U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-06-2011, 08:56 PM
 
1,399 posts, read 3,623,211 times
Reputation: 1059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike b 1 View Post
AND, I would call JBM and Aries "far left wing', gay activist's.Far from the mainstream.
Expecting the same rights as any other New Mexican is "far from the mainstream"??????
Care to explain?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2011, 11:43 PM
 
Location: Bernalillo, NM
1,003 posts, read 1,753,852 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
I did not mean to open up an off-topic debate on global warming. But I'm not surprised one bit that an oil-rich state like Alaska has produced a scientist who comes out against global warming science. His position would benefit Alaska's oil industry. I didn't need a high school diploma to see through that.
Great knee jerk reaction, Dr. Akasofu worked in Alaska so he must be a shill for the oil industry. That logic would mean that everyone in Alaska, Texas and maybe even NM must be similar shills, so why aren't you?

You know, there are reputable scientists out there, performing true research and trying to properly connect the dots to see where/what the earth and human-kind are heading for. The problem these days (and it's not just with global warming) is that way too many folks on both sides of important public issues and debates immediately personalize them; if you're arguing on the other side of an issue you must be the devil incarnate. I'm sick of the labeling that is happening in just about all levels of our society from the politicians on down.

If you take the time to look through Dr. Akasofu's credentials with an open mind, you will find he's one of the most reputable scientists on the planet, And if you read the paper on one of the the links I posted you'll see it's a 55-page fully referenced scientific paper with nearly 100 citations to other studies and references. It's not a puff piece of conjecture and rhetoic but a thorough scientific analysis that supports Dr. Akadofu's thesis of a different explanation for the data that GW supporters say proves their position. Again, I'm not saying I agree with all of what he says, but clearly he lays out a plausible alternate argument that supports the view that the jury is still out on GW.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
In fact there is no scientific body of national or international standing that dissents from this position, only a few individual scientists scattered here and there.
Hmmm... do you call over 31,000 scientists a few individuals? This was the number that over 2 years ago had signed petitions agreeing that the Kyoto protocol is a danger to humanity - see 32,000 deniers - FP Comment (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/17/32-000-deniers.aspx - broken link) and http://www.nationalpost.com/520843.bin (broken link). This list has come under fire from the other side and admittedly may be bloated with false signatures, folks with limited expertise in the field, etc. (see Skeptic » eSkeptic » Wednesday, November 12th, 2008). But even if a majority of folks on the list really don't qualify, this still leaves a huge number, many with impeccable credentials, versus the "few individual scientists" you cited. Anyone taking the time to really look into the GW debate will find it's not one-sided like GW proponents would like you to believe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
So I think I'm being objective when I say it is extreme for Susana to pick an individual who dissents from the overwhelming majority on this, to head the Energy and Natural Resources Dept.
I don't doubt you think you're objective but IMO like too many people you believe too much in what you've heard or read about GW without doing research yourself on the issue; i.e., reading actual scientific papers, reviewing data, etc. This isn't really meant to fault you; few folks have the interest, background or time to do this. Instead they rely on the popular media to give them the Readers Digest version of weighty subjects like GW. The media don't always get things right, interject their own biases into their stories and have to dumb subjects way down to the level of their audiences. And with GW they're only providing one side of a continued scientific debate which contradicts the "overwhelming majority" you cited.

If you are still open minded about this and are willing to find out who the so-called deniers include and why they believe GW is not the scourge described by Al Gore and others you should read Amazon.com: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so (9780980076318): Lawrence Solomon: Books.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 12:25 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM - Summerlin, NV
3,436 posts, read 5,804,028 times
Reputation: 682
When will people undertstand the part of getting a life and figuring out that Susana Martinez is AGAINST civil unions.

She is a REPUBLICAN! what do you expect? for her to lean to the middle of the issue? The Legislature can't even pass the bill and people are pointing fingers at Susana.



Get over it. She has an agenda, just like Denish did... blah blah blah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 03:34 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
1,606 posts, read 2,841,502 times
Reputation: 1752
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike b 1 View Post
JBM..No, it's Not clear that she has no respect for gay's and Lesbian's. She just doesn't think the taxpayer should "foot the bill' for the boyfriends and girlfriends of gay's...
I don't think the taxpayers should foot the bill because someone decides to get married, whoever they are.

SO there.


As for global warming...
Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 06:51 AM
JBM
 
Location: New Mexico!
558 posts, read 905,334 times
Reputation: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradly View Post
When will people undertstand the part of getting a life and figuring out that Susana Martinez is AGAINST civil unions.

She is a REPUBLICAN! what do you expect? for her to lean to the middle of the issue? The Legislature can't even pass the bill and people are pointing fingers at Susana.



Get over it. She has an agenda, just like Denish did... blah blah blah.
As for getting a life, I have one. I am free to lobby MY government for what I feel is right. Martinez is MY governor as everyone elses.

Yes, I expect her AND the legislature to be held accountable on this.

Being a Republican(or Democrat) is no grounds or excuse to be out of touch or wrong or hateful.

No, I will "not get over it." Second class citizenship for no one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 08:58 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,606 posts, read 7,338,387 times
Reputation: 2770
Wow. It's as if I lit one of those really impressive fireworks that seems like it's a dud after you light it and then just as you curse yourself for spending that much money on a dud, walking over to kick it over, it suddenly lights off in excess of your expectations.

And then it catches your neighbor's house on fire and the police department issues you a fine.

We're all (well, most of us are) here to learn something and have a good discussion; in order to keep this thread open I suggest we start treating the other side with a greater level of respect (or at least professionalism).

A denier denies something without uncertainty. I'm a denier of the earth being flat. A skeptic can deny something with uncertainty. That said, Schmitt's certain in every article I've read. Denier is a fair label.

In the past, I have been the beneficiary of domestic partner benefits (one nice thing about those is that you can be in a hetero relationship to get those) and I think they should be offered. We don't have the most competent or transparent state government in the US but I seriously doubt paying government workers even less or cutting out their benefits is going to somehow result in a more competent or transparent state government. It just makes honest people want the job less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,153 posts, read 15,307,354 times
Reputation: 11837
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
Gary Johnson is so 20th century.

Today it was reported that Susana wants to name 75-year-old astronaut and global warming denier Harrison Schmitt to head the Energy, Minerals, and Natural Resources Dept. A day after she removed all the members of the Environmental Improvement Board. See where this is going? Way to "take back" the state, Susana!
Yes. I'm afraid that the great sell-off, or more accurately, payback, to the oil and gas lobbyists has begun.

P.S. Her firing all of the environmental board members is so 'big' it made the P&OC forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 10:14 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
2,958 posts, read 4,535,574 times
Reputation: 4264
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwjoyak View Post
I don't doubt you think you're objective but IMO like too many people you believe too much in what you've heard or read about GW without doing research yourself on the issue; i.e., reading actual scientific papers, reviewing data, etc. This isn't really meant to fault you; few folks have the interest, background or time to do this. Instead they rely on the popular media to give them the Readers Digest version of weighty subjects like GW. The media don't always get things right, interject their own biases into their stories and have to dumb subjects way down to the level of their audiences. And with GW they're only providing one side of a continued scientific debate which contradicts the "overwhelming majority" you cited.
rwjoyak, with all due respect, why are you so desperately clinging to this 3% minority point of view? What's in it for you?

For every article you produce to bolster your position, there are dozens more that support the opposite one. Let's not play games. I'm not going to ask you to read papers from the thousands of scientists with credentials as good as or better than Dr. Akasofu's. I know you're from Fairbanks so want to root for your homies up there.

I found this online:

"A survey published in 2009 by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmerman of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3146 Earth Scientists found that more than 97% of specialists on the subject (i.e. "respondents who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change") agree that human activity is "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

We're not talking a 60/40 split here. Why do you so tenaciously resist what the over 97% majority is saying? I'm not saying you have no right to side with that 3%, but I think the burden is more on you than me to explain latching on to an extreme minority position. And I don't appreciate being cast as some irresponsible or lazy citizen for believing the 97% and not reading every paper on the subject. But I think you're a decent guy so I'll let you off the hook.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Marlborough, MA
1,732 posts, read 3,794,109 times
Reputation: 787
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Yes. I'm afraid that the great sell-off, or more accurately, payback, to the oil and gas lobbyists has begun.

P.S. Her firing all of the environmental board members is so 'big' it made the P&OC forum.
She's the poster child for the new Republicon party. They are corporatists parading as defenders of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
21,153 posts, read 15,307,354 times
Reputation: 11837
Quote:
Originally Posted by karmathecat View Post
She's the poster child for the new Republicon party. They are corporatists parading as defenders of the Constitution.
Pretty much.

At least our Attorney General still has our best interests at heart. I wonder how Madame Governor feels about this:

AG joins fray over EPA’s new greenhouse gas regulations | New Mexico Independent


And this:

King says New Mexico can recognize out-of-state same sex marriages | New Mexico Independent
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top