About the Gretsch Pages

Climate lock

1

I though it was an informative object thread, why the lock?

3

Name calling and labelling will destroy discussion. As I said a few time, I didn't start the thread for it to be a political issue. I merely pointed out that on a day the world was protesting the lack of action by governments to address the environment/climate change, the 16 year old leader participated in Canada. Despite rhetoric to the contrary she has only the noblest of causes, that, the reversing the harm to the environment caused by humankind. I'm neither right nor left, just interested in fairness and the right thing.

4

Possibly, it's a bad idea to start a thread about protests. Was there ever any doubt that your thread would end up locked?

I believe that your 'leader' is damaged and hurt, possibly abused, and needs help.

5

Name calling and labelling will destroy discussion. As I said a few time, I didn't start the thread for it to be a political issue. I merely pointed out that on a day the world was protesting the lack of action by governments to address the environment/climate change, the 16 year old leader participated in Canada. Despite rhetoric to the contrary she has only the noblest of causes, that, the reversing the harm to the environment caused by humankind. I'm neither right nor left, just interested in fairness and the right thing.

– Windsordave

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Calling a wholly political issue not political doesn't fly with me for the same reason 2+2 isn't 3 even if you insist it is so.

Lack of action by governments? I've never seen so much money poured into fictitious pseudo-event in my life by (Western) governments. Every Solyndra, Chevy Volt, wind turbine, and other entirely non economically viable business model shows plenty of action by governments. What greater way to cover up crony capitalism, sweetheart deals and political money laundering than saying "it's for the good of the planet" and playing to the altruism of the many global warming useful idiots out there.

6

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Calling a wholly political issue not political doesn't fly with me for the same reason 2+2 isn't 3 even if you insist it is so.

Lack of action by governments? I've never seen so much money poured into fictitious pseudo-event in my life by (Western) governments. Every Solyndra, Chevy Volt, wind turbine, and other entirely non economically viable business model shows plenty of action by governments. What greater way to cover up crony capitalism, sweetheart deals and political money laundering than saying "it's for the good of the planet" and playing to the altruism of the many global warming useful idiots out there.

– knavel

No one cares what doesn't "fly with you". The subject was represented in a way that fostered a positive dialogue until your swarthiness entered into the fray.

Sgt. Hulka has a message for you.....

7

Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Calling a wholly political issue not political doesn't fly with me for the same reason 2+2 isn't 3 even if you insist it is so.

Lack of action by governments? I've never seen so much money poured into fictitious pseudo-event in my life by (Western) governments. Every Solyndra, Chevy Volt, wind turbine, and other entirely non economically viable business model shows plenty of action by governments. What greater way to cover up crony capitalism, sweetheart deals and political money laundering than saying "it's for the good of the planet" and playing to the altruism of the many global warming useful idiots out there.

– knavel

Wow. Just wow. And here you are doing it again.

9

I think too often we allow politicians to set policy based on irrational partisanship. On topics focused on science, perhaps read the science to understand the facts, and absence of fact in some cases, before allowing the politicians to influence our opinions. That way we can help them craft policy that is beneficial to us with the facts and data at hand.

I would recommend a book - Factfulness. Very good read. If people persist in asserting opinion without diligent, objective, research, then we devolve into unfounded rhetoric.

10

I think too often we allow politicians to set policy based on irrational partisanship. On topics focused on science, perhaps read the science to understand the facts, and absence of fact in some cases, before allowing the politicians to influence our opinions. That way we can help them craft policy that is beneficial to us with the facts and data at hand.

I would recommend a book - Factfulness. Very good read. If people persist in asserting opinion without diligent, objective, research, then we devolve into unfounded rhetoric.

– absaroke

You are not joking.

11

Name calling and labelling will destroy discussion. As I said a few time, I didn't start the thread for it to be a political issue. I merely pointed out that on a day the world was protesting the lack of action by governments to address the environment/climate change, the 16 year old leader participated in Canada. Despite rhetoric to the contrary she has only the noblest of causes, that, the reversing the harm to the environment caused by humankind. I'm neither right nor left, just interested in fairness and the right thing.

– Windsordave

You are passive / aggressive.

12

Two years ago our benevolent host said he didn't want any more political threads. Climate chaos and protests are political issues. Thus the lock.

EDIT - this comment may come off as snide, which wasn't my intent. I appreciate all that Baxter does for us.

13

If someone says something you don’t believe in, they are not attacking you!

If someone posts something you don’t like (i.e. an ugly guitar, excitement about environmental action) you can ignore it.

Isn’t pointless arguing what facebook, instagram, and twitter are for?

14

Science is science and politics is an ugly deep hole of sellouts.

I’ve been married for 27 years and we’ve never had a fight. It’s all in word choice. People that are complete opposites should be able to discuss things they don’t agree with. Communication is the key to learning and hopefully helping to keep things from being so smurfing divisive. Open your minds and you might learn something today.

15

It's like two lobsters in a pot arguing over whether the water is getting hotter or not and whose fault it is. The argument isn't going to affect the outcome either way.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

16

It‘s a case of do or die. The worst calculations are speaking of thirty years left until it‘ll get a really catastrophic event in the so called first world. It is darn important to talk about the climate catastrophe regardless your political orientation.

17

I’m with Curt, I didn’t see a reason to lock the thread. I understand it’s a “private” group and I respect that. I also feel it’s important for people to have a free, open dialogue. I’m a pesky Americano with a free mind and a willingness to have discussions. I grew up learning to question things, most things. When the masses run in a direction, I stop and have a good look at what’s going on. What’s really going on. Conversation is a must for communicating ideas. It’s what holds the fabric of civilization together.

18
  1. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.

  2. Just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right.

  3. Nothing any single one of us does isn't going to change anything in the long run.

19

It‘s a case of do or die. The worst calculations are speaking of thirty years left until it‘ll get a really catastrophic event in the so called first world. It is darn important to talk about the climate catastrophe regardless your political orientation.

– Stefan

I understand that you believe this and I think it weighs heavy on you. I’m curious of your background and how you arrived at your opinion.

20

I understand that you believe this and I think it weighs heavy on you. I’m curious of your background and how you arrived at your opinion.

– Curt Wilson

I can read and I know what to read. Most reputable scientists agree about the climate collapse. Kim Stanley Robinson was too optimistic, it won‘t take that long if we don‘t change:

"This ignorance of the consequences of carbon burning unleashed the ice, which ruined world trade and created an economic crisis that hurt its members even worse than the accompanying refugee crisis." Kim Stanley Robinson, "New York 2140" (novel, 2017)

21

Any devisive topic that involves politicians can potentially be a problem. "Global warming" is one of them. In forums like this, it's best to avoid that area. Moderators have to make their best judgements. I will say that at least the moderators on this forum are reasonable, unlike the hyper-sensitive lot over on a certain forum that deals with not strats but the other famous Fender guitar...

But global warming is entirely a political issue. Think about it - the climate has been changing for 14.5 billion years, and now our politicians can apparently fix it with more taxes and government intrusion. That qualifies as a political discussion.

22

Think about it - the climate has been changing for 14.5 billion years

If you're taking into account everything back to the formation of the first black holes, and considering everything that transpires across the expanse of the universe as "weather," OK - and it's always changing, mostly from conditions and to conditions that are utterly incompatible with biological life as we know it.

But if you're talking about weather on Earth, that couldn't have started until there was an earth to have weather, which was about 4.5 bn years ago - not 14.5. And the weather was toxic till around 2,500 million years ago, when bacteria started making oxygen. Not till another 2,000 million years of hostile weather had gone by did vertebrates evolve.

So of Earth's 4.5 billion-year history, for only about the past 540 million has it been more or less habitable by humans.

Yes, earth's climate constantly evolves, with or without us. Some of the ways it evolves can kill us.

When the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that human activity is accelerating the kind of evolution which is incompatible with the continued vitality of human civilization as we know it - whether or not we cause all or most of it - we need to take heed.

We've been shaping the environment to suit our purposes for millennia; it seems that some of those adaptive activities have been fouling our nest. Recognizing that we are certainly not omnipotent (much less omniscient) in our domain over natural forces, it's still obvious to our most sober and earnest scientist that we've been more powerful than we may have thought. (And really - can we have it both ways? Can we be bragging proud of our power to harness nature, and then deny we've had any impact?)

In any case, if we hope to hang around for more millennia, we may have both to backpedal on some of our activities - and initiate new industrial, social, and technological strategies to mitigate and minimize the threat.

Because the threat is to our species and all it has achieved. The Earth doesn't care about humanity. Millions of species have come and gone. It will be fine without us, too. The universe doesn't care about Earth; its seas will be boiled off and the surface denuded of all but the most primitive life long before the Sun expands into a red giant and swallows everything out to the orbit of Mars. In the ridiculously vast universal scheme of things, untold multitudes of rocky planets with liquid water orbit stars. The only thing that makes Earth special is that we're here - that its conditions permitted our rise and development - but we’re only special, so far as we know, to us. If we don't care about us, no one will. There will be none to mourn us.

I continue to marvel that people who know little (or not enough) about the science - who have followed completely different professions and have no apparent standing to make such calls - presume to discard the overwhelming weight of scientific consensus in favor of socio-economic ideologies. (I note these folks rarely reject all the products and benefits of the clumsy and clueless science which has created the material conditions under which we live.) It is always argued that because "those stupid scientists" don't know everything, and have made mistakes in the past, we should ignore all prudent warning signs and do nothing.

And we can do that. The worst impacts won't affect any of us. Our children and grandchildren, and generations succeeding them, will not be so fortunate.

23

Call me what you will but I’m with Proteus on this. Best to err on the side of caution in this instance. I believe we have a lot more to lose ignoring science. That’s my 2 cents ..

24

Man these Abbey Road remixes sound pretty good!

25

Is anyone aware that our (US) air is less poluted now than it was 30 years ago? And even more surprising is the fact that the government had nothing to do with it. In my job as a electrical engineer, we began incorporating clean air exhaust systems for every type of industrial manufacturing facility that has been built since the 70's. I have to wonder why not a single "gloom and doom" prognosticator ever brings up that fact.


Register Sign in to join the conversation