|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 02:35:53 AM
Nudism is body positive, and INF-FNI (for which AANR is the USA rep) holds respect for the environment as a key part of its core values.
Both these issues are burning issues, not only in the USA but the World, and could be the centerpiece of AANR's political face. Given the conservative nature of AANR, the words "conservation" and "prevention" come to mind as areas the AANR clubs are heavily invested in but are invisible.
Assuming that nudism becomes more acceptable, and there is less need for people to join a club to be nude, could health and environment be the foundation to drive growth not only today but for the next century? |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| catbird |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 3:40:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pilot
Such advocacy is rather important but has some dangers. Personally, I am all for advocacy both of the external and internal (health) environments.
However, it's important for organizations to canvass their constituencies to make sure that the corporate position reflects the positions of the membership. Most members 'couldn't care less'. However, vocal minorities can raise all sorts of noise and the latter can be a distraction.
If AANR has any position on the environment, it should be secondary to nudism advocacy. Whether anybody supports Al Gore, that should be independent of AANR. BTW, if Al Gore's prognosis becomes real, then Gunnison Beach would be history.
Naturally, Catbird |
| Cheri |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 12:01:53 PM
Getting back on topic... AANR does have monthly articles about health and fitness in the Bulletin
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
| CMx2 |
Posted - 08/09/2007 : 04:12:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by old hippie
Do you have some authoritative evidence that the climate on Mars is warming? Or do we take it on blind faith? I don't think we can be called on to ascribe causality before the phenomenon itself is demonstrated.
. The simple fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and doing so at a rate never before observed (even in ice cores ten thousand years old), has been fully established. The connection to the CO2 levels since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is not fully demonstrated, but as a simple hypothesis, it works well enough until someone can present a better one. Science is not about ascribing fault, but about investigating reality in a logical manner.
Dum vivimus, vivamus!
Feel free to look up the evidence yourself.
I'm not going to try and convince anyone.
And these Ice core samples you speak of show that CO2 levels rise as a RESULT of global warming and not the reverse as is being touted so much by the so called environmentalists.
All I have to do is wait. Just like the global cooling scare of the 70s, This too shall pass.
I'm fully confident that in another decade or so, the man-made global warming theory will be totally debunked and is going to be one of the the biggest embarrassments in history.
|
| old hippie |
Posted - 08/02/2007 : 12:50:29 AM
quote:
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how our human activities are are simultaneously warming the climate on Mars. I'll take AlGore's explanation or even these climatologists explanation as well.
Do you have some authoritative evidence that the climate on Mars is warming? Or do we take it on blind faith? I don't think we can be called on to ascribe causality before the phenomenon itself is demonstrated.
. The simple fact that the Earth's climate is changing, and doing so at a rate never before observed (even in ice cores ten thousand years old), has been fully established. The connection to the CO2 levels since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution is not fully demonstrated, but as a simple hypothesis, it works well enough until someone can present a better one. Science is not about ascribing fault, but about investigating reality in a logical manner.
Dum vivimus, vivamus! |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 11:07:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by pilot
... one should not assume that the membership wants to get into health advocacy--it's important to first determine whether this is an important issue for the membership and then what stance should be taken.
I agree that the membership feelings are important here, but I think the AANR, in order not to loose its market, has to consider both current membership and potential future membership. It would surprise me if there was not some middle ground in the recreational theme rather than the advocacy theme. |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 08/01/2007 : 10:56:42 PM
I appreciate your witty reply, CMx2. :-)
FYI, here is a reference for you so that you can see for yourself
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
the extensive data on Earth's irradiation available. All sources consistently indicate a very slight decrease in solar irradiation hitting Earth over the past 30 years.
Nobody can explain Mars climate data right now; there is too little of it and what there is of it is not consistent. Back in 2001 there were claims of global warming, but this was disputed by NASA scientists.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1660
When data is new, scientists need the space to make all sorts of hypothesis for further testing. In this case, further analysis has shown real flaws in that hypothesis:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
Why do you think such an outdated and flawed hypothesis would end up as serious scientific news and held up by some in the media in contradiction to every serious climate scientist? Aren't we seeing a "news" placement pattern here that industry pundits use to sway a controversy hungry media? Isn't that the same pattern they used years ago to tout articles contradicting the scientific evidence that smoking cigarettes causes serious health problems? There was a huge body of scientific evidence cast in doubt by that misinformation. Many died horrible deaths needlessly because of that doubt.
|
| CMx2 |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 06:53:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by StuffedTiger
See why climatologists are confident that human activities are dangerously warming the earth.
I'm still waiting for your explanation of how our human activities are are simultaneously warming the climate on Mars. I'll take AlGore's explanation or even these climatologists explanation as well. |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 02:43:58 AM
The thing that's different about a naturist IMHO is that we recognize that we are a part of nature and we are proud of it and celebrate it, together. I think it is fitting for naturists to support "conservation" because that puts us in the middle of nature where we belong. I don't think it is right to exclude us from nature to protect wildlife, except where necessary for conservation. Many conservatives are avid conservationists, if I am not mistaken. It just makes sense. |
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/14/2007 : 02:11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by CMx2Contrary to AlGore's claims, The serious scientists understand that our entire solar system is currently getting warmer due to an increase in solar activity.
I'm trying to understand what would make you think climatologists don't know exactly what impact solar activity has? This is relatively easy to measure. That has been incorporated into every model going for years, along with hundreds of other features.
Don't take my word for it. Pick up the current issue of Scientific American (August 2007). Read "The Physical Science behind Climate Change" by:
William Collins (Professor in Residence, Dept of Earth and Planetary Science, UC Berkeley; senior scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder CO),
Robert Colman (senior research scientist, Climate Dynamics Group, Australian bureau of Meteorology Research Center, Melbourne),
James Haywood (manager aerosol research, Observational Based Research Group, and Chemistry, Climate and Ecosystem Group, Met Office, Exiter, England),
Martin R. Manning (director IPCC WG I Support Unit at NOAA EArth System Research Laboratory, Boulder, CO),
Philip Mote (Washington State climatologist, research scientist, Climate Impacts Group, U of Washington, and affiliate professor, department of atmospheric sciences).
Hear from some of the participants in the most recent and comprehensive international review of the scientific evidence. See why climatologists are confident that human activities are dangerously warming the earth. See why I say Gore is an optimist.
I understand this is not helping my thread, but let's be honest. I'm not here to push anything. I'm here to discuss and learn, and I need to state my case (as best as I can) to do that. |
| pilot |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 11:42:42 PM
Such advocacy is rather important but has some dangers. Personally, I am all for advocacy both of the external and internal (health) environments.
However, it's important for organizations to canvass their constituencies to make sure that the corporate position reflects the positions of the membership. Most members 'couldn't care less'. However, vocal minorities can raise all sorts of noise and the latter can be a distraction.
Some years ago, I was in the leadership ranks of a professional organization of healthcare providers. The organization was asked to take a position on handgun control. Suffice it to say that the leadership and the membership did not see things quite the same, and fortunately we realized this before any position was taken.
One might not think 'health' is an issue until one addresses the complementary issues of body acceptance and the obesity epidemic. The AANR has made substantial strides in finding common ground with the health column that now appears regularly in The Bulletin. But one should not assume that the membership wants to get into health advocacy--it's important to first determine whether this is an important issue for the membership and then what stance should be taken.
|
| CMx2 |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 08:32:09 AM
To get back on topic, I'm all for the AANR becoming more of a health advocate. I'd love to see an AANR anti-smoking campaign. Or how about an anti-skin cancer campaign with the "no tan lines" slogan because you stay out of the UV rays and use lots of sun block and never get a tan? O.k. outside of my household that one isn't very likely....
And even though I'm an EVIL conservative, I do consider myself an environmentalist. Heck, I don't want dioxins in my drinking water any more than the next guy. I just get fed up with all the environmentalist quackery thats so abundant these days. So I think I could support more environmental advocacy by the AANR.
Ooh, I think I've got one that we can all agree on...
How about an Anti-laundry detergent "Stay Naked" campaign??? |
| CMx2 |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 08:05:06 AM
quote:
Originally posted by StuffedTiger
Almost every serious scientist is more radical about this than Al Gore, and that is all based on what the data is telling us, not the pundits. We could be wrong, but ... we're not.
Uhm. Yes. You are actually.
And since you hijacked your own thread, I'll bite. 
I'd ask AlGore to explain how our CO2 emissions are raising the temperature on Mars. Maybe its our solar powered rovers up there stirring up the dust? Or maybe its just catching the radiant heat from our over-heated Earth?
Contrary to AlGore's claims, The serious scientists understand that our entire solar system is currently getting warmer due to an increase in solar activity.
|
| StuffedTiger |
Posted - 07/13/2007 : 02:00:48 AM
With such a diverse membership, health and environment could prove divisive core values if not managed properly. I would start, as Cheri indicates, by making a habit out of letting people know what AANR and its clubs *are* doing in our pubs. For example, Penn Sylvan put in an exercise room and then upgraded it, also a new play area for the kids with excellent equipment and safety provisions.
BTW, I disagree with your characterization of the issues with CO2 and tying them to Al Gore, however noteworthy he may be as a spokesperson. Almost every serious scientist is more radical about this than Al Gore, and that is all based on what the data is telling us, not the pundits. We could be wrong, but ... we're not. |
| jim19452 |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 12:50:41 PM
I have thought for a longtime that naturism and environmentalism were intertwined. I think AANR should promote environmentalism in a balanced manner, eschewing the extremism of Al Gore and his misguided crusade against CO2.
Best Wishes, Jim |
| Cheri |
Posted - 07/11/2007 : 09:14:23 AM
As far as the environment goes...AANR and the Eastern Region have partnered with Take Pride in America. Many of our clubs are having events, and these events are noted on their website.
The original intent and focus of naturism/nudism when it began was a more healthful body. I guess it would be going back to the origins of what it means.
Cheri
Doing what I can to positively promote nudism
-
-
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
 |
|
|
