An inconvenient Absence

[Pumpkin Eater]

The Viking farm under the sand in Greenland

 

by Terese Brasen

in Greenlandin Greenland

 

April 23, 2001 – In 1991, two caribou hunters stumbled over a log on a snowy Greenland riverbank, an unusual event because Greenland is above the tree line. Closer investigation uncovered rock-hard sheep droppings. The hunters had stumbled on a 500-year-old Viking farm that lay hidden beneath the sand, gift-wrapped and preserved by nature for future archaeologists.

 

Gården under Sandet or GUS, Danish for ‘the farm under the sand,’ would become the first major Viking find in Greenland since the 1920s.

 

“GUS is beautifully preserved because, once it was buried, it was frozen,” explained University of Alberta anthropologist Dr. Charles Schweger. “Things that are perishable and normally disappear are found at GUS.”

 

A specialist in Arctic paleo-ecology and geo-archeology, Schweger joined the international archaeological team that would spend the next seven years sifting through sand at GUS.

 

The famous Viking, Eric the Red, probably didn’t know where he was headed when, adrift on the North Atlantic in AD 981, he bumped into the southern coast of Greenland. Eric returned to Iceland three years later and enticed about 500 fellow Vikings to follow him and settle the new country.

 

“The Norse arrived in Greenland 1,000 years ago and became very well established,” said Schweger, describing the Viking farms and settlements that crowded the southeast and southwest coasts of Greenland for almost 400 years.

 

“The Greenland settlements were the most distant of all European medieval sites in the world,” said Schweger. “Then the Norse disappear, and the question has always been: what happened?”

 

Time was not on the archaeological team’s side. Earlier digs had explored the southern tip of Greenland, the most settled area of the country where Eric the Red first landed. These early digs merely scratched the surface because the archaeologists were interested in the buildings and architecture, not what lay beneath. The GUS site was up the West Coast, deep inside a fjord. The river was advancing, swallowing the site, so it was important to act quickly.

 

The University of Alberta, Greenland and the Danish government combined resources and pushed ahead on the first Greenland excavation since the 1930s. The team would excavate the complete site, looking at the entire history and development of the farm, not just the surface buildings.

 

Schweger recalls vividly the day the team uncovered GUS. Smells frozen in permafrost for 500 years exploded into the air. “It stunk to high heavens,” said Schweger. “There was no question about this being a farm.”

 

The Viking ships that had brought Icelandic adventurers to Greenland may have been mini versions of Noah’s Ark with sheep, goats, horses and Vikings sharing the crowded space. The Greenland Vikings raised sheep and fabricated woollen garments. The centre of the farm was a typical Viking longhouse, the communal building where Vikings gathered around the fire. The settlement flourished. In the North Atlantic, walrus, seal and whale were abundant and the Greenlanders made rope from walrus hide and controlled the European walrus tusk market.

 

Every summer, the team raced against the river. In 1998, when researchers finally abandoned GUS to the river, 90 per cent of the site had been excavated. Artifacts packaged and taken to the lab include pieces of cloth and sheep combs used to remove wool without shearing the animal. The site gave up metal hinges, locks, keys and wooden barrels. The Vikings appear to have traded their northern wares for metal and wooden products unavailable in Greenland. For them, a trip to Iceland or Norway was like a shopping spree at Home Hardware.

 

We know about Eric the Red and the Greenland settlement because years after the Vikings had given up their pagan ways, Snorri Sturluson collected Viking stories and penned the Icelandic sagas. “The Icelanders wrote everything down,” said Schweger, puzzled that the literature says nothing about what happened to the Norse in Greenland.

 

What did happen? Theories abound. In his 1963 book, Early Voyages and Northern Approaches, Tryggvi Oleson proposed a theory that still has some credibility. He believed the Vikings and northern aboriginal people intermarried to produce the unique Thule people, ancestors of the modern Eskimo.

 

One reigning expert on Norse extinction in Greenland is Dr. Thomas McGovern from City University of New York. McGovern is also chair of the North Atlantic Biocultural Organization, an international research association interested in the relationship between changing climate and people in the North Atlantic. He believes the Norse did not adapt completely to Greenland because they never adopted Inuit ring-seal hunting techniques. The Inuit used buoys or floats and hunted ring seal from kayaks or through the ice. These techniques do not appear in Norse culture. McGovern and other paleo-ecologists also believe the Norse were poor farmers.

 

But Schweger says the evidence comes from the southern or eastern settlement where the excavations only looked at the surface. “There is a lot of sediment thrown around, and it suggests to these researchers that the Norse were poor farmers. The theory is poor agricultural practices caused the sod to break up, and the winds eroded this and blew sand all over the landscape.”

 

While Danish and Greenland researchers look at GUS buildings and artifacts, the U of A’s role is to study organic material. Cross-sections of the GUS soil contain evidence that challenge McGovern’s theories and offer brand-new understanding of the Vikings in Greenland.

 

“The ring seal is only one species of seal. The Norse hunted everything else–walrus, whales, harbour seals,” Schweger said, moving quickly to part two of his McGovern challenge. The argument that the Vikings were poor farmers doesn’t make sense upon close examination of the GUS organic material. “There is no evidence that they were destroying their fields. Quite the opposite. They were improving upon them.”

 

It is not surprising that the Greenland Vikings chose to farm at the mouth of a fjord. The Vikings who settled Iceland and later moved to Greenland were originally from Norway, where farming technology grew up around fjords. The centre of a fjord farm is a meadow where animals graze during winter months.

 

Cross-sections of the GUS soil show the Vikings began their settlement by burning off birch brush to form a meadow. Over the next 300 to 400 years, the meadow soil steadily improved its nutritional qualities, showing that the Greenland Vikings weren’t poor farmers, as McGovern and others have suggested. “At GUS, the amount of organic matter and the quality of soil increased and sustained farming for 400 years,” said Schweger. “If they were poor farmers, then virtually all the farming in North America is poor farming.”

 

Schweger believes the sand that packaged and preserved GUS also ruined the site, polluting the river the Vikings relied on for fresh water. The soil was healthy and nutritious. Then, suddenly, farming stopped and the soil was encapsulated in sand.

 

A massive ice sheet covers about 85 per cent of Greenland, about 2,600,000 cubic kilometres of ice–enough to raise sea levels by 6.4 metres if it were to melt. Sheets of ice sliding down the mountain toward GUS may have pushed sand over the eastern coast of Greenland, burying the Viking settlements. The sand slide was probably a major catastrophic event, comparable to an earthquake.

 

The Danish Antiquity Society will publish the GUS findings once the international lab results have been tabulated and debated. The team that sifted through sand summer after summer may tell the world new stories about the Vikings who farmed and traded in the North Atlantic then suddenly, and inexplicably, disappeared.

 

 

Birch no longer grows in Greenland. Farm smells captured in Permafrost (what is now frozen permanently was once farmed). The Ice that is receding in Greenland is revealing Birch Logs all over the place. Greenland was once a much warmer place... during the MWP.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

OH, and there Sev goes again. Resorting to mocking.

 

There wasn't any 31,000 signatories. Because they belonged

 

to the org, they were thrust into support of mmgw by higher ups.

 

We've posted a lot about this in the past.

 

Now Sev is saying that it doesn't matter if the PHD disagrees with him,

 

because it's only the PHD's opinion.

 

Right.

 

But, if the PHD agrees with Sev and the rest? Well, THEN we are supposed to

 

consider it fact. If you don't, then they will deride you as being against advanced education.

 

Really. It wasn't Sev who pulled that one, but it was Shleply, MrBeetlejuice, or Heck.

 

I honestly respect Sev's staying here and talking about it though.

 

The next thing that used to happen in previous discussions on this issue, is

 

the libs resorted to the last barricade to being over-run by the REAL common-sense side of

 

not buying into mmgw:

 

"but, bluster, whine, don't you believe in keeping our planet clean from pollution? (snivel)"

 

Sev is too cool to go there.

[osusev]

WHEN they publish their data on ice development on the otherside of antartica we will see..... until it actually gets published to be reviewed it is just a story.

 

As for the PHD, regardless of what "side" you are on the issue my position was the weight should not be given to the PHD but to the WORK they produce that supports their position.

 

I dont have a problem with listening to either side and looking at their supporting information, the problem is like that PR piece with the "signatories" they dont use any supporting studies etc just PR.

 

One side has not produced anything except for skepticism which I think is healthy and is a good check against BS but you have to produce something sooner or later to back up your position not just your PHD.

 

I do DEFINATELY think there is political/Money influencing both positively and negatively BOTH sides of the issue. However once again like the days of the Tobacco/cancer/nicotine science debate this on the surface is basically the exact same.

 

I truly do believe we are having an affect..... personally I dont think either side has enough information to know what that is exactly. The trends and information SEEM to point toward us but this is a very complicated issue with tons of unknown variables we dont understand.

 

Like I said I would rather error on the side of caution and seek balance than to ignore a potential disaster.... Yes I do enjoy criticizing PR bs pieces when it comes to science because they are basically the antithesis of what science is. Skepticism as a motivation to seek understanding is one of the pillars of scientific advancement.......when it leads to actual WORK but skepticism based on just opinion without work is worthless.

[calfoxwc]

The objective accumulation of work IS work.

 

All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.

 

Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't

 

like it.

 

However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.

 

Now, your side has resorted to,

 

"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".

 

Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter

 

how hard it is to accomplish.

[osusev]

The objective accumulation of work IS work.

 

All data is just data until it is analyzed and structured, to produce INFORMATION.

 

Now, that information, Sev, is still information, even when YOUR IDEOLOGY doesn't

 

like it. However, before, we had our legit articles dissed because the authors weren't PHD's in CLIMATE SCIENCE.

 

Now, your side has resorted to,

 

"well, yeah, but our scientists do WORK".

 

Sad. But even sadder, is the willingness to blindly follow the liberal idealogy and defend it no matter

 

how hard it is to accomplish.

 

 

Um cal that is EXACTLY what your side does NOT have..... all they have been putting out is opinions...

 

Articles spouting opinions are NOT studies that are reviewed and replicated which is again why your side has problems in the first place....

 

the "blind" part is following opinion........ we are not following opinions but studies and data from every field in science that is pointing to trends...... your side is following nothing but PR and opinions.... that is essentially the problem.

 

funny really.

 

 

[Mr. T]

Even with "The hypothesis" of "human-caused global warming" and a silly petition.

 

How do these same scientists, explain the fact the 1 degree that suppposdly by aka "Algorian's mad science project" says that humans raised the earth's temp. -----> And that Now it has cooled itself back off? Why?

 

 

hmm. My take is their aint shit we can do about it. unless you feel like giving Billions of dollars away for no reason.

 

Well AlGorian needs money for his "LockBox".

 

Not to offend any "Captain Planet Wannabees" I wish you guys well in saving the planet. Now get started first by picking up the litter.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Obviously the earth was once a much warmer place, at least long enough for the Vikings to settle Greenland, burn Birch trees off of what is now permafrost and supports no plant life, and successfully farm on what is now Permafrost, with barnyard smells being trapped in the permanently frozen ground.

 

But wait.. the MWP didn't exist, at least that's what MMGW propontents wanted you to believe when they tried to hide the Medieval warm period.

[Pumpkin Eater]

Scientist: Earth Cooling, Not Warming

 

http://newsmax.com/Headline/global-warming...04/24/id/323514

 

A San Francisco-based scientist says that current solar activity strongly indicates that the earth is on the verge of a new ice age.

 

"Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh," warns Phil Chapman writing in The Australian. Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

"The scariest photo I have seen . . . is at www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory [sOHO], located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity," Chapman wrote, adding ominously that "what is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot."

 

"This is where SOHO comes in," he explained. "The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No. 24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers."

 

That, he writes did not happen. "The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon."

 

Why? According to Chapman "there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790. Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots."

 

Although the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No. 24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection, Chapman warns that it is cause for concern.

 

"Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming," he explains, "the average temperature on earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

 

"All four agencies that track earth's temperature [the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California] report that it cooled by about 0.7 C in 2007." This, he says is "the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

 

Moreover, he says, there is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold, noting that it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

 

Chapman wrote that the global warming dogma should be put aside, "at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850."

 

How bad could a new little ice age be? "Much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now, and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the U.S. and Canada." Global warming, he added, "would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it. Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it [such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate], and millions more will die from cold-related diseases."

 

And grim as that outlook is, Chapman predicts that there is also another possibility, remote but much more serious — the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet and under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5 km of ice.

 

This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

 

The present interglacial period we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so an ice age is overdue. And glaciation can occur quickly: The required decline in global temperature is about 12 C and it can happen in 20 years.

 

His conclusions: "The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1,000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14 C cooler in 2027."

 

By then, he writes, "most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining."

 

"All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinders and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead," he writes. "It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake."

 

 

[osusev]

I hope you actually read this story..... I like the 2007 reference and where it comes from......

 

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ ........ this is called data representing trends from over a specified length of time not an opinion piece....

[osusev]

I am sure this data must not exist....... if you want to randomly pull stories and post you really should actually read it and than make sure its based on the most recent information if you want to use it as a rebuttal about well documented scientific information....

 

take a GOOD look at the charts......... cooling is not represented in a singular season nor is it even represented over 5 years..... the information is pretty indisputable....... Like I said trends based upon data not pr pieces or opinions looking at singular snap shots.

[osusev]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/

 

Easterm Antartica cooling huh..... looks like the studies dont match that opinion piece.... already published and reviewed....

[calfoxwc]

Here's a great article that explains this whole biz, Sev.

 

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ooling-or-both/

[osusev]

Here's a great article that explains this whole biz, Sev.

 

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...ooling-or-both/

 

um hate to break this to you but this is from 2007 when at the time it did have merit. Even recently the British Antartic study has published similar results of cooling on the interior of the continent but warming all around..... in combination with the latest report from the University of Washington that combines satellite data from Nasa and onsite stations in 2009 data and found an overall warming which I already posted....

 

 

I also hate to break this to you, the Antartic issues are not really controversial except to the popular media.......

climate models predict that temperature trends due to global warming will be much smaller in Antarctica than in the Arctic, mainly because heat uptake by the Southern Ocean acts to moderate the radiative forcing by greenhouse gases. The depletion of stratospheric ozone also has had a cooling effect, since ozone acts as a greenhouse gas.

 

Like I said its pretty overwhelming

[calfoxwc]

Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.

 

A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.

 

I also hate to break this to you, too -

 

the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.

 

Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm

 

Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.

 

The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,

given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.

 

BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?

 

Too much man made..... what?

[osusev]

Well, I hate to break this to you, Sev, but Nasa scientists ended up with errors in their data.

 

A satellite drifted off course, giving some daytime temps as night-time temps.

 

I also hate to break this to you, too -

 

the errors were discovered in 2005, so go look it up.

 

Wait, I'll go get a link for ya...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-...ming-data_x.htm

 

Cherry picking date ranges can get anybody any dumb conclusion they want.

 

The truth is - mmgw in NO FACT. It's just a theory that cannot be established as fact,

given other studies that find errors, and conclusions based on segmented, incomplete data.

 

BTW, just what was it that caused the Ice Age to melt away?

 

Too much man made..... what?

 

um cal you obviously did not read the links Im glad you brought up the errors in 2005........ the data and studies I posted were all from 2009....... where they were already corrected and more information added

 

do you read or source anything before you think?

 

as for your "ice age" which I suppose you mean glacial and interglacial periods considering we are still in the ice age that started in the Pleistocene........

 

Your question shows an oversimplification and quite frankly that you dont understand the terminology that your are using. as for interglacial periods "going away" the milankovitich cycle, solar apex which runs literally parrallel to mass extinctions on our planet(major impacts from meteors/etc), the before mentioned major impacts, super volcanoes (like Yellowstone), plate tectonics...... etc

 

Its odd that for a person who has made many strong opinionated statements you seem to not even understand the terminology you are using..... its like you have not read or studied the core subject matter you seem to feel so strongly about.

 

It really is irrelevant who is "right" or wrong..... its the trends in data from so many different sources, like I stated before there still exist tons of variables and factors that we still dont understand or can underestimate. whether we are a tipping point or a major contribution is again irrelevant we literally have ONE planet to live on within the goldilocks belt of our own solar system. Right now we dont have options to go anywhere else so why not be a whole lot more reasonable and CONSERVative? Short terms gains is all about selfish behavior not responsible long term behavior and planning. I really can understand the skepticism IF we had other options but we do not.

 

The right side of this "debate" shows an amazing inability to grasp logic.....This type of behavior has a name argmentum ad consequentiam meaning X is true or false because of how much i like or dislike its consequences (consequences could be as simple as personally being right or wrong or much more complicated)

[Westside Steve]

CONSERVative?

 

 

Sev, old buddy; I know how hilarious that is.

Is "liberal" in the opposite context as funny?

 

 

BTW are we actually debating changes in scientific "fact" over the last 4 years?

If it's decompressing that fast, well, don't buy the green bananas.

WSS

[osusev]

steve the term liberal can be used in the same context i use conservative and is often just as contradictory.

 

I know on these posts it may seem I am "liberal" I suppose in terms of conservationism I am, and somewhat at times when it comes to federal business regulations (within reason)/ well healthcare also....

 

crap maybe as I get older I suppose the I do have classic "liberal" leanings on those three topics..... whatever i suppose if that is a label on those topics it is what it is.

[Westside Steve]

steve the term liberal can be used in the same context i use conservative and is often just as contradictory.

 

I know on these posts it may seem I am "liberal" I suppose in terms of conservationism I am, and somewhat at times when it comes to federal business regulations (within reason)/ well healthcare also....

 

crap maybe as I get older I suppose the I do have classic "liberal" leanings on those three topics..... whatever i suppose if that is a label on those topics it is what it is.

 

Could be Sev.

You're the guy that keeps using the labels; I don't think I do often. They aren't that accurate when you break 'em down.

Personally I just can't take this global warming debate seriously for reasons I've mentioned often.

Has little to do with liberal or conservative.

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Oh, I read the articles, Sev.

 

But correcting to accrue CORRECT DATA doesn't mean that they can go back

 

and retroactively reread temps and times, YA THINK ? OR NOT ?

 

And, continuing to quote the theory, and not being able to accurately have any idea what the temps were...

 

and ONE TREE RING IN SIBERIA,

 

Sev, you are on a sinking ship by hanging onto Gore's shirt-tails.

 

The truth is out. mmgw is just a theory with cooked up politically expedient results, achieved by cherry picking data.

 

It's been proven. It's a fact.

 

YOU used the terms, I didn't, Sev.

 

But, LOL, I have just recently posted that as a last resort to cya, you mmgw "facters" resort to

 

"but gosh, we believe in taking care of our planet "sniff" Don't you guys care about pollution?"

 

and you ... just.... did... it.... again.

 

Dang, I am really good, eh?

 

You can understand skepticism to the mmgw nonsense, but... not when this is the only planet we have to live on?

 

And you are serious?

 

Come on, Sev, buddy, your political cya isn't bought by some of us customers.

 

We ain't buyin unfactual facts, despite you rationalizing sales pitch.

 

Tell Algore the Ogre he's about 26 cards short of having a full deck to think with.

[calfoxwc]

Here:

 

An article that also adds to the justification for serious skepticism.

 

politically oriented theory, not necessarily how it started, but how it quickly ended up.

 

The truth is coming out Sev. Rationalizing and defending isn't squelching skepticism, because

 

that skepticism is being supported by facts.

[osusev]

wow cal....... those posts were kind of out there.

[Mr. T]

liberlism = socialism according to another community organizer Saul D. Alinsky who wrote "Rules for Radicals"

 

 

Outlining his strategy in organizing Alinsky writes:

wiki here

"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."[2]

 

Alinsky codified and wrote a clear set of rules[3] for community organizing. His rules for radicals are now used as key tactics to learn in the training of new community organizers.

 

In a separate chapter he suggests that the perennial question, "Does the end justify the means?" is meaningless as it stands: the real and only question regarding the ethics of means and ends is, and always has been, "Does this particular end justify this particular means?"

 

Alinsky continues by stating several rules of the ethics of means and ends:

 

• The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
• In war the end justifies almost any means.
• Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
• Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
• The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
• Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
• The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
• Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.
• You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.
• Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

These rules of the ethics of means and ends are only one chapter of his book, totally distinct from his "clear set of rules for community organizing." For example, his rule 12 is "pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

 

 

And if the rules for radicals isnt bad enough I am holding another piece of trash in my left hand as I type, should be a very comical read, "The Communist manifesto"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.

 

Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:

 

"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."

 

Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?

 

[Westside Steve]

Ha. I see that Sev is trying to do his best and getting nowhere. Cheers, Sev.

 

Thought you guys would find this interesting, since you still can't get beyond the "It was cold where I live for a couple weeks so global warming doesn't exist" line of argument, as elementary as it may be:

 

"The globe recorded its eighth warmest December since record keeping began in 1880, and 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated December 2009 as the 4th warmest December on record, and the year 2009 tied with 2007 as the second warmest year on record."

 

Seems to run counter to the point of this thread, no?

 

OK.

So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:

So what?

 

Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.

WSS

[Pumpkin Eater]

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20090121/

 

Easterm Antartica cooling huh..... looks like the studies dont match that opinion piece.... already published and reviewed....

 

 

haha.... published and reviewed by who? The MMGW proponents have NO credibility now, lest we forget. Remember the emails about excluding those who disagreed with their theories from the peer review process? And I also believe there was talk of cherry picking data, suppressing other data, and then manipulating data.

[heckofajobbrownie]

OK.

So with cap and trade going nowhere (and no change in sight even if it did) tell us this:

So what?

 

Since you're obsessed with the issue tell us what's in store.

WSS

 

Steve, I'm just trying to help them past the "Hey, it's snowing outside my house so global warming is hooey!" stage. And if you're still in that stage, there really isn't much point in debating what's beyond it, is there? It's like trying to debate the West Coast offense with someone who still doesn't understand what a quarterback does.

 

I mean, look at Sev in this thread. He actually knows this stuff, whereas all the other guys obviously don't, and have to cut and paste other people's opinions because their opinions are simply adopted from the political people they read or listen to. This should probably chasten them a bit, but it clearly doesn't. Once they're beaten, they just pick up another line and try that. And then the cycle repeats.

 

As for what comes next, I don't know what the point of your question is. Cap and trade is hanging in the balance, especially after a Brown win today, which he seems to be headed towards. And so you're faced with the prospect of EPA regulations, which nobody wants. So maybe you get some sort of watered down bill instead, which is all you can get out of Congress today. So there's a real prospect that greenhouse gas emissions will continue pretty much unabated, which is pretty bad news for the planet.

 

Besides, you're still stuck in your rut, which is to claim that there's no difference between emissions under a cap and trade system and emissions without one. So there's really no point in arguing with you either, which is why I don't, and periodically check in here to see what crazy people think is true this month.

[Mr. T]

Whats so funny about this whole thing is how only democrats want to tax the air you exhale and tax the weather outside.

 

 

 

Whats next a tax on how many hairs are on your head. The whole argument is getting ridiculous, especially when they have to fabricate their info.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Democrats don't want to tax the air you exhale or the weather. (Where do you get this stuff?) You're just a lunatic who doesn't know anything, T. That's all there is to it.

[calfoxwc]

And, Heck, you are a loser who keeps bailing out of the forum and keeps coming back when

 

you think that we forgot that you seem to be the one who reads articles, then pens in your opinions like they were yours.

 

In my reading, I have more than 3 times read posts by "experts", in nearly the exact same words as you.

 

Coincidence? Or not?

 

BTW, you never answered my question - did you, Shep, Mzbeetlejuice, and Al know each other, or

some subgroup of the above, on some other forum @@ before you came here?

 

I ask, because, seems to me, that none of the above ever said how they are Browns fans, love the Browns, etc...........

 

and you seem to share the same arrogance in your cherry picked articles.

 

After all the posts to the contrary of mmgw, they start all over AGAIN at the beginning, arguing the same premise.

 

"Deja vu all over again"

 

Answer to the question, mr phoney knowitall ?

[heckofajobbrownie]

No, we didn't know each other. Sorry if this ruins some sort of conspiracy you've created in your head.