introduce you to the old and hoary English, and then American, common law principle of the reasonable man...

It is a principle of law applied where some things cannot be known and where statute or case law either does not address the situation or appears to contradict societal norms. In its application, it asks, What might the reasonable man, a member of this society, do under these circumstances?

It's not just for jurists...the courts adopted it from the larger society as a shared understanding that made it a useful part of the common, or "customary" law.

I'm fairly certain you accept that NASA did, in fact, launch several successful missions of lunar exploration beginning in the late 1960's, even though you cannot personally prove or "vet" the science behind claims that people went there, looked around, picked up a few rocks, and flew back to earth.

And you accept this even though that icon of liberal media evil, Walter Cronkite, was one of the most outspoken cheerleaders of America's manned space program.

Whether you have thought about it or not, you accept this in large part because the majority of scientists associated with the exploration of space do not dispute that there were manned missions to the moon, despite what the "Flat Earth Society," may have to say about the matter.

The majority of scientists involved in climate research do, without regard to any of their theories of cause and effect, maintain that average global temperatures have been on the rise since the industrial revolution, with a relatively sharp spike in temperature rise during the 20th Century.

The majority of scientists involved in climate reasearch note that these observations of temperature increase also corelate to an overall trend toward temperate latitude glacier retreat and more recently, diminished extent of pack ice in the Arctic Ocean and surrounding the continent of Antarctica.

And while there is dispute over the accuracy of CO2 measurements over centuries and millenia taken from deep drilling of glaciers to recover trapped atmospheric gases, there is little dispute about the accuracy of CO2 measurements taken directly from the atmosphere over the course of the second half of the 20th Century and continuing today.

But unless you're an atmospheric/climate research scientist yourself, you cannot credibly "vet" the credentials and work of the majority of these scientists -- any more than you can "vet" the work of the scientists and engineers of the manned space program.

Moving on, we know that scientists cannot explain the different climate of Earth's nearest neighbors, Mars and Venus, on the sole basis of solar energy received. Some factor produced an atmosphere rich in greenhouse gas on Venus, and a thin, poorly insulating atmospheric blanket on Mars...

...and we know that here on Earth, a part of the bio-sphere (because we are part of the bio-sphere) is busily introducing carbon, long sequestered, back into the bio-sphere, and that this process of introducing carbon to the bio-sphere does corelate to observed average temperature rise and retreating glaciers...

...accompanied by a coresponding rise in mean sea level according to a majority of scientists engaged in this research.

Of course, you're free to dispute this, just as you are free to dispute that man ever went to the moon.

And as the reasonable man, maybe that's just not enough for you.

So,,,,we can also look at the closely related issue of fossil fuel depletion.

We know that there are roughly 5 billion more people on Earth today than there were when human societies were all primarily supported by "renewable" energy supplies derived from the bio-sphere. We can examine the 20th century records of increased agricultural productivity as fossil fueled mechanization displaced muscle power, and as yields spiked sharply with the introduction of petro-chemicals as fertilizers and pesticides. And we can see the corelation between increased agricultural productivity and a sudden increase in human population.

From that, we can reasonably conclude that the survival of the majority of human beings on Earth is dependent upon an energy supply derived from outside the bio-sphere.

If you ever worked in the oil fields, you know (or ought to know) that in the early days of oil production, there were many shallow wells driven where the oil was so close to the surface that it was actually possible and practical to extract some of it using nothing more than a windmill - just like a rancher uses to keep a stock tank full of water for cattle.

But you would also know that it is nothing to spud in today with the intent of drilling 30,000 to 50,000 feet down.

The easily extracted petroleum is long gone, and we're moving toward the point where it will require more than the energy contained in one barrel of oil to extract and process one additional barrel of oil.

That is an energy deficit. That is the "Peak Oil" scenario.

Given all this then, what does the reasonable man do?

Does he, like the "Flat Earth Society," deny that the Earth is a globe, and that nothing can even orbit it, much less travel to an orbiting moon and back?

Or does he look at the world about him, and and recognize the achievements of science over the past century and with that record of achievement as evidence, give appropriate credence to this more recent area of scientific research, and conclusions of a high probability of an anthopogenic factor to climate change, according to a majority of climate research scientists?

And with all that, and perhaps even bolstered by his own personal observations of glacial retreat over the past five decades (not as proof of anything, but as corroboration of claims that there are glaciers retreating), might not the reasonable man begin to look for and support methods of reducing both green house gas emissions and our dependance on fossil fuels? Methods that could reinvigorate our economy even as they address these issues? Methods such as establishing a non fossil fuel based, non greenhouse gas emitting economy based on fission?

Ah, but then it comes back to your original, unreasonable, demand for guarantees for how this all works out in the year 2100 and beyond.

And I come back to my response: There are no guarantees in exchange for your "terrible sacrifice." If you have an infant child, there is no guarantee that the kid will turn out to be the next Albert Schweitzer...or the next Hitler.

But if you nurture the child, and take care of the child, and educate the child, and don't abuse, neglect or abandon the child, the "reasonable man" can foresee a greater probability of a successful, happy, outcome.

And that really is what we're talking about here -- nurturing future generations -- generations of our descendants as yet unborn -- to the best of our abilities and without the slightest possibility of any guarantees.

As an alternative however, you are demanding (without your naming him as the source, but I've listened to him enough over the years to recognize the source) that we should embrace the ravings of a dope crazed talk radio blow hole named Rush Limbaugh.

Not gonna' happen. Not with the reasonable man. (Original definition now expanded, of course, to include the reasonable woman.) :wink:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jazzclif



Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 153
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That last post was a very good read as has been the interchange on global warming in general. And it's certainly timely.

Even better is the sense that it makes clear the distinction between presentation of evidence and rationalization.

The more historically accurate behavioral guideline in case law is actually 'ordinary, reasonable and prudent', not just reasonable. some call it the ORPman rule.

Denial of global warming fails all three tests.

As to the popularity of the alleged gentleman who claims perhaps overmodestly to have half his brain tied behind his back, he's an icon of validation for holding double standards, hence his cultish popularity.

I think his servants, the aptly named 'dittoheads' may have the following in common: repeatedly during their lives they have lied about things large and small while attempting to convince themselves they were telling the truth.

Eventually they succeed.

This almost certainly changes brain chemistry, as once this is inset, there's not much chance of undoing it if what I suspect is true.

If this is done repeatedly, and there's a strong tendency for this to cascade, a huge barrier becomes self-erected between reality and one's personal world view.

I think modern society stamps out more people like this as time goes on, and possibly on an exponential basis of growth.

At this point any kind of logic fails.

If this kind of person, one who'll follow anyone who validates holding double standards is to be dissuaded at all, it would probably be done by logical fallacy, not reason. Straw men, ad hominem ad nauseaum, etc.

For a lot of people, if they want something, especially if they have a vague to certain sense it may be wrong or injurious to others (smoking's another example, or oxycontin abuse) but someone important tells them it's ok to want it, even praises them for wanting it, and 'everybody' says it's ok or just winks about it, then that's everything in the universe and it's settled. It doesn't actually matter what it is. They will probably be as aggressive as they feel is necessary to defend that stance.

That passes the Rush test. It doesn't pass the mommy test.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ed norton



Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clif, it sounds like doublespeak to me. Maybe you guys could present your ideas a little more clearly. I like to read people's opinions, but they often seem more full of riddles and innuendo than statements. Presumptuous is a word that comes to mind when reading allot of people's posts. These last posts came off as insulting to Igiro, and Clif your post sounded a little insulting to everyone who is not Clif. Maybe I just don't understand you guys' way of speaking. I don't feel you guys made any real points. Igiro is abrasive , but direct. Where I grew up we follow the motto, "Say it don't spray it". I hate riddles, innuendo, and gossip; I prefer getting in someone's face. I would rather fist fight than play mind games .Unfortuanetely on the internet innuendo is rampant, and sometimes I have to use it myself. If I say what I really think , everyone will freak.

Last edited by ed norton on Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jazzclif



Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 153
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Double speak? Well, It was in the interest of courtesy with a little deference to humor. I can be less circumspect.

First, Ed, I respect your feelings for your mother, the catholic church, privacy and the govt - they reflect my own precisesly, and for good reason. Not all families are good ones.

Now as to what you wrote:

Why you think I insulted every reader who is not me has escaped me, though, and you don't elaborate.

Please do if you feel inclined, and be specific if you want me to understand you and not dismiss that as an attack ad hominem .

My intention was to comment on Limbaugh and his flock, not Igiro. I've already read him on the subject of global warming, and cjm needs no assistance from me.

And when it comes to 'pretentious', I'd say Limbaugh's the poster child.

If you'd prefer I be more direct, here's the point:

there is no rational debate left about global warming. None. You won't find anyone with any expertise disagreeing unless they're paid to do so.

I've filed the 'global warming is a myth' red herring with the 'no correlation between smoking and cancer' myth and the stork theory of childbirth.

It's not like I can honestly say I have a choice. I can't just abandon reason willy-nilly and it's not something I'm willing to be in denial about.

Not doing anything about the mess we've made of the environment is imprudent, unreasonable, and given the present vast majority of global agreement about global warming, all supported by the best science we have from virtually every country on earth, vastly out of the ordinary.

Fails the ORPman rule, as I said.

Another test. The 'dog in the fight' protocol...

So far as I know, everyone who denies global warming stands to lose something if changes are made.

That's why special interest groups are willing to bribe scientists to say there's no such thing, as was revealed a couple of days ago. You don't find any pressure like that going the other way, or at least I haven't and I've tried.

I'd love to get bribed for writing this, but it's not gonna happen.

Buying a 'scientific' opinion simply is not conscionable or remotely moral behavior.

If there's no global warming you don't have to bribe experts to play ball with you, and if you do, just what is your moral compass supposed to be, market forces?

As to Limbaugh, he is a hypocrite per se, not that's a bad thing to those who serve him.

That Limbaugh is a hypocrite is self-evident from examining his arrest record v. his broadcasts. There's plenty more, but you don't need it.

And he picked up where he left off after finishing a few days' 'rehab'. Not a whiff of contrition, much less an epiphany, or promise to better himself. In fact if anything he was belligerent about it.

In my estimation and that of others, this very hypocrisy is his selling point.

If you're a junkie but want other junkies besides yourself to be prosecuted while you are left alone, he's your boy.

If you want permission to hate something, he'll give it to you. If you don't want to think about things, he'll allegedly do it for you and manufacture any 'evidence' you want. Tribalism.

What he won't do is debate anyone.

It's not just that he won't, he can't. You can't debate just using mechanisms of logical fallacy and revisionism, and that's his whole war chest.

And again, most of the behavior he advocates in adults is punishable by parents when it's manifested in adolescents. Breaks the mommy rule, yours and mine excepted.

If I'm the only one who thinks that way, then you're right - I insulted everyone who isn't me.

In summary:

Global warming has gone beyond debate.

Rush Limbaugh is a self-defined hypocrite.

If a person makes a practice of lying to himself all his life and believing it, he's going to have trouble separating fantasy from reality.

Limbaugh preys on people like that.

Anything there you don't agree with?

I made no personal comments about you, Igiro or anyone else. I couldn't, not knowing anything about any of you.

Limbaugh, yeah, I'm pretty sure I know something about him, and as the song goes, maybe I can guess the rest.

Clif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
jazzclif



Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 153
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey, Igiro, I didn't mean to imply that I thought you were a dittohead. I was trying to get RL out of the mix and admit I was a little bored and went overboard.

No disrespect intended. I was a little irked at the 'guarantee' statement when I read it and piped in. In reading your last post, there's been some course correction, and as a follower of the thread, it's appreciated.

Modern civilization's environmental impact has been a big issue with me since maybe 1966, long story. I can't help wondering exactly what it would take to convince you that this isn't a good hand to double down on, but I'm willing to lurk to find the answer.

Clif
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ed norton



Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 3:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clif, it came off as you were calling everybody a liar, it's just the way I interpreted it, sorry. It's a button that sends me off. The police have removed me from several places of employment because someone pushed the wrong buttons. I'm diagnosed as bipolar-borderline schizo and refuse to be medicated. When I pour out my passion and I feel dissed , I often go off; once again sorry. I like the posts because I am alone allot, and have absolutely noone to talk to. My only thing is people just can't make assumptions about someone they don't know. I have violently gone off on many blowhards ,and many will tell miserable lies about me in return. I strive for honesty to the point of pain, but try not to apologize for who I am. Who am I?; just a guy who loves music and picks allot of Geetar. These guys have taught me allot of great music tips.
Igiro, I don't agree with you all the time, but you seem like a fine gent to me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cjm



Joined: 16 Oct 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 4:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lgiro wrote:

OK.
1. i think you are hanging onto my words pretty closely. ("Guarantee", economy" etc).


My mistake. I assumed that you choose your words with reasonable care, and that when you post something in a discussion of this sort, you mean pretty much what you write.

If you don't mean what you say, and if you don't say what you mean, then what we're going to have here is a failure to communicate.

Quote:


you see, you and i have heard some pretty high demands about policy changes havent we?. so before any such ideas are made into law, the American people need to know that their decisions and sacrifices are worth making. same as any "contract", legal or otherwise. didnt the report that came out last week say that we will have global warming for centuries, and that no matter what we do from here, we can only impact the extent of that warming very modestly? so, i am still asking for concrete proposals with estimated results. you hint at some possibilities and potentials, but i dont recall anything concrete and concise.


First, I must insist on reminding you that my argument for policy change is NOT BASED on an assessment of the risks of global warming alone, but rather that a combination of risk factors, including the risk of anthropogenic global warming, but also including fossil fuel depletion, wars for oil resources (and others that I've touched upon lightly), taken together, inform us of an immediate need to reduce and then eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels.

But also, that our unchecked population growth requires that this cessation of fossil fuel use be accompanied by building an industrial scale infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel industry. And since "concrete and concise" ideas are called for -- ideas that can be translated into immediate policy change and action -- there is only one industrial scale alternative to fossil fuels known to science, and that's the way we are going to have to go for the foreseeable future.

Fission.


For the sake of argument, let's temporarily stipulate that anthropogenic global warming is not in dispute, because so stipulating will eliminate the need for repeated and cumbersome qualifying statements, so that we can get right to the "concrete and concise."

The report did point out that anthropogenic global warming is not preventable because it is already underway...and that the effects of global warming will be with us for a very long time (by human standards). That's pretty obvious -- we've already elevated atmospheric CO2 levels (although CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas from human activity addressed in the report), and it will take time for natural processes of permanent carbon sequestration to work, even if we were able to immediately halt all CO2 emissions.

The report focused on the additional global warming effects of continued excess greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to reduce these emissions. Differences of a few degrees in average global temperatures and a few meters of mean sea level rise are hardly "modest." If it is possible to maintain smaller polar icecaps than we have today, rather than lose them entirely, and if haline circulation patterns in the world's ocean basins are weakened, but not entirely broken, the climate patterns that led to the rise of modern civilizations, and that billions of people depend on for survival, are less disrupted than if we simply sit by and allow a worst case scenario to develop.

Quote:


so my question stands - to what lengths are you asking us to go, in what time frame, and at what cost/risk? and what should be the expected outcomes, with some detail, including time horizon?


With regard to the United States, I argue for a 50 year time horizon and an overall reduction of risk.

Clear and concise (although only scratching the surface, because you hate long posts, so I'm only going to mention three):

Immediately...today, this week, next month, whatever, but very soon...a return to reduced highway speed limits and enforcement of those reduced speed limits to reduce consumption as well as production system , distribution system and end-user tailpipe emissions.

We're in a "war on terra." In WWII, FDR signed a national 35 MPH speed limit into law. When OPEC reduced production in response to the October War, Nixon signed a bill imposing a 55 MPH speed limit. We are at war in two theaters of operations and we're wasting fuel by blasting around at 75 MPH. A return to 55 mph would reduce overall risk by improving highway safety, reducing dependence on foreign oil imports, by deferring petroleum depletion, and by immediately reducing the rate at which we compound the problems of global warming.

Not much of a sacrifice.

Then, before Bush leaves office, and during this Congress, mandatory increases in fuel efficiency for new vehicles as well as tax incentives on both the supply and demand sides of the automobile equation to encourage production and purchase of more fuel efficient vehicles. (And the production side might be one of the few places where pollution credits could be applied -- and make sense.)

That sounds like a big sacrifice and a hit to our economy, but the automobile companies that have taken a few proactive steps to improve fuel efficiency, aren't at the verge of bankruptcy like Ford is, so maybe we need to help them help themselves.

Maybe keeping the American automobile industry (and employment) afloat wouldn't be such a huge sacrifice and risk.

Finally, an aggressive program for a combination of the government and the private sector to build a fission based replacement for fossil fuels able to eliminate fossil fuel use within the next half century. Private capital would focus on thermal reactor designs, while government spending and operation would be primarily directed toward fast reactors to consume thermal reactor spent fuel (including existing stockpiles) at a ratio on the order of 1 fast reactor for every four or five thermal reactors.

The cost of the war in Iraq -- not counting operations in Afghanistan -- is roughly $200 billion per year with no economic spinoff benefit, no fossil fuel consumption reduction benefit, no greenhouse gas emssion reduction benefit.

That sort of spending could build new reactors at the rate of about 60 per year.

As to how that fits into a "time horizon," and when we would have sufficient electrical power to begin synthesis of, for example, hydrogen and DME as non greenhouse gas emitting combustion fuel substitutes for fossil fuels, is something you can do the math on.

As to risk and sacrifice, domestic employment growth through domestic construction projects and technology exports, would seem to require little sacrifice compared to the alternatives. A "guaranteed" domestic energy supply would also seem to be a minor sacrifice. Getting rid of spent fuel wastes would seem to fall into the catagory of risk reduction, as would improving national security by reducing dependance on foreign energy supply.

But someone might have to sacrifice...perhaps the management and ownership of multinational oil companies would see this as both an increased risk to their elite
status and a sacrifice of monumental proportion.

Oh well.
Quote:

2. the science can be presented for other bona fide, independent experts to review, can it not? so, let it stand on its own. i wasnt suggesting that i would do the vetting. we both know that there are other legit scientists who are being trashed for being skeptical.


The science has been accepted after review, because the majority of climate research scientists, who are not a bloc, but rather scientists from all over the world, have already looked at each others work and have come to a consensus view that the probability of anthropogenic climate change is at least 90 percent...

...There is a small minority of "legit scientists" who dispute these findings, and they're not growing in number.

It is sort of like the respected skeptics of manned heavier than air flight. Their numbers tapered off after the Wright brothers buiilt and flew an airplane.

Quote:


3. i am not disputing warming. i'm not even debating that man has some level of contribution. the debate has to do with the extent to which man is driving it.



Nothing to argue about then. The scientific community assesses the probability of a signficant anthropogenic component at 90 percent. Case closed, because that has been vetted by the majority of climate research scientists.

Quote:


4. i am not disputing a push to develop alternative energy sources. i am sure as hell not disputing energy independence from the middle east.



So, I'm right again. Cool.

Quote:


5. i am not disputing that we should attack pollution - regardless of warming. i lived in LA for awhile, and Mexico City for awhile. you cant see further out than a quarter of a mile there on some days.


That is an excellent, if self-evident, supporting argument.

By God lgiro, I can't see why you waste so much effort arguing about this, since you admit you agree on virtually every major point
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jazzclif



Joined: 02 Jan 2007
Posts: 153
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[apologize for who I am. Who am I?; just a guy who loves music and picks allot of Geetar. These guys have taught me allot of great music tips.
Igiro, I don't agree with you all the time, but you seem like a fine gent to me.[/quote]

There's some good musical discussion going on here for sure, and some politically charged discussion that doesn't degenerate into chaos. That's really hard to find.

In my experience, on usenet there is a tendency for any disagreement to degenerate, and I didn't see that here after lurking for a week or so and reading a lot of potentially argumentative posts.

I probably contributed to entropy here, and I wish I hadn't. It's almost impossible to get a substantive debate that doesn't degenerate into the dozens on usenet.

This is a big deal to me since my musical views often tend to be controversial, to my chagrin. I was born with the brain I got, and it tends to look at things from a perspective sometimes considered to be askew regardless of what it produces.

Ed, if you want to contact me off the newsgroup, it might not be such a bad idea. Just say it's from you in the header. I'd be glad to hear from you if you were inclined to write.

Jurupari@aol.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ed norton



Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gorecki will put down the hammer if we get too out of line. I had to edit the mom comment, jeez I could have left that out. She's like the catholic version of a voodoo queen, and her chants and stuff are probably why I'm still around. It's more love-hate, but there is plenty of Love left. it was a knee jerk reaction. She talks in tongues and goes to church everyday. There was a sign on my door as a kid that still cracks me up, "Ed is not home, meditation in process, please do not disturb". still love her, sorry mom.
Back to weather, the deep freeze hit us about a week ago.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gorecki
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Oct 2005
Posts: 62518
Location: Davis, CA

PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ed: The mom type I'm quite familiar with. Just remember Ed, it's not you or who you are! But I bet you wished it was different, sane or normal..in so many words. It's very clear, you're smarter than that. Wink


Admin Speak
YES I've been watching this going on and over the last few days and have been highly tempted to shut it down!

But: This is a dialog between mature adults and I would like to allow mature adults to continue.

Most of this forums members are adults and often educated (or at least wise). As long as this does not evolve into personal assault or degrading of peoples character, I see no reason to disallow continuation.

In the spirit of debate, carry on! Fight?!?
_________________

Forums Admin for PlayJazzGuitar.com.

Do you know where all of your F'n B flats are?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
hanni



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 660
Location: germany

PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hey, let this gentlemanīs fight and shake hands, maybe they need it Laughing (by my self, play longer guitar if i be angry and write lyrics if i be in lovepain) Laughing , get the first snow in this year
_________________
hanni
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PlayJazzGuitar.com Forum Index -> Hangout, Chat & Get to Know All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group