Free Republic

Soccer it is a great sport, ideal for youths. To the OP, the reason your son’s team is in last place is that the league’s other coaches understand that trying to win is important. I have coached in a dozen leagues and have seen as many “win at all costs” coaches (e.g., those who would drive a 9 year old kid from the sport so he didn’t have to give him minutes) than I have “winning doesn’t matter” coaches. Fortunately, both extremes are relatively rare and there are some tremendous coaches out there. I think the experiment proved something different than the conclusion you have reached: If you don’t coach your kid, you get the luck of the draw.

Soccer it is a great sport, ideal for youths. To the OP, the reason your son’s team is in last place is that the league’s other coaches understand that trying to win is important. I have coached in a dozen leagues and have seen as many “win at all costs” coaches (e.g., those who would drive a 9 year old kid from the sport so he didn’t have to give him minutes) than I have “winning doesn’t matter” coaches. Fortunately, both extremes are relatively rare and there are some tremendous coaches out there. I think the experiment proved something different than the conclusion you have reached: If you don’t coach your kid, you get the luck of the draw.

The concern stems from the elegant simplicity of the AGW theory. We know that GHGs trap heat, we know that CO2 is a powerful GHG, we know that trophosperic CO2 is up by 40%since the industrial revolution, and there is strong evidence of a decadal scale rise in temperature since the 1870s. Taken in a vacuum, that is awful compelling. But, of course, that vacuum is a myth. To my list of unknowns above, add water vapor, urban heat island, solar cycles, limits (and worse) with climate models, and the possible benefits of some warming.

My view is that natural climate fluctuation is a fact, and that there are reasons to be concerned about anthropogenic impacts of massive GHG emissions. Our understanding of the interactive roles of volcanos, aerosol pollutants, feedback loops, GHGs, El Nino, and solar variance is still in its early adolescence. Jacques Chirac and others have conceded that the concept of AGW is being used as a vehicle to create global governance. I do have concerns about AGW, but am also very concerned that its certainty is exagerated, healthy skepticism is marginalized, and AGW is used to achieve big government objectives.

I have been a Freeper and elected Republican for almost a decade. I released a book this year that is currently ranked #1 (by customer review) on Amazon on the issue of Climate Change—and #3 on renewable energy. It is called Climate of Uncertainty—and the premise is not that global warming is false, but rather that some level of skepticism must be embraced. It bothers me that conservatives are set forth as extremists; when often times they acknowledge some level of real climate risk but are concerned that the issue is being hijacked to create bigger, more centralized government.

There is much to agree with in your post. I just do not know enough to conclude that she is faking it or motivated by something other than equal rights. Perhaps you are right... If she truly wants to attend the dance with a female date, I support her efforts generally. I think true conservatism can only exist if we are prepared to live and let live.

Seems wrong to me that the school would discriminate against sexual orientation. On the other hand, the tux demand was over the top, and wonder if it was part of ACLU agenda. I wish the young lady well.

Hope you are well. I would say my views have “evolved.” I went to the IPCC in Poznan (COP 14) which was an eye opener. I wrote a book Climate of Uncertainty (released last week to some good reviews)—that I guess you could take credit for influencing in some way. I would enjoy hearing your thoughts, if you have occasion to pick up a copy on Amazon.

Best,

After 9-11, Serena stood up for this country in a big way. She made courageous comments dressing down the French for the air space issues right before the French Open. She is a competitor that let things get out of hand, and apologized. I think she is an incredible athlete, and a terrific American who made a big mistake. I despise that this incredible conservative website is often hi-jacked by those “separated at birth”, Mike Tyson, Michelle Obama, and other racially charged comments.

Wow. Calling me liar because the facts got in your way of your absurd little argument. Seems like you are really open to questioning your views. You don’t deserve the time—but here’s the link to one of many consensus scientists acknowledging warming proceeds CO2.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Only an utter buffoon would suggest that warming and co2 are definitely not interrelated. You have outed yourself as a kook.

My point here was never that agw is or is not occurring. Only that the evidence you cite is inconsistent with your conclusions. You are no better than Al Gore. You hear what you want to hear, and twist facts to a desired end. You are what you despise. Very sad indeed.

You are wrong. I don’t put graet faith in the models and will nt defend them, but they do not say what you assert. They do not predict a linear rise in temperatures. According to the models, ocean oscillations, solar variation, sulfur levels from volcanos will all have a year to year impact. If anything, the relative warmth of 2008, despite La Nina and low sun spots supports the “AGW idiots.” AGW idiots 1 Justa hairy ape 0

I read the Chilling Stars, I familiar with Milankovitch cycles, but beyond that your post makes little sense. Something about virgins, volcano gods and pouring beer on yourself?

NASA
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

I have seen the video—in full and read Singer’s book and probably 5 other skeptic book. Have you read the IPCC report, the Weathermakers, Field Notes of a Catastrophy, the NAS, NOAA, or NASA views?

The scientists on both sides (note I am not including Gore) believe warming causes co2 release. That’s the point about positive feedback loops. The question is did they historically feed off of each other at some point, and if so will emitted GHGs start the process. The overwhelming majority of scientists say yes—but there is no definitive proof.

My point was, and is, your evidence (high temperatures and low sunspots in 2007 and 2008) contravenes your theory (low sunspot activity in 2007 and 2008 will cause low temperatures). That’s illogical. I am sorry if you can’t understand that.

Fair enough. Sorry for the stupid lawyer joke. I do believe solar variation has a significant role—as does the IPCC and NOAA. I just don’t agree that one excludes the other, and I think 2007 and 2008 are prime evidence of that fact. Enjoy your weekend.

The sun cycles are the prime heating/cooling change mechanism, but the lowest sunspot activity in a 100 years produces the 9th warmest year since 1875? That’s very funny. I hope you are not a criminal defense lawyer.

P.S. Before you send that video propaganda to your neighbors, know this: Christie is a proponent of AGW, and Lindzen thinks cigarette dangers are highly overated. If that’s the best Marty Durkin could find—that should tell you something.

It’s a very complicate issue, that remains largley in doubt, but kool-aid is kool-aid no matter which side is serving it.

Strange logic on this thread. 2008 is the 9th warmest year in the last 150—despite prevailing La Nina conditions and a solar minimum (i.e., 2008 should have been cold as balls but wasn’t) and you think that undercuts AGW? The NOAA study demonstrates how little we still know about our climate, which may supports a cautionary approach to adopting any climate theory hook, line and sinker—but it doesn’t “put the lie” to anything.

I wasn’t joking, I am sure not a fan of the administration, and I do pay pretty careful attenion. Not sure why you need to start your post with those three comments. Where I think you miss the boat, is in that you equate everyone and everything that isn’t 100% anti-renewable or anti-conservation with the enemy. Truth is a detest Chu’s comments on Yucca, as well as Obama’s obvious deal with Harry Reid in the Fall which led to the Chu comments. BTW, you say it didn’t cost the government a dime because it was paid for by the people? That sounds like something Barney Frank would say. I tax or a required fee is still our money. As for me being a true believer, I am a true believer that we are facing voracious energy appetites from developing nation, peak oil, and growing world population. I think the idea of using electricity as an energy carrier for transportation has short and mid-term promise. I think a lot of that energy should come from nuclear. So don’t equate me with the administration simply because I have the common sense to call a shill report a shill report.

The idea of electric vehicles is that they will run off of a grid with growing amounts of nuclear, wind, solar, tidal, clean coal, tidal, wave, geothermal, and hydro. The press release sort of ignores that. It is intellectually dishonest at best. No wonder, Transport Watch is pro-fossil fuel lobbying group. Left to them, we would develope alternatives to oil only after we are owned in full by the House of Saud. Drink the koolaid at your own risk. If you are not concerned about climate change, think about it from an energy security perspective.

Perhaps you missed my statement that I am not in favor of abandoning coal. We have 25% of known reserves in the US—and as we approach peak oil, it is an incredible resource. But, the fact is, the ads are deceiving. My point was (and is), an article that says “let’s have a honest debate”, might want to inject a little honesty.