Comments on: Can We Get That Nobel Prize Back, Too? http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/ (the blawg formerly known as Law School Chronicles) Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:09:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Christopher Meredith http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-29 Christopher Meredith Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:40:33 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-29 Pamela, What do you make of the temperature tracking station data and the 2005 NCPA report linked in the article? Pamela,

What do you make of the temperature tracking station data and the 2005 NCPA report linked in the article?

]]> By: Pamela Grady http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-28 Pamela Grady Fri, 21 Mar 2008 15:34:10 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-28 I just read a fair amount of John Coleman's assertions about Global Warming. I find his assertions about the impossibility of global warming to be poorly-documented. He assures that he has read scientific articles and talked to scientists. He points to SCAM and leaves us all with the impression that we are being swindled into believing Global Warming could exist. Yet, I see no evidence of these discussions with scientists, no cites to scholarly research papers, etc. Maybe being a law students requires me ask the question - "Where's the proof?" I just read a fair amount of John Coleman’s assertions about Global Warming. I find his assertions about the impossibility of global warming to be poorly-documented. He assures that he has read scientific articles and talked to scientists. He points to SCAM and leaves us all with the impression that we are being swindled into believing Global Warming could exist. Yet, I see no evidence of these discussions with scientists, no cites to scholarly research papers, etc. Maybe being a law students requires me ask the question - “Where’s the proof?”

]]> By: vitart http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-24 vitart Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:25:39 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-24 Global warming or global cooling???? Does it matter? Not really. It is immaterial, germane. Like most people, I am not a scientist nor have I studied the subject of global climate changes in depth. Like most people, my knowledge on the subject is as deep as what I hear on the news networks and a few science articles. Thus, like most people, I am not in a position to take a calculated and objective stance in support or opposition to the global warming theory. However, unlike most people, I don’t take a stance. Yet, it doesn’t matter. Whether or not you believe in global warming, you should want the cleanest environment possible. I think we can all agree that we want a clean earth for ourselves and our posterity. It is common sensically responsible to not litter, not pour oil/sewage/waste into the oceans, recycle your plastics/papers/metals, not to deplete soil quality, not to pump all types of noxious fumes and emissions into the air, pursue cleaner energy sources, and have a “science solid(not based on theories)” plan to manage the earth’s limited natural resources. We don’t have to buy into global warming to live green, we should do it anyway. I enjoy swimming and surfing in a clean ocean, watching beautiful sunsets, breathing fresh air, catching and eating fish that don’t have flesh eating bacteria, walking through live green woods, and just living my daily life in a beautiful and clean environment. Pertaining to the Al Gore’s of the world: assume it is all hype, a money making scheme (which is debatable), and that they are all fraudmeisters. Even assuming this, all the hype (not all attributable to Gore and Co.) has made our society more “green-minded” and environmentally conscious, which is a good thing. It seems that people have started to behave more friendly towards their surroundings. Now, I am not citing a profitable ends to justify a fraudulent means. If there was legitimate fraud then yes sue them, but please do not do so merely on ideological grounds. I have never understood why my fellow Christians (in general) are so opposed to the global warming group. As Christians we should be on THE champions of the environment. Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over EVERY creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” The Hebrew word for this “dominion” is “radah” meaning: reign, rule, take. God has granted us reign over nature. We should not abuse this grant. In conclusion, “Green” should not be a red/blue issue. It should be a human issue. Also, it shouldn’t require a colloquial or trendy title; it should just be the way we are. Global warming or global cooling???? Does it matter? Not really. It is immaterial, germane.

Like most people, I am not a scientist nor have I studied the subject of global climate changes in depth. Like most people, my knowledge on the subject is as deep as what I hear on the news networks and a few science articles. Thus, like most people, I am not in a position to take a calculated and objective stance in support or opposition to the global warming theory. However, unlike most people, I don’t take a stance. Yet, it doesn’t matter.

Whether or not you believe in global warming, you should want the cleanest environment possible. I think we can all agree that we want a clean earth for ourselves and our posterity. It is common sensically responsible to not litter, not pour oil/sewage/waste into the oceans, recycle your plastics/papers/metals, not to deplete soil quality, not to pump all types of noxious fumes and emissions into the air, pursue cleaner energy sources, and have a “science solid(not based on theories)” plan to manage the earth’s limited natural resources. We don’t have to buy into global warming to live green, we should do it anyway. I enjoy swimming and surfing in a clean ocean, watching beautiful sunsets, breathing fresh air, catching and eating fish that don’t have flesh eating bacteria, walking through live green woods, and just living my daily life in a beautiful and clean environment.

Pertaining to the Al Gore’s of the world: assume it is all hype, a money making scheme (which is debatable), and that they are all fraudmeisters. Even assuming this, all the hype (not all attributable to Gore and Co.) has made our society more “green-minded” and environmentally conscious, which is a good thing. It seems that people have started to behave more friendly towards their surroundings. Now, I am not citing a profitable ends to justify a fraudulent means. If there was legitimate fraud then yes sue them, but please do not do so merely on ideological grounds. I have never understood why my fellow Christians (in general) are so opposed to the global warming group. As Christians we should be on THE champions of the environment. Genesis 1:26 says, “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over EVERY creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” The Hebrew word for this “dominion” is “radah” meaning: reign, rule, take. God has granted us reign over nature. We should not abuse this grant.

In conclusion, “Green” should not be a red/blue issue. It should be a human issue. Also, it shouldn’t require a colloquial or trendy title; it should just be the way we are.

]]> By: Virginia http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-23 Virginia Wed, 12 Mar 2008 04:21:00 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-23 By the way, how many "Hail Maries" does pollution go for these days? By the way, how many “Hail Maries” does pollution go for these days?

]]> By: Christopher Meredith http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-22 Christopher Meredith Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:16:54 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-22 Do try to keep up, my friend. This post makes no reference to regulation of pollutants. As you correctly imply, there are plenty of good reasons to encourage environmental stewardship without inventing ones based on science fiction. Do try to keep up, my friend. This post makes no reference to regulation of pollutants. As you correctly imply, there are plenty of good reasons to encourage environmental stewardship without inventing ones based on science fiction.

]]> By: Greg Spore http://www.questionpresented.com/2008/03/11/can-we-get-that-nobel-prize-back-too/#comment-21 Greg Spore Wed, 12 Mar 2008 02:04:34 +0000 http://www.lawschoolchronicles.com/?p=11#comment-21 the paranoia is strong in this one. or perhaps its author has accepted summer work with either Chevron or Mobil Exxon. Regulating pollutant control is beneficial for both the environment and the oil industry. the depth of support, inner-circle support, for BP and DuPont as they parted ways with a then dying Global Climate Coalition was surreal considering the nature of their respective businesses. an elaborate conspiracy involving thousands of renown scientists is an industry driven by a fading status quo intent on misrepresentation rather than clarification. get to the truthiness bitches.. the paranoia is strong in this one. or perhaps its author has accepted summer work with either Chevron or Mobil Exxon. Regulating pollutant control is beneficial for both the environment and the oil industry. the depth of support, inner-circle support, for BP and DuPont as they parted ways with a then dying Global Climate Coalition was surreal considering the nature of their respective businesses. an elaborate conspiracy involving thousands of renown scientists is an industry driven by a fading status quo intent on misrepresentation rather than clarification. get to the truthiness bitches..

]]>