Gore speaks on global warming... on coldest day in 50 years?

[Clashman]

Then again, I guess Bush is in favor of a redistribution of wealth too, just in the opposite direction King intended.

 

[Sariden]

Poor People's Campaign


During the 1966 and 1967 King shifted the focus of his work to economic issues and poverty. King called for redistribution of the nation's economic wealth to overcome the limited means of many African-Americans. In 1967, King planned his Poor People's Campaign to pressure national politicians to address poverty and issues of economic justice.

Sounds more like he cared about the disparity in oportunity between rich and poor. While his focus was on black america, I disagree that he would be in favor of the racist and blatant discrimination that is afirmative action. Not just black people are poor or grow up in hard neighborhoods.

Then again, I guess Bush is in favor of a redistribution of wealth too, just in the opposite direction King intended.

You may be right. But it doesn't make him a racist. Neither does it "vomit on all Dr. King stood for."[/b]

 

[Natoma]

Affirmative Action was not around when he was alive, but given what he said on the matter, he would have agreed with it

I suppose you could be right, but then again that would just make him an advocate of reverse discrimination... I suppose thats all good so long as its not you whos being discriminated against though eh?

No. King was for reparations of the pain and suffering caused to african americans by slavery and its offspring such as Chain Gangs and Jim Crow.

 

[Natoma]

Poor People's Campaign


During the 1966 and 1967 King shifted the focus of his work to economic issues and poverty. King called for redistribution of the nation's economic wealth to overcome the limited means of many African-Americans. In 1967, King planned his Poor People's Campaign to pressure national politicians to address poverty and issues of economic justice.

Sounds more like he cared about the disparity in oportunity between rich and poor. While his focus was on black america, I disagree that he would be in favor of the racist and blatant discrimination that is afirmative action. Not just black people are poor or grow up in hard neighborhoods.

At the time, the poorest in american society, as well as those who were subject to gross economic injustices were black Sariden. Honestly, I wish AA would be amended to help those are who economically less fortunate. That would cover people of all races. I've stumped for that on a few occassions in this forum.

 

[Natoma]

I'm going to have to disagree. Having a black secretary of state was unthinkable during King's time, and having a female black cabinet member was double unthinkable.

I never said that Bush hasn't done good things for the advancement of race in our nation Russ.

And I'll also have to disagree that King would believe that affirmative action is a righteous goal. It might have been an acceptable stepping stone to him, but ending it doesn't mean you're for oppressing the black man.

Ending it while there is still great socio-economic injustice towards blacks is a disservice Russ, and yes it stepping on the legacy King worked to promote. However, there are ways to change it in order to affect all disadvantaged poor. Remember my proposals to change AA to be based on socio-economic factors rather than race and gender?

 

[Fred]

Hmm I thought Bush was rather moderate on Affirmative action (too much for my taste). He praised the recent supreme court decision that basically allows AA to continue. Its complete hypocrisy for dems to attack him on this subject.

And I love how everyone tacitly assumes what MLK would think is some kind of gospel. He had plenty of really bad ideas, just like everyone else. Why can't a leader pay tribute to the nobility of his goal (a colorblind society), yet differ one how to go about the actual implementations. And the fact of the matter is, he's dead, we have no idea what he would think about AA.

Surely people respect Winston Churchill. Yet the man had some imperialistic ideas during the time, that would shock many in todays PC society. It doesn't mean that he isn't worthy of praise all the same.

 

[Natoma]

When did Bush praise the Supreme Court decision regarding AA? AFAICR, Bush filed a brief with the court hoping to end AA. Unless he spoke on it after the Supreme Court made their decision and it wasn't covered by the press, I don't recall where he ever praised the Supreme Court decision.

No one is saying that what King stated is always gospel. We're saying that with what is on the record from King on the subject of reparations towards african americans, his stance falls in line perfectly with what AA was meant to do, i.e. lift up african americans, and shortly thereafter, women, in the struggle against inequality in the general society.

As for Churchill, well, I don't know enough about him to comment anything worthwhile.

 

[Humus]

AA hardly solves the problem. It attacks symptoms rather than the underlying problem, that society doesn't give everyone equal opportunity. The solution lies in changing the attitudes towards other races, religions, gender etc.

 

[Sabastian]

AA hardly solves the problem. It attacks symptoms rather than the underlying problem, that society doesn't give everyone equal opportunity. The solution lies in changing the attitudes towards other races, religions, gender etc.

equal treatment vs equal outcomes?

Thread officially high-jacked

As for the original topic. Temperatures are nearly 20 degrees Celsius below normal here.(normal being fairly cold -10-15 degrees Celsius) Depending on the wind sometimes it feels like -40, that is bloody well dangerous weather to be out in. Just walking down the street can be excruciating depending on how you are dressed of course. heh, global warming? I wish.

 

[Silent_One]

Kinda like how Bush went down to Martin Luther King's grave today on his birthday, when he has done nothing but vomit on his legacy and everything he ever stood for. Irony is great, isn't it

Great. Another post hijacked

As for the original topic.

Natoma wrote:

P.s.: We're getting extremely cold weather because of a collapse of the Jet Stream at its normal latitude, which normally buffets us from the cold air in the arctic

And the Jet streams collapse is attributed to? Seriously, 100 years ago the record was set in NYC Central Park at 1 degree F. Maybe that record was broken, maybe not. But what caused that temp. 100 years ago? Surley you can't attribute that to the same thing. Record temp. can and are broken all the time. But to assume that the sky is falling everytime a record is broken is ridiculous.

 

[covermye]

Thanks, Clashman, for insisting on hijacking the thread with your emotionally-driven charges of racism against the administration.

I'm well-versed in research pertaining to global warming, and that these extremes are allegedly related to the "global warming" phenomenon. This is supposed to be the coldest day in NYC in 50 years, right? What happenned 50 years ago when the temp was lower, even? Environmental issues then too?

How long have we been keeping record of temperatures? Kinda silly to scream the end of the world every time we get a new high or low by a few degrees is right...

 

[London Geezer]

All i can say in regards to the thread is that ironically, while the planet will be burning under the effects of Global Warming in the future, Britain will get even colder and rainier. I'm serious, they said it on TV (go trust them...). Because of shifts in currents, while the whole world will be nice and warm, we'll be getting winds straight from the Arctic Pole. Nice hey, it just keeps getting better and better... So i might as well stop complaining about the weather now, the worst is still to come!

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

P.s.: We're getting extremely cold weather because of a collapse of the Jet Stream at its normal latitude, which normally buffets us from the cold air in the arctic

And the Jet streams collapse is attributed to? Seriously, 100 years ago the record was set in NYC Central Park at 1 degree F. Maybe that record was broken, maybe not. But what caused that temp. 100 years ago? Surley you can't attribute that to the same thing. Record temp. can and are broken all the time. But to assume that the sky is falling everytime a record is broken is ridiculous.

Eh? All I said was that the jet stream collapsed at the normal latitude it exists at. That doesn't mean that there's no jet stream anymore, if that's what you're inferring from my statement.

All the jet stream is, is a conduit of air in the upper atmosphere generated by the differential between the warm air masses coming from the equator and the cold air masses coming from the poles. If the air currents shift due to a changing of that differential, then what we call the "Jet Stream" will change location. This is precisely what occurred in this instance. But the Jet Stream can't collapse and be gone forever, if that's what you inferred from my post when you said "assume the sky is falling".

From the last map I saw, the Jet Stream is now flowing through Wyoming on a diagonal, then levels out around Kentucky/Virginia and moves back north a few hundred miles past the eastern seaboard. Normally the boundary of the jet stream is around the great lakes. So all of that frigid arctic air is hitting us directly rather than being buffeted by the jet stream.

Clarified?

 

[Natoma]

Thanks, Clashman, for insisting on hijacking the thread with your emotionally-driven charges of racism against the administration.

I'm well-versed in research pertaining to global warming, and that these extremes are allegedly related to the "global warming" phenomenon. This is supposed to be the coldest day in NYC in 50 years, right? What happenned 50 years ago when the temp was lower, even? Environmental issues then too?

How long have we been keeping record of temperatures? Kinda silly to scream the end of the world every time we get a new high or low by a few degrees is right...

I don't think anyone is screaming end of the world simply because we have a record low or a record high. Temperature change is and has always been a constant. Our planet will warm up again, and it will cool again. The point of global warming research is not to say that the planet would never change and we're the ones doing all the damage. The point of global warming is to limit the rate of climatological change whereby our ecosystem does not have time to adapt. As an article on MSNBC and CNN I linked to in another thread stated, there are many ecosystems and life forms on this planet that are near extinction or are being stressed into near extinction by the rapid changes in their environment ranging from temperature increases (coral reefs for instance are bleaching on coasts around the world because of markedly warmer coastal temperatures in the last 10-20 years, directly attributed to our activities), deforestation, pollution, etc. These temperature fluctuations due to human activities would only speed up that process to a point whereby those organisms could not longer adapt, and would then go extinct.

That is the point of global warming research.

 

[covermye]

there are many ecosystems and life forms on this planet that are near extinction or are being stressed into near extinction by the rapid changes in their environment ranging from temperature increases..., deforestation, pollution, etc

You mean like what happenned to the dinosaurs?

 

[Natoma]

there are many ecosystems and life forms on this planet that are near extinction or are being stressed into near extinction by the rapid changes in their environment ranging from temperature increases..., deforestation, pollution, etc

You mean like what happenned to the dinosaurs?

You know, you reminded me of something I was reading earlier this week. All of the great extinctions on this planet are theorized to have occurred because of a sudden change in the environment that the species could not adapt to.

The dinosaur extinction, i.e. the Cretaceous extinction, was caused by an asteroid. The Ordovician extinction is theorized to have been caused by gamma burst radiation from a passing supernova 400 or so million years ago. The 5 great extinctions basically came about because of external forces which caused a shift that was too quick for the species on our world to adapt to.

Global warming is about preventing a shift in our ecosystem through pollution, deforestation, and temperature increases from greenhouse gases that could cause another great extinction. If the global temperature increases 5C over the next 50-100 years, that would be a far faster rate of change than anything we have studied in the last 100,000 years through the use of Ice Cores and Carbon Dating. We've records of what that kind of sudden ecological change can do to our planet. They're the 5 great extinctions.

From what we know today, thousands of species go extinct every year. Some we are aware of. Others we are not. This is in large part due to our unfettered activities. Many species that resonate with us because of their size are also near extinction due to loss of habitat and temperature increases, as well as pollution. As examples:

1) Frogs are directly affected by pollution in their water habitats. Frogs are the leading indicator of dangerously high levels of poisons in our environment and are the first to die off.
2) Coral Reefs are dying off because of pollution and temperature increases in their water habitats.
3) Lions, Elephants, Primates, and other animals are on the endangered list because of habitat loss from activities such as deforestation.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

From what we know today, thousands of species go extinct every year. Some we are aware of. Others we are not. This is in large part due to our unfettered activities.

And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that hundreds of thousnds of years ago, thousands of species went extinct every year too. And thousands of new species are probably generated every year, then and now.

Such is life.

Many species that resonate with us because of their size...

No, usually it's because they are "cute and fuzzy."

 

[Silent_One]

Natoma wrote:

Eh? All I said was that the jet stream collapsed at the normal latitude it exists at. That doesn't mean that there's no jet stream anymore, if that's what you're inferring from my statement.....<snip>........... the Jet Stream can't collapse and be gone forever, if that's what you inferred from my post when you said "assume the sky is falling".

Wow! Never thought my post could be so missunderstood. Good God, I know the "Jet Stream can't collapse and be gone forever"!

All I was saying was 1.) Is the "collapse of the Jet Stream at its normal latitude" atributable to global warming, as I interpreted (mistakenly) your statement infured and 2.) some people use "record breaking" weather" as "proof" of global warming, saying in effect "see, see, the sky is falling!"

 

[Natoma]

From what we know today, thousands of species go extinct every year. Some we are aware of. Others we are not. This is in large part due to our unfettered activities.

And I'll bet you dollars to donuts that hundreds of thousnds of years ago, thousands of species went extinct every year too. And thousands of new species are probably generated every year, then and now.

Such is life.

As I said earlier to covermeye, there are changes in the environment that facilitate this. But we have trended an uptick in the rate of extinction due to our activities on this planet. Yes it is life. But we can limit our impact on the environment as well.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma wrote:

Eh? All I said was that the jet stream collapsed at the normal latitude it exists at. That doesn't mean that there's no jet stream anymore, if that's what you're inferring from my statement.....<snip>........... the Jet Stream can't collapse and be gone forever, if that's what you inferred from my post when you said "assume the sky is falling".

Wow! Never thought my post could be so missunderstood. Good God, I know the "Jet Stream can't collapse and be gone forever"!

All I was saying was 1.) Is the "collapse of the Jet Stream at its normal latitude" atributable to global warming, as I interpreted (mistakenly) your statement infured and 2.) some people use "record breaking" weather" as "proof" of global warming, saying in effect "see, see, the sky is falling!"

My misunderstanding your post was simply predicated on your misunderstanding of my post. Now that that's cleared up, it's all good.