President Obama

[Edric O]

First of all, Obama did not "release" anyone, at least not in the sense of letting them go free. As the original source points out:

The Iranian agents were released to the Iraqi government, which is expected to promptly turn them back over to Iran.

So these five Iranian agents, caught in Iraq, were handed over to the Iraqi government. What the Iraqi government chooses to do with them is not your business. Or don't you believe that a country's democratic government should decide for itself what to do with foreign agents caught within its territory?

Second, the op-ed in National Review is laughable and ridiculous, for a number of reasons. For example:

First' date=' of the 4,322 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003, 10 percent of them (i.e., more than 400) have been murdered by a single type of weapon alone...[/quote']

Murdered? Oh no you don't. You're not getting away with calling it "murder" when enemy fighters kill your fighters - not unless you're also willing to call it "murder" when you kill the enemy.

If you don't want soldiers to die, don't go to war. If you go to war, stop whining and complaining that it's not fair the enemy is trying to kill your soldiers. Of course the enemy is trying to kill your soldiers. That's what war is all about. Terrorists killing American soldiers is no more "murder" than American soldiers killing terrorists. It's war. In war, it is perfectly legitimate to try to kill the guy who is trying to kill you.

Iran was continuing to coordinate terrorist operations against American forces in Iraq (and to aid Taliban operations against American forces in Afghanistan)

Really? The Shia Islamic Republic of Iran is aiding the fundamentalist Sunni Taliban' date=' who think all Shia are heretics deserving of death?[/color']

[chatfsh]

For all intents and purposes, Obama has released the prisoners from American custody thus paving the way for their ultimate freedom, as anyone with an ounce of logic in their head can predict what will happen when the prisoners are handed over to Iraqi authorities and then to Iran.  To say that what happens after their release is none of our business

[Edric O]

For all intents and purposes, Obama has released the prisoners from American custody thus paving the way for their ultimate freedom, as anyone with an ounce of logic in their head can predict what will happen when the prisoners are handed over to Iraqi authorities and then to Iran.

They will continue to work to support various radical Shia groups inside Iraq, for the purpose of extending Iranian influence over Iraq and with the ultimate goal of one day getting a nice puppet government in Baghdad that will do Tehran's bidding.

But that's just it... isn't this Iraq's problem? I mean, they have the prisoners in custody, and they know exactly what those prisoners will do if they're released. Surely it's not America's job to protect the Iraqis from their own decisions.

To say that what happens after their release is none of our business

[Sneakgab]

Wasn't really planning on posting this (been in a folder for a while), but since Edrico was hankering for us to speak about some political things I thought I'd oblige him.

''It would appear that the scientific community has jumped the gun by claiming that global warming was the fault of mankind, that the debate on the matter was closed, and that any who questioned it were delusional.  Since then a growing number of credible scientists have repudiated such claims and are joining the throngs of scientists who argue that mankind has little to do with the global temperature changes.''

BS. Firstly, there reaches a point where you are sufficiently sure with something that there is basically nothing wrong with declaring it as true (though in reality we can never be sure that something is true.). It is true though that there is no reason to disrespect people with a view that is unlikely to be correct.

Secondly, I have yet to hear of these scientists being considered delusional. At least not by the media, who give the ''deniers'' at least the same time as the ''claimers''. That is not a privilege normally bestowed upon those with minority scientific opinions.

Thirdly, there were and are no ''throngs'' of deniers, and unless some dramatic conversion takes place it will not be true any time soon.

Frankly, the above quoted seems like a happy dance of bias considering the word usage.

''WSJ - The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. ''

The inconvenient truth is that you can't just look at a single decade.

''The early part of this century experienced a warming trend when hardly any automobiles were on the roads pumping out CO2.  By the 1940

[chatfsh]

BS. Firstly, there reaches a point where you are sufficiently sure with something that there is basically nothing wrong with declaring it as true (though in reality we can never be sure that something is true.). It is true though that there is no reason to disrespect people with a view that is unlikely to be correct.

When evidence is produced to discredit or seriously call into question the prevailing scientific dogma, there is nothing wrong with stating that the scientists who previously held that position apparently jumped the gun.

For instance, one could reasonably conclude that many scientists hopped on the bandwagon without performing a proper critical assessment and analysis of Gore

[Sneakgab]

''When evidence is produced to discredit or seriously call into question the prevailing scientific dogma, there is nothing wrong with stating that the scientists who previously held that position apparently jumped the gun.''

Look, claiming a position based on evidence is not jumping the gun. The evidence may later turn and your theory disproved, but that does not mean you did something ''wrong''. There is no such thing as a proven theory. Some would say that even Newton jumped the gun in your way.

''For instance, one could reasonably conclude that many scientists hopped on the bandwagon without performing a proper critical assessment and analysis of Gore

[Dunenewt]

Global Warming is more of  'pop science' name for it anyway, some parts will get warmer, some will get colder, climate change is a better term I feel.

[Sneakgab]

''Oh really?  Did you read this article the first time I posted it?''

Oh, an article from ''Business and Media''.. Admittedly, I did post some text from a global warming supporter about the hockey stick, but it is isn't really important (since my provided data is not based on Mann's hockey stick and can be backed up by countless major reputable sources.) and it is also far from being an entire article (small in comparsion).

Just because your article is from someone with potential for bias does not automatically invalidate it though, and I will read it when time and energy allow (cut me a break here please. I know that I often say I'll do things that I never get round to doing but at least wait for more than a day before lambasting me for it. I plan to read this article and ponder on it within 2 to 3 days).

However, I based my evidence on scientists favor of warming and neutrality on data that I will provide soon. Actually, it was in an old text document that actually had a version of my first post which was a better (it reffered directly to the graphs). I thought the later version flowed a bit better and was basically more pleasent to read so I used it instead. Anyway, in the original I did admit that my evidence for this is far sufficient.

I will say right now though:

1: Who cares what scientists predicted a hundred freaking years ago (that's right, saying it again).

2:''Perhaps the mass media did promote ice age hysteria, but this was never done with the support of complacent scientists. ''

By the way, I realize that some credible scientists are global warming deniers (probably). Of course that is so, I never claimed that there are no credible scientists claiming global warming denial, only that the consensus if firmly in favor of global warming.

(edit)

Look upon my amazing honesty: :D (and my amazing self-glorification :D)

''That's nowhere close to reality. The opinion of scientists has (for a very long time) been very largely in favor of warming and neutrality, as opposed to cooling.''

As you can see I DID act certain about it before. I don't know why I did that, but I am saying NOW that my evidence is nowhere near sufficient to claim this so definitely.

[Sneakgab]

''Global Warming is more of  'pop science' name for it anyway, some parts will get warmer, some will get colder, climate change is a better term I feel.''

Yes of course.

As I said earlier:

''By the way, you are probably confused because scientists often speak about temp reduction in certain areas. This is because warming can indirectly cause certain area's average temps to decrease by doing things (for example) like stopping a major ocean conveyance thermal transporting belt. It is obvious how this could decrease temp for an area. However, overall, the Earth is still warmed.''

[Dante]

As far as I'm aware, 'global warming' is an accurate label. While some areas will cool at first (my own being just one example), sooner or later there will be no more icecaps to send cold water our way. Not that it matters.

I'll just be lazy myself, and link my own thoughts on the matter from the last time this came up.

Word of advice to the participants in this latest global warming spat: try to be more concise. You're both boring the hell out of me, and I took courses on this subject for nearly a year.

[Wolf]

I buy into global warming simple because a Pascal's Wager makes it seem like the logical choice. If global warming is real, and we do nothing, we destroy the planet. If global warming is real, and we do something, we might mitigate the damage. If global warming isn't real and we do nothing, nothing changes. And if global warming isn't real, and we do something, we miss out on one or two good times. Clearly, the lowest-risk choice is to assume that it's real and act.

[Dante]

I'm not sure where I first came across it put like that, but it's a sentiment that I certainly agree with.

The same could be said of the 'artificial vs natural' argument regarding the cause of said warming. There are those who say that the Earth's recent warming is all part of a natural cycle, and those that say it is man made. I would argue that the point is moot: if the temperature is rising to such a degree that it endangers us, we should act to mitigate or adapt to it with all haste.

[chatfsh]

Which brings us back to my original statements on the subject:

Going green is good and needs to happen soon, but the approach must be methodical and take into consideration the current economic crisis.

The sweet and short of it is yes, let

[Dante]

I'm sorry, declining?

[Sneakgab]

''What I have objected to is making radical changes that jeopardize the economy of the current generation based upon unfounded assertions that if we don

[chatfsh]

I'm sorry, declining?

Yes, global temperatures in the last decade have been declining.

Per NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

[img width=462 height=350]http://api.photoshop.com/home_abe914e0723545049a58db23b60a25a7/adobe-px-assets/aa55538b8883456aa74cd9e3cbf5bb41

[Dante]

...And the general rising trend over the past hundred years is less telling?

[chatfsh]

Trends have to start somewhere, right?  In the first decade of the Little Ice Age, I'm certain someone must have uttered the same words that you just did.

[Edric O]

Yes, but it would be absurd to look at every bit of small short-term change and assume it's the beginning of an entirely new trend. What you're doing is called wishful thinking.

[Dante]

I'll deny the evidence because it doesn't fit with my argument.

Fixed.

[chatfsh]

Excuse me, but when did I ever indicate that I was hoping for an ice age?  I'm merely indicating that there exists, at least for the present, a converse relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures.  That may change in the next year or next decade, but for now, the inverse relationship exists.

[Dante]

But it hasn't lasted for nearly long enough to discount previous evidence.

Besides which, the "we mustn't let the economy suffer for the sake of going green" nonsense sounds rather like putting the wellbeing of the rich above that of the planet, which strikes me as a little short sighted, unless they live on Mars.

[chatfsh]

Fixed.

:P

[chatfsh]

But it hasn't lasted for nearly long enough to discount previous evidence.

Besides which, the "we mustn't let the economy suffer for the sake of going green" nonsense sounds rather like putting the wellbeing of the rich above that of the planet, which strikes me as a little short sighted, unless they live on Mars.

And the running around screaming that the sky is falling nonsense is laughable not to mention detrimental to the economy.  If there is just cause, we should move on it.  Otherwise, the wellbeing of the economy should come first.

[Sneakgab]

whoops. Silly me.  Wrong post. Never mind then.