Jump to content
Science is never final but it doesn't mean that we throw it out.
I read some of the IPCC report and it was candid in discussing its limitations which is important for science to do. No science is 100%. I'm sure some of you are on medications, none of which are foolproof and come with a long list of side effects but I suspect you aren't making the philosophical/political arguments with medical science as you do with climate science.
It is too bad that the IPCC excerpt wasn't fully quoted. The paragraph started with "Nevertheless, models still show significant errors" and showed an example related to clouds and then ended with, "Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources, such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."
That particular section of the IPCC report concludes with: "In summary, confidence in models comes from their physical basis, and their skill in representing observed climate and past climate changes. Models have proven to be extremely important tools for simulating and understanding climate, and there is considerable confidence that they are able to provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate change, particularly at larger scales. Models continue to have significant limitations, such as in their representation of clouds, which lead to uncertainties in the magnitude and timing, as well as regional details, of predicted climate change. Nevertheless, over several decades of model development, they have consistently provided a robust and unambiguous picture of significant climate warming in response to increasing greenhouse gases."
Again, if the IPCC report had been about your heart condition, I doubt you would be discounting the tests and observations and would jump on a medication with even less certitude than climate science.
I agree with you. I am very welling to read both sides but the authors need to be well credentialed with expertise in the climate science arena, have peered reviewed publications and have no connection with the Koch brothers.
Sounds like John Cristy might be my man.
I vote in favor of non-censorship. Discussions are important although I have to say that I tire of the same things mentioned over and over.
Mr. Singleton, you've mentioned your Climate Change library a few times. Would you give me the top 3 books you think I should read?
Richard, would you read Wikipedia's entry for the Federal Reserve and tell me if this corresponds with your idea of the Federal Reserve?
I don't think we want to go back to the financial panics that pre-dated the Federal Reserve. The world counts on our stable dollar which is maintained by the Federal Reserve. Foreign countries have accounts in the Federal Reserve. All domestic banks and the Treasury Dept do as well. Your idea of creating a new money could be disastrous given the dollar is accepted and trusted unlike most other currencies throughout the world.
PearlY, it is short but read the part "Where do Crime Guns Come from" on http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-illegal-gun-trafficking-arms-criminals-and-youth/
#2. Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check.**
I don't understand why you think laws won't slow things down. Laws will never get rid of all guns from the hands of criminals but given what the AFT says about straw and gun loophole purchases, I'd think that laws closing up both would slow crime down. I tend to think that slowing down the sale of guns is akin to slowing down cars going too fast. It won't eliminate accidents but it helps.
Semi-automatic guns have been involved with too many massacres in this country including Aurora and Sandy Hook. Yes, we can't eliminate AZ-15 altogether but if there had been laws prohibiting their sale, Lanza would not have had one and chances are that more lives would have been spared.
Speaking of Lanza, why do you think that Lanza took high capacity
magazine with him instead of 10 rounds? He obviously wasn't concerned about the 20 and 30 round jamming. I would have preferred being confronted by a 10 round magazine than a higher capacity one with the chance he could have fumbled long enough to move in on him.
Banks have armed guards and it doesn't eliminate bank robberies. Wa-Hi is so open that it would need more armed guards than the school district could afford. If some loony stormed the school, I'd expect him or her to take out the guard first thing, with a silencer, but maybe this is the reason I am not Secretary of Defense.
Thanks for engaging me PearlY. I'm really trying to learn.
PearlY, the following is how guns get into the hands of people who shouldn't have them:
Virtually every gun starts out as a legally manufactured product, but the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) points to three common ways guns move from legal distribution channels to the criminal market:
Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.
Straw purchasing: Straw purchasing is the most common way criminals get guns, accounting for almost 50% of trafficking investigations. A straw purchaser is someone with a clean record who buys guns on behalf of someone legally prohibited from possessing guns. Straw purchasers are often the friends, relatives, spouses or girlfriends of prohibited purchasers. The two Columbine High School shooters recruited friends to buy guns for them at Colorado gun shows. One of the buyers admitted she would not have bought the guns if she had been required to submit to a background check.
Gun Shows and private gun sales: Gun shows have been called “Tupperware parties for criminals” because they attract large numbers of prohibited buyers. A loophole in federal law allows unlicensed or “private” sellers, many of whom work out of gun shows, to lawfully sell or transfer guns without conducting a criminal background check. Gun show dealers have been known to advertise to criminals with signs that read “no background checks required here.”
According to the AFT, spouses, relatives, friends are often responsible for purchasing guns for the irresponsible and probably wouldn't have done so if subjected to a background check.
What do you see as the positive benefits of guns in the hands of law abiding Americans? I am under the impression, for example, that England seems to get along without guns and there is less violence.
No one is trying to take away cars or guns except for assault weapons. I guess one could make the comparison that cars are to guns as tanks are to assault weapons. In other words, there might be useful limits at some point. You wouldn't want people driving tanks down the street any more than you'd want to see an assault weapon in the hunting fields.
There are plenty of vehicle laws and licenses. Maybe there should be a few more for guns. Keep at me. I may get enlightened yet.
It would be easy to lose one's appetite if you read too much about our food sources. My boyfriend hunts and fishes so that is what we eat. I keep telling myself that it has to be healthier than meat you buy in the store but I might be kidding myself. I buy organic or free range chicken occasionally. I'm not convinced it is any better than regular chicken. due to imprecise labeling. Vegetables--mostly out of our garden but my neighbor tells me that she wouldn't eat one thing out of our garden because our dogs pee all everything. Pleasant thought.
We'll talk about healthcare in another LTE's comments. I see things a bit differently than you do so appreciate the discussion.
As for the gun discussion, I've never heard or read that either Feinstein, who until recently was my California senator, or Obama having ever said anything about taking guns away from law abiding citizens except for assault weapons. I'm open for correction.
I'm not sure I follow you with your first paragraph. I'm not even sure what question to ask to get some clarity but suspect you made a good point. We have a cache of guns around here but I don't use them so am quite ignorant as is probably very apparent.
Last login: Tuesday, March 25, 2014
2014 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Union-Bulletin. All rights reserved.