A Great World Patriot exits..chased by a bear

[LTS TRN 2]

"But out in the darkness..there's a flickering candle...and while I can breathe, while I can watch, while I can see, while I can catch..while I can steal...." etc.

Yes, a great river has met the ocean today..a great figure in world history whose contributions to humanity's ascent have barely been realized, though ignorantly denied.

Born Augustus Owsley Stanley III in Kentucky on Jan. 19, 1935, he was the grandson of a Kentucky governor and son of a naval commander. His nickname, Bear, reputedly was inspired by the profuse chest hair he sprouted in adolescence.

He studied engineering briefly at the University of Virginia before dropping out and joining the Air Force, where he trained as a radio operator. After completing his military service in 1958, he moved to California and worked at a variety of jobs, including a stint at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge. He also studied ballet, Russian and French.
Described by Cutler as a man who held "very firm beliefs about potential disasters," Stanley relocated to Australia because he believed it was the safest place to avoid a new ice age. He was a fanatical carnivore who once said that eating broccoli may have contributed to a heart attack several years ago. In his later years he was mainly a sculptor and jeweler, and his works were sought by many in the music industry, including the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards, Cutler said.

"He was a very sophisticated man," Cutler said, "an amalgam of scientist and engineer, chemist and artist."


how about a big triple wakey wake to a great man...

ww

[Tom In VA]

RIP

[OCmike]

Yeah, I'm high right now on a drug called ME. Winning! - LTSheen2

[Mace]

I'm not moving to Australia so I'm going to run to the store and start hoarding Ice Melt.

[smackaholic]

Funny how in the late 70s, the accepted scientific community was sure we were headed into an ice age and after a bit of a warm spell we are going the other way.

How the fukk does anyone give these dopes any cred at all?

[Tom In VA]

Well smackoholic, if I remember correctly, part of the "global warming" scene involves an ice age.

I googled, I remembered reading something along those lines. This isn't what I read but it's "proof" that the theory exists.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm

While global warming is being officially ignored by the political arm of the Bush administration, and Al Gore's recent conference on the topic during one of the coldest days of recent years provided joke fodder for conservative talk show hosts, the citizens of Europe and the Pentagon are taking a new look at the greatest danger such climate change could produce for the northern hemisphere - a sudden shift into a new ice age. What they're finding is not at all comforting.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

[Sirfindafold]

He also studied ballet,.....Described by Cutler as a man.....

[LTS TRN 2]

Good contribution there, Tom. When it comes to the issue of man-made Climate Change, most folks are fooled into regarding two conflicting groups of scientists as comprising the debate. But this is false. In fact there are THREE groups in this debate. The mainstream scientific community is solidly supporting the reality of Climate Change and its dire effects. A tiny percentage of paid hacks and contrarians constitute the publicly perceived "other side" of this debate. In fact, however, there is a third group--of legitimate scientists--who are basically convinced that the effects of man-made Climate Change are in fact far worse and coming much quicker than is commonly suggested by folks like Al Gore.
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2009/05/ ... s-extreme/

Anyways, Bear was more than a great chemist, and his contributions to the world in fact go further than LSD. He actually invented the first truly modern sound system for live concerts. Everything before--including all sound gear of all the major rock acts that were playing to large venues--was total crap. For example, when Cream played Madison Square Garden in 1968, the vocal mic was the boxing mic lowered from the ceiling! ("In this corner, Jack Bruce"!)

Bear said fuck it and designed and built this..



And everyone had to follow suit--as best they could.

[mvscal]

Yes, Felchie. Climate change is a reality. It always has been changing and always will be changing. That is the only thing it does. Man-made climate change is a fraudulant swindle. End of story.

[LTS TRN 2]

No, Avi, you're swinging on Rusp Limpdick's sweaty sack again. Or did you forget..?..you know, that all of the reputable scientists regard your "position" as ludicrous at best? And you've got....besides Limpdick and Glen Beck?...Oh that's right the deep pockets relentless Koch brothers denial machine.

[smackaholic]

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

so, in other words, this has happened before?

interesting.

i wasn't aware we had done any manmade CO2 based global warming back in the day? I really do need to crack a book.

rack the commonwetdreams folks for a KYOA display that is almost let'sturdian in it's scope.


i read some of that link about the whole ginormous water conveyor dealio. it goes on about how the gulf stream evaporates, becoming cooler/saltier and drops and how the arctic ice melt will change the salty part of the equation. it does not mention that a warmer gulf stream would evaporate more which should offset the salinity problems from ice melt. but, that's because it doesn't fit their little doomsday scenario and isn't too good at sucking grant money from gubmint.

[LTS TRN 2]

Sure, smackie, there have been natural events causing climate change in the past. But this time it's different.

First, it's man made. And second--let's just skip all the bullshit of fake expert deniers, etc.-- the acidity of the oceans is rising. This in itself is the most telling and undeniable feature of our present crisis. There is no legitimate debate or denial. It's been fake since the first Koch brother checks were cashed. And they haven't stopped sending them. :wink:

Bear of course would agree.

[mvscal]

But this time it's different.

Oh, OK. Well, go ahead and spend trillions on something we didn't do so we can try to "fix" something we can't fix. Nothing will happen other than a meteoric drop in your standard of living and the enrichment of an entirely new class of parasites.

Way to go, you sperm burping cock holster.

[OCmike]

Sure, smackie, there have been natural events causing climate change in the past. But this time it's different.

First, it's man made.

How can you or the scientists who agree with that theory possibly know that? We are no doubt pumping tons of CO and CO2, along with particulate matter from coal-fired power plants and automobile exhaust into our atmosphere and have deforested millions of acres. Those are facts. However, clear-cutting was abandoned decades ago after it was found to be a horribly short-sighted business practice, resulting in significant reforestation throughout North America and other lumber-harvesting regions. And autos that used to get 10mpg and belch tear-inducing diesel and leaded gasoline exhaust now burn so cleanly that places like Los Angeles has a slight haze on most summer days, rather than the choking black cloud that suffocated the area all through the 70's and much of the 80's. I lived in the LA basin for about 15 years in the 90's and 00's and visited throughout my life. I've seen the positive change with my own eyes. So with all of these improvements that have been made, why would things be getting worse now? Shouldn't we have already faced the forecasted weather-mageddon 20+ years ago?

As for the scientists spreading the doom and gloom, I don't think that it's as simple as them continuing their end of times predictions just to keep getting grant money, although for many that's a clear draw. For the majority though, I think it's quite simple: power. Twenty years ago, climatologists were nothing but statistics nerds and science geeks who lacked the personality or looks to be weathermen. No one but a handful of weather dorks took their classes and no one really gave two shits what they had to say. Then Al Gore puts out a movie of sensationalized half-truths and bullshit and virtually overnight damn-near everyone wanted to hear what these professors thought, what they predicted for the future and how we could fix this terrible mess. I'm sure many of them believe what they say, but there are certainly those who are just spouting the ominous words that the media loves to broadcast, simply because it pulled them out of obscurity and gave them notoriety, fame, presitige and...power. Would you give that up? Would you go back to being a nobody in the shit office in the university basement or would you say whatever it took and do whatever it took, even going so far as to manipulate data, just to keep that power? Think about it. If Phil Jones and his cronies at East Anglia came out tomorrow and said that they were wrong, even a little bit, they'd be disgraced. At this point, they have invested so much in time, money and integrity, that to do anything but to perpetuate their tale of the coming catastrophe would be career suicide.

Personally, I do think that man's burning of fossil fuels has had an effect on world weather patterns. It's naive to think that pumping a fuckton of hot exhaust and particulates from cars, coal plants and home heaters into the atmosphere would have zero effect. But I think the effect is minimal and probably so small that it couldn't even be measured. But I don't know, that's just my educated guess. And guess what, the opposite opinion is just that...an educated guess. That's why so many people, like myself, are outraged to be called "deniers". Neither you, Phil Jones, the NOAA or anyone else on the pro-global warming issue know what the effect is either, but you and they speak as if you do...as if it's fact, when they've proven nothing.

My difficulty in accepting this guess as fact or even "likely to be true" is that the source of the global warming scare, Phil Jones and East Anglia Univerity, have a HUGE integrity problem. They've been caught manipulating data, falsifying data, telling us that climate models programmed with pre-determined outcomes are facts, and in many cases flat out lying. Think about it. The bedrock of these so-called facts is completely untrustable, but I and others like me are painted as "deniers"? What I am is extremely skeptical in general. I want proof based on fact. And I don't believe their conclusions for two reasons: They have proven themselves time and again to be unworthy of my trust and...oh yeah...every one of their "fact-based" predictions has been wrong.

Lastly, the most convincing reason to me that Phil, his posse and their conclusions can't be trusted is that they don't allow others to see and interpret the raw data. True scientists love a good challenge because they love proving themselves right and the other guy wrong. These guys and others like them have not only run from challenges, they have ruined the careers of those in their field who dared question them, have blocked papers that offer counter-arguments from being published by scientific journals and have effectively told everyone to just shut up and listen because they know what they're talking about. I may be neither a climatologist nor a scientist, but my nose is more than capable of detecting what Phil and his cronies are serving up...a big fat steaming turd.

[LTS TRN 2]

Sorry, OC, but your thoughtful rambling is total nonsense.

Clear cutting of forests continues--especially in South America and Africa. Desertification, in short, is a tremendous growing problem that you're apparently prepared to completely ignore. This alone relegates you to "willfully oblivious" at best. More to the point, you're ignoring the basic issue of rising acidity levels in the oceans. Gee, notice how all of the pathetic denialists ignore this as well? As to your suggestion that industrialization of human society in the past century has not--or cannot--directly affect the planet's ecosystem, this is so shallow and vapid that it reflects a religious position. And of course this has no place in any discussion of science. As to your suggestion that climatologists are climbing on board the Climate Change position in order to empower themselves and their profession--this is just pure Glenn Beck whooping hysterical gibberish. Dins probably agrees, but so what? In fact the evidence is overwhelming and there is no actual debate. Remind us...why are you clinging to the Limpdick/Ahab dingy?

[OCmike]

Nick, I don't know if you're delusional or what, but... *snap* *snap* ...hey, dipshit, over here. As i was saying, Rush, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers and the rest of your GOP/TeaParty/FoxNews boogymen do not post here. And the only times I hear what their opinions are is when they are clowned on The Daily Show, or you post them here. That aside, I think Rush's opinions should be completely disregarded. Not because he's right or wrong, but because he's a bald dude with a bobbed pony tail.

Can we be done with the constant Beck/Lispdisk crap you repeat every post now?

More to the point, you're ignoring the basic issue of rising acidity levels in the oceans.

Is the acidity alarmism being driven by the same guys who told you in 1995 that temperatures today would be 15 degrees hotter? And in 2000 told you ocean levels would 10 feet higher than they are right now?


Guess where you are in this pic...

As to your suggestion that climatologists are climbing on board the Climate Change position

No, no one's climbing on board anymore. Those who gained fame and wealth sucking on the golden "climate change" teat forced their fellow scientists to declare their allegiance or be financially-ruined years ago. I'm saying that the draw of money and power were a substantial part of the foundation of the movement and it's why (except for a few who decided to value integrity over $$) hardly anyone leaves once they the hop on the bullshit train.

in order to empower themselves and their profession--this is just pure whooping hysterical gibberish.

Sorry, dude. You can't have it both ways. You can't be the guy who rants about money and power being universally corrupting forces and then say, "Uh...unless we're talking about the pro-global warming crowd". Because the weather nerd professor making $35,000/year and driving a $12,000 Corolla can't be lured by the pull of wealth and fame, right? :?

[Mace]

Rack OCMike on a couple of excellent posts.....not that it will shut up LTSdipshit, but it was a nice try.

[smackaholic]

seems like everyone on this board enjoys battling various issues such as abortion, foreign policy, etc..... but there is one subject where we seem to stand as one.....clowning let's turd.

how 'bout a round of applause for the great uniter, let's turd.

[Mace]

seems like everyone on this board enjoys battling various issues such as abortion, foreign policy, etc..... but there is one subject where we seem to stand as one.....clowning let's turd.

how 'bout a round of applause for the great uniter, let's turd.

How about we just flip him off instead....and then continue scrolling.

[FLW Buckeye]

Be gentle with the wee one...because a board needs its tards.

[LTS TRN 2]

Nick, I don't know if you're delusional or what, but... *snap* *snap* ...hey, dipshit, over here. As i was saying, Rush, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers and the rest of your GOP/TeaParty/FoxNews boogymen do not post here. And the only times I hear what their opinions are is when they are clowned on The Daily Show, or you post them here. That aside, I think Rush's opinions should be completely disregarded. Not because he's right or wrong, but because he's a bald dude with a bobbed pony tail.

Can we be done with the constant Beck/Lispdisk crap you repeat every post now?

More to the point, you're ignoring the basic issue of rising acidity levels in the oceans.

Is the acidity alarmism being driven by the same guys who told you in 1995 that temperatures today would be 15 degrees hotter? And in 2000 told you ocean levels would 10 feet higher than they are right now?


Guess where you are in this pic...

As to your suggestion that climatologists are climbing on board the Climate Change position

No, no one's climbing on board anymore. Those who gained fame and wealth sucking on the golden "climate change" teat forced their fellow scientists to declare their allegiance or be financially-ruined years ago. I'm saying that the draw of money and power were a substantial part of the foundation of the movement and it's why (except for a few who decided to value integrity over $$) hardly anyone leaves once they the hop on the bullshit train.

in order to empower themselves and their profession--this is just pure whooping hysterical gibberish.

Sorry, dude. You can't have it both ways. You can't be the guy who rants about money and power being universally corrupting forces and then say, "Uh...unless we're talking about the pro-global warming crowd". Because the weather nerd professor making $35,000/year and driving a $12,000 Corolla can't be lured by the pull of wealth and fame, right? :?

Look, just because you claim you don't read or listen to the Limpdick, Beck line doesn't mean you're not parroting it--because you are. Right down the line. What, do you suppose just because you toss off some weak-hammed disclaimer that you can just go on repeating their absurd claims?

We notice that you completely avoid the issue of rising acidity levels by attempting to simply connect it to another issue which is vague and not directly connected at all. Where did you learn this sleazy little tactic? It's worthless of course. The fact of rising acidity--like that of spreading desertification--is undisputed. What, you don't dare acknowledge that humanity has in fact already caused tremendous damage to the planet's ecosystem? You're that scared and curled up?

As to your weird inversion of claiming that the climatologists are somehow getting paid big dough for their dire predections--are you kidding? The Koch brothers are no boogymen, and they are the ones doling out real piles of cash. Or what? Are you really prepared to embarrass yourself by suggesting that the hired denialist "expert panels" (who all reach the same conclusion :o ) are not getting paid? You're a total joke. And piling on your sorry ass--you know, with lots of actual evidence--is a tedious affair at best.

[Truman]

The fact of rising acidity--like that of spreading desertification--is undisputed.

So?! Try again, Spaceman.

Coral reefs thrive in CO2-rich environments.

Guess what chemical compound feeds the critters that build them?

And guess what feeds on coral reefs?

Why do you care? The rising oceans predicted by your fraud science will have swamped all of humanity by 2050 anyway.

Are you really prepared to embarrass yourself by suggesting that the hired alarmist "expert panels" (who all reach the same conclusion :o ) are not getting paid?

Fixed

You're a total joke. And piling on your sorry ass--you know, with lots of actual evidence--is a tedious affair at best.

Irony, thy name is L-GORE.

Rack OC Mike, BTW...

[LTS TRN 2]

Classic..."truman," surely one of the most moronic of the ankle biters here, claims what? That the ocean's coral reefs are okay?

WASHINGTON - Only about 30 percent of the world's coral reefs are healthy, down from 41 percent two years ago, according to a study released Monday that lists global warming as the top threat.

The study found as many as one-fifth of the world's coral reefs have been destroyed. Another half are damaged but could be saved, it said.

Coral reefs are among the oldest and most diverse forms of life. They provide food and shelter to fish and protect shores from erosion.

While covering less than 1 percent of the earth's surface, they help drive the food chains and economies of many on the planet, with $375 billion in economic benefits globally, according to the study by 240 scientists in 96 countries.

After global warming � blamed for higher water temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations � threats to the reefs include coral disease, overfishing, coastal development and pollution runoff from land-based sources.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/coral/coral5.htm


And the land based effects are increasing as well...

Desertification is caused by a combination of social, political, economic, and natural factors which vary from region to region.

Policies that can lead to an unsustainable use of resources and lack of infrastructures are major contributors to land degradation. Agriculture can play either a positive or a negative role, depending on how it is managed. Policies favoring sedentary farming over nomadic herding in regions more suited to grazing can contribute to desertification.

The process of globalization both contributes to desertification and helps prevent it. Studies have shown that, in some cases, trade liberalization, economic reforms, and export-oriented production in drylands can promote desertification. In other cases, enlarged markets outside of the drylands also contribute to successful agricultural improvements.

Historically, dryland livelihoods have been based on a mixture of hunting, gathering, farming, and herding. This mixture varied with time, place, and culture, since the harsh conditions forced people to be flexible in land use. Population growth has led to the extension of cultivated lands and the irrigation of these lands has brought about desertification, as well as other environmental problems.


Funny how the Koch brothers Denial machine won't dare touch these crucial and essential issues. They just stick to the kiddie pool of Limpdick/Glenn Beck parrots like truman, SS, Dins, OC Mike, and various similar ass clowns.. Pathetic.

WW

[Truman]

Enriched atmospheric CO2 “feeds” reefs in two ways: 1) Enhanced photosynthesis for the symbiotic algae; and 2) More DOC to feed the sponges that also feed reef builders as the result of enhanced photosynthesis of land and marine vegetation.

As the atmospheric CO2 concentration has grown since the 1700′s coral reef extension rates have also trended upwards. This is contrary to the theory that increased atmospheric CO2 should reduce the calcium carbonate saturation in the oceans, thus reducing reef calcification. It’s a similar enigma to the calcification rates of coccoliths and otoliths.

...the theory or model says that increasing atmospheric CO2 will make the oceans less basic by increasing the concentration of H+ ions and reducing calcium carbonate saturation. This is supposed to reduce the calcification rates of carbonate shell-building organisms. When, in fact, the opposite is occurring in nature with reefs and coccoliths – Calcification rates are generally increasing. And in empirical experiments under laboratory conditions, otoliths grew (rather than shrank) when subjected to high levels of simulated atmospheric CO2.

In the cases of reefs and coccoliths, one answer is that the relatively minor increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last couple of hundred years has enhanced photosynthesis more than it has hampered marine carbonate geochemistry. However, the otoliths (fish ear bones) shouldn’t really benefit from enhanced photo-respiration. The fact that otoliths grew rather than shrank when subjected to high CO2 levels is a pretty good indication that the primary theory of ocean acidification has been tested and falsified.

In the field of geology, when we falsify a hypothesis or a theory, we trend to start looking for a new hypothesis or theory. That’s why we rely very heavily on Chamberlain’s Method of Multiple Working Hypotheses. In the junk science of ocean acidification and anthropogenic global warming, it appears that the process is to simply discard any data that deviate from the ruling theory.

Ballgame.

Thanks for playing, Loser.

[LTS TRN 2]

Where on earth did you find this twaddle? It's absolute bullshit--and you can't find any actual scientific body to support it.

Meanwhile, here's several reputable reports that absolutely evaporate your weird unsourced site.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... estruction

http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

http://www.aaas.org/international/afric ... /ch1.shtml

http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e041206/e041206.html

[ADAM]

Where on earth did you find this twaddle? It's absolute bullshit--and you can't find any actual scientific body to support it.

Meanwhile, here's several reputable reports that absolutely evaporate your weird unsourced site.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... estruction

http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm

http://www.aaas.org/international/afric ... /ch1.shtml

http://www.cdnn.info/eco/e041206/e041206.html

Marxist/socialist/george soros/ propaganda BS...Funny how one can find all of those things cross referenced...It's on the Internut so it must be true....

[LTS TRN 2]

What, that's yer robotic response to any evidence that refutes your absurd conspiracy theory? Really?

[LTS TRN 2]

An Anthem for The Bear

Augustus Owsley Stanley the Third

being less a name than a designation,

the bearer of the appellation became,

of his own inspiration, The Bear.

Thus he became and thus remained

and every old timer worth salt has

a tale or two to tell regarding same:

of the time The Bear did this or that

incredibly singular, utterly apposite

action without apology or shame

to his own particular undying fame.

Unreachable, unteachable, aflame

in the light of his own magnificence

reflected in deeds dwarfing the achievements

of the run-of-the-mill creative sort

by a factor of ten or more,

King of Many Things was he

of mortal physiology,

the soul’s chemistry,

geography, geology,

not to mention the

applied physics of sound,

regarding which, deaf in one ear,

he pronounced stereo to be

a distraction affording only

one perfect seat in the house

upon which to work its elusive illusion

setting himself to design the world’s

most powerful hi-fi system to prove it!

One suspects that, had he but one leg

he’d have seen the advantage in that

and invented accordingly, ingeniously

and, it goes without saying, successfully.

Lovable and loving in the abstract

effusiveness was not his hold card;

his judgments swift, certain and irrevocable

the last word was his personal property.

For the few times he was wrong

there is no accounting.

Was there ever a man who changed so many

while, himself, changing so little?

A Cardinal Sign, were there ever one,

fixed like a bright white star in dark-blue heaven.

Save sentimental eulogies for lesser men

and leave it that he was King of Many Things,

of perfected personal taste and detailed opinion,

first and last a scientist and propounder

of a brand new species of reason.

No bucolic Heaven for such as Bear,

rather a Rock of Ages from where

an eagle in full flight might dare

a sudden detour into endless dawn.

Sail on, dear brother Bear, sail on

Robert Hunter
March 20, 2011

Couldn't have said it better myself :wink:

WW