Quick! Everbody go out and start your cars,,, by Hero

Do I think we are irresponsible in our use of resources? Yes

Do I buy for a second in global warming? Not a chance.

Like anything else, I give it all 50/50

I do think it's great that we're working so hard to find alternative sources for energy, but that has nothing to do with the tree hugger's efforts. It's simply fiscal responsibility, and it's about damn time. I for one don't want to be sucking on the Middle East's tits 10 years from now, do you?

Isn't it amazing how when gas prices rise over $3.00 a gallon that we miraculously make all of these advances in alternate energy, as if by magic?

Here's hoping that gas hit's $5.00 by next year, and I'm driving a '78 Ford LTD that gets 10 MPG.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:19 PM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Isn't it amazing how when gas prices rise over $3.00 a gallon that we miraculously make all of these advances in alternate energy, as if by magic?

Here's hoping that gas hit's $5.00 by next year, and I'm driving a '78 Ford LTD that gets 10 MPG.

i find it interesting that the price of oil, relative to gold, has remained steady, while almost doubling under the dollar. i think its a sign that the problem is our currency, which is 50 percent of every transaction. at this rate, i worry that our innovative capabilities will stagnate, along with the economy, before any viable alternatives take off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:25 PM

That is possible AM.....

I laugh, only half-heartedly, about the fact that I'm up 87% on my Goldcorp investment from last May. My big joke is that the real value of the money I invested in Goldcorp has stayed the same over the last 8-9 months while the value of the rest of my money has decreased by 87% in that much time.

Here's hoping I get that 30% cost of living raise this April.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
Auraptor, you clearly have done ZERO research into the topic. The Polar ice sheets are in serious decline as are most bodies of glacial ice, wildfires have become far more frequent in both California and Australia(where I had actually stated). In fact you really brought no evidence to the table. Here I'll give you a site with pretty pictures so you can see
Specifically the one with the ESA satellite imagery

Oh and about those polar bears
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071123/full/news.2007.282.html

Too bad your 'link' is a pay only site. Oh well. I've done quite a bit of research, and found many studies contradict each other, or claim little change in the polar bear population.

The winter this year has been especially cold. Tell me the ice hasn't come back? It has, and even thicker than it was before.

There's no reason to fret.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:48 PM

Sorry about that raptor, having a slow internet so I just grabbed the first and saw it pop p with info, however a quick Google search or perusal of a National Geographic could bring up the info. The satellite imagery doesn't lie though. Nor do the early passages of ships through the northwest and northeast passages.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:43 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Want to stop global warming? Get a Earth sun sheild. That Sun swings the surface temp by 60 degrees F and back again just in the period of a day. We gotta get that thing under control, and we need to stop decaying our orbit around the Sun, or we'll get hotter.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 28, 2008 11:08 PM

I agree. We need to stage an immediate pre-emptive strike against the sun. We need to push it back now because it's decaying orbit around the Earth is getting dangerously hot.

(I say as I smoke in sub zero conditions at night for the last month in this, the coldest winter of my lifetime)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 5:12 AM

Quote:
I'm driving a '78 Ford LTD

I must say kid, ya got style... so monstrous, so ugly, it just has a style all it's own in pure visual offensiveness, doesn't it ?

My dispatcher drives a 1973 Plymouth Gran Fury, what a freakin monstrosity that thing is, and having borrowed it twice, those slab sided monoliths take a heck of a lot more skill to drive than a modern car, that's for sure.

My dear ole gramma had a hopped up 1966 Impala she drove till her doc forbade it, and I remember the interior quite well from when we used to go duckpin bowling together... it had a really unique look and style.

Hee hee hee, one time some local kiddies made the mistake of revving at Granny while we were at a light, in a cherried up Nova, guess they thought they were something...

Granny just glanced over sideways, ker-clunked it into gear, and dropped the hammer on the beefy 427 under that black glossy hood, leaving the poor twits at the line in a cloud of smoke, they weren't gonna catch up, and they didn't even try - wasn't nothin never wrong with her reflexes, was her legs that ended her driving days, cause she took up video games after that, and bowed to NO master at Atari 2600's COMBAT, rather embarassing to be hammered at that by your granny, it is.

Hell of a lady, I miss her though, the world is just a little less interesting without her in it, she had a tongue and wit to go with those reflexes too, never doubt it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 5:18 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

even thicker

Yes AU, this is very apt indeed.
Not the ice though, I mean....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 5:41 AM

*Declares Barrel-Fish an Endangered Species and confiscates Chrisisall's shotgun*

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 5:51 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*Declares Barrel-Fish an Endangered Species and confiscates Chrisisall's shotgun*

No stairway; access denied....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:03 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
*Declares Barrel-Fish an Endangered Species and confiscates Chrisisall's shotgun*

Dang... barrel-fish is good eatin', too. Tastes like chicken-hawk. ;)

M

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:

Seems like those that "study it for a living" might just be perpetuating their own jobs like good beaurocrates do.

Like the generals are doing in Iraq - keeping it going forever so they have kewl new toys to play with, right?

M

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

They probably love Kill-Dozers too.

Hey, man - EVERYBODY loves KillDozers. How can ya NOT? They're just so cuddly - right up until they flatten you.

M

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:11 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

even thicker
Yes AU, this is very apt indeed.
Not the ice though, I mean....

Chrisisall

I wouldn't take Auraptors word for it either, but I suspect the the senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa knows what he's talking about:

Quote:
...Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/26/eaic
e126.xml

-----------------
Blogs Away! ---> www.fblblog.com

"Doing research on the Web is like using a library assembled piecemeal by pack rats and vandalized nightly."
---Roger Ebert

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:19 AM

Okay guys I gotta say that the personal attacks probably are a bit much for this. I mean I am really glad I hijacked this post into a completely inane conversation, but seriously let's be somewhat civilized.

JewelStaiteFan, actually the mirror idea has been proposed as a possible solution, however the raw materials needed to deflect enough sun would be enormous and it would be far more costly then just changing our habits now. Also the planets are actually slowly expanding outwards not inwards, a perfect example of this being the moon which gets incrementally further away from us. It is the spinning motion that causes this effect.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:34 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:
...Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year...

AND from the same article:

Quote:
Other figures from the NCDC, however, show that during January 2008, Europe, northern Asia and most of Australia experienced above average temperatures. According to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), temperatures were 3-4°C (5-7°F) above average across large areas of Western and Central Australia and as a whole, the country had its warmest January on record.

Sea surface temperatures were also warmer than average in the Atlantic, Indian, and the northwestern Pacific oceans.

Here, educate yourselves:
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/NATURE/01/03/arctic.ice/index.html

Quote:
But -- like the Arctic ice itself -- military secrecy seems to be thawing. About a year ago, Rothrock convinced Navy brass that measurements taken in the 1950s could be helpful in figuring out whether the data from the '90s was statistically significant. Armed with a pile of new numbers, Rothrock guessed that they might show that the polar cap had shrunk perhaps 18-20 inches over the past half century.

He was wrong. The actual shrinkage left him astonished.

On average, the University of Washington team found that ice had thinned by four feet (1.3 meters) -- a 40 percent decrease since 1953. The "trend" of the 1990s seemed to be an indisputable fact.

It ain't as simple as one season's temps, folks.
A looming cold spell is all part of Global Warming (or Global Climate Change, as we should say...).

Kneel before Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 8:54 AM

ANTIMASON

Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:

As for the middle ground, conservatives will always disagree with any environmental policy because they don't think they should have to change their lifestyle so others can live.

well in principle, everyone should have the freedom and right to live as they see fit, whether it be wasteful or not. if this is an issue of conservation, then to remain free we have to accept that only the individual can change his/her behavior. certainly every 'right' necessitates equal responsibility, to be good stewards and so on.. well these are moral and ethical issues, are they not? these kind of changes can only take place inwardly and self consciously.. clearly not the role of an external body or government. think of this in a personal context; people do not change well forcefully

also, is CO2 a pollutant, despite its role in natural cycles? go a step beyond manufacturing and personal emmissions, why not make the case that a 'culling' of the population is necessary for survival? i only bring this up as an extreme, because ive heard this scenario before,

Quote:
There was even a study that showed people who drive SUV's are selfish and insecure.

come on, thats a stereotype.. besides merely pointing that out comes off very superficially

Quote:
Mason, I completely disagree with government interfering in most cases, but seriously when the organizations that are too big for people to fight alone are in play, that is where the government needs to speak in collective protection of people.

mostly, the government/corporate relationships and subsidies are what cause these problems, especially with healthcare. the problem is too much government interference in the market. your acknowledging that the 'progressive' solution is to expand government, and give it MORE control. itll only make it worse! the corporations are less the enemy, we can deny their services, and compete if we so choose... but the government gets everybody

Quote:
So yes I am definitely liberal on a majority of things, but really who gives anyone the right to destroy someone else's right to a clean planet? I do what I can to treat the planet right and it is less costly than if I didn't so either way, just being environmentally sound hurts no one and actually helps in most cases.

youre right in that the government should protect property rights; maybe we should debate, and settle whether emitting excessive CO2 is a crime first, before we try and determine the constitutions stance on the issue. i suspect there is a lot of property rights violating going on, that some simple enforcement of the law might correct. i think we should consider these options, before taking on the task of global social engineering

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 9:45 AM

Anti,
I really have come to respect your usually very thought provoking rebuttals. It's nice to hear we can have reasonable debates across the aisle. The study I was referring to was actually done by the auto industry as a marketing tool to see how best to sell. These studies are statistically very scary in how accurate they are over a broad spectrum of people (I do advertising in my job) and much of marketing is done in this way because stereotyping people is very accurate, stereotyping a person is where it becomes ethically wrong.

Well the problem with saying people have the right to live as they want is that if someone else is pollutes the environment, they don't give you the right to your freedom. I completely agree with freedom so long as it does not affect another persons freedom, i.e. I don't eat meat and would like for everyone to stop, but it is legal and while I would like for people to stop it does not infringe upon my freedoms to not eat them or protect them if they are on my property, just as you owning a gun and shooting it on your own property is none of my business. However if you start taking potshots at the creatures on my property expressly knowing that it is against my wishes then you affect my personal freedom to live as I wish to. If it were a simple matter of you stay over there and I'll stay over here I would agree, but environmental issues affect a global population, therefore protecting everyone's right to live as they choose becomes and issue of limiting an individuals right to affect another persons, unless of course you resort to violence which I'd really rather not have to do.

As for the government, I think it should be paired down to health care, defense, education (giving people access to it not controlling what is taught with the exception that religion could only be taught in public schools as an elective, i.e. not forced) The courts would handle rights and new federal laws would be directly put forth by the citizens. with a 3/5 majority vote needed to pass.
I really have got a whole other system planned which would be far less complicated and hopefully address all the issues.

As far as government interference, I never hear enough complaints about the give aways to major corporations and too many about giving people health care. A very simple solution would be to give basic, preventative and emergency health care to all citizens, with elective and non-universal i.e. knee surgeries, broken bones would be covered by the insurance company for a very nominal fee, that way if you have an illness you are covered, or if you break a bone you can get it taken care of but it would cost money, but would not include the doctor's fees. etc...this really gets lengthy but is far less complicated than the current medical situation.

The major problem with the correction of violations is that under the Bush administration he has given free pass to corporations to pollute , abuse workers and ignore safety standards(especially in the mining industry) and otherwise run roughshod over the little guy. I completely think that the corporate government needs to be taken back and given to the people and I think the majority of us could hammer out our own compromise that everyone could work with. Personally I think the major problem is that car companies have refused and hidden their ability to make electric/hybrid vehicles that would provide the same off-roading,rebel rousing fun that most people are afraid of losing. I am not against SUV's for anything other than safety and emissions reasons.

Defining excessive emissions is kind of pointless, we really just need to get away from hydro-carbons as a fuel source, it's obviously possible since car manufacturers are now miraculously producing the vehicles they said they couldn't now that it is profitable, but most people can't afford the better vehicles. It's really just a big racket, but we all knew that.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 10:44 AM

Avenging, perhaps you should consider membership in the IWW.

Sounds like you'd be on-board with most of their goals, to be honest.

http://www.iww.org

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 12:24 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
car manufacturers are now miraculously producing the vehicles they said they couldn't now that it is profitable, but most people can't afford the better vehicles. It's really just a big racket, but we all knew that.

I don't remember car makers saying that they couldn't make more efficient vehicles. What they said all along is exactly what you are saying now. They said that they couldn't sell more full efficient cars until the fuel price got to a level that consumers would be willing to pay the higher price and get less vehicle. If they could have produced a fuel efficient modern version of the 78 Ford LTD years ago they would have. We still don't have the technology to do that. The only thing that has changed is that people are now willing to accept less car for more money because of high gas prices. This problem is being addressed by the free-market like it should be. The car company that can build the largest car with the best mileage will come out on top.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 12:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
I agree. We need to stage an immediate pre-emptive strike against the sun. We need to push it back now because it's decaying orbit around the Earth is getting dangerously hot.

Unfortunately, I can't tell whether you're joking or not about the whole sun-revolving-around-the-earth thing. I s'pose in your universe, it's a FLAT Earth, too, huh?

M

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 12:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Damn, did someone clone me while I wasn't lookin ?

Kwicko, yer startin to scare me,I might have to knock you off due to territorial issues cause you're fleecin MY herd here....

And doin a rather bang-up job of it too.
*grumble*

-F

Sorry, Frem - didn't mean to poach on your hunting grounds. Sometimes, though, one just sees the shot and HAS to take it.

M

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:
car manufacturers are now miraculously producing the vehicles they said they couldn't now that it is profitable, but most people can't afford the better vehicles. It's really just a big racket, but we all knew that.

I don't remember car makers saying that they couldn't make more efficient vehicles. What they said all along is exactly what you are saying now. They said that they couldn't sell more full efficient cars until the fuel price got to a level that consumers would be willing to pay the higher price and get less vehicle. If they could have produced a fuel efficient modern version of the 78 Ford LTD years ago they would have. We still don't have the technology to do that. The only thing that has changed is that people are now willing to accept less car for more money because of high gas prices. This problem is being addressed by the free-market like it should be. The car company that can build the largest car with the best mileage will come out on top.

Hmmmm... couldn't sell efficient cars? Honda Accords are pretty efficient, comparatively speaking, and Honda couldn't build enough of them to suit demand in the early 90s. My '91 Honda CRX is certainly efficient - if I flog the living shit out of it with the A/C on, it still won't dip BELOW 20 miles per gallon. On the highway, it gets as high as 46mpg. So I'd hardly say that carmakers couldn't SELL an efficient car, or that they had to charge too much for it - mine stickered at just over $11,000 in 1991 - hardly a king's ransom.

Not all of us are looking for the biggest car. Personally, I'd like to have the LEAST car I can, simply because I prize simplification and light weight over gadgets and gimcrackery. Call me old-fashioned...

We absolutely have the technology to produce mid-size cars that routinely get better than 35mpg. Ditch some of the luxury crap out of them, get the weight under 3000 pounds, and you'll be amazed at the efficiencies you achieve.

Mike

"Me want Kill-Dozer!!"

KillDozer doesn't get good gas mileage. KillDozer doesn't care about such things.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:09 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

even thicker
Yes AU, this is very apt indeed.
Not the ice though, I mean....

Chrisisall

I wasn't talking about girth, so tell your wife to stop w/ the frantic e-mails. My box is nearly full.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:15 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Razza:

I wouldn't take Auraptors word for it either, but I suspect the the senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa knows what he's talking about:

Quote:
...Asked about the Arctic ice cover, Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, told the Post the Arctic winter had been so severe, the ice has not only recovered but was actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than the same time last year...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/02/26/eaic
e126.xml

Thanks for the compliment...I think, that's the quote I knew I had seen, but couldn't find. I've happen to have been right so often that I think I've earned the righ to not have to post a link for EVERY fact I lay down here, but some just have a bias against me. Sucks for them, is all I can say.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:38 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
[Hmmmm... couldn't sell efficient cars? Honda Accords are pretty efficient, comparatively speaking, and Honda couldn't build enough of them to suit demand in the early 90s.

I think you helped my argument by bringing up the Honda Accord. This was the first decent sized, fuel efficient car introduce that had mass appeal. But as soon as Toyota came along with the Camry, which was bigger, but still had relatively good fuel efficiency, Honda sales started to drop.

People will demand higher efficiency cars when they see it is in their personal self interest to do so and not before. The fee market is working. If the government gets involved by supporting one type of alternative(ethanol} over others, we will never see the technology emerge that can solve our fuel problem long term.

I have always driven fuel efficient 4 cylinder cars since gas hit $1.25/gal. I don't do it to save the world. I do it to save a buck. I hope the Chevy Volt is not too pricey when it comes out because I've always wanted an electric car.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 1:41 PM

SICKDUDE

Avenge, please don't knock yourself out here talking to these numbskulls. They've spent years here shooting down global warming with incorrect facts and crappy reasoning. You're not the only browncoat to understand what's going on, or to try to talk reason with them. But you're just not going to convince these folks of anything. Best to save the effort for someone who might listen. Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.

No offense, Auraptor, Finn, et al....

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 29, 2008 2:15 PM

ALLIETHORN7

Quote:
Originally posted by avengingwatcher:

The destruction of the entire human race just doesn't come off as a joking matter to me.

when there are no heroes where will we turn?

I happen to think that it is a hilarious idea. Hey, we all just died!
Meh. Global warming will happen, even if everyone became hippies and started using bicycles. It's natural; if we speed it up a bit, then boo-hoo, we die out faster. Have we even accomplisehed all that much to be proud about?
I believe that people who say that we will "Destroy the world with our errant ways" are on a level of supreme arrogance, and, yes, I will hit you for it.

-Danny

Choke choke again
I thought my demons were my friends
Getting me in the end
They're out to get me
Since I was young
I've tasted sorrow on my tongue
And this sweet chugga gun
Does not protect me

That's right
Trigger between my eyes
Please strike, Make it quick now

The Band of the week is... Korn
Gott weiß ich will kein Engel sein.
http://www.myspace.com/otherrandomdude

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 1, 2008 1:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Avenge, please don't knock yourself out here talking to these numbskulls. They've spent years here shooting down global warming with incorrect facts and crappy reasoning. You're not the only browncoat to understand what's going on, or to try to talk reason with them. But you're just not going to convince these folks of anything. Best to save the effort for someone who might listen. Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.

No offense, Auraptor, Finn, et al....

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

Beliving global warming to be bunk is definately not a partisan thing. I fight with Rap and Finn quite a lot in here, but I don't buy into the global warming myth at all.

Whatever propoganda it takes to get the idiot proles to stop sucking on Middle East tit is fine with me though.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 1, 2008 3:01 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.

I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong.

But I haven't seen any proof that you guys are right. I'm not a global warming atheist. I am a GW agnostic. Show me some proof, then we can talk.

The first proof anyone can show me is the standard deviation for the average annual global surface temperature. I have asked for this repeatedly in RWED, and then I've asked all over the internet. Strangely, no one seems to know this basic calculation tha comes with all averages. And even more strangely, no one seems to mind buying the whole-kit-and-kaboodle WITHOUT knowing this basic calculation.

Here is something global warming "believers" (like it's a religion) need to ask themselves. Why is it that they always talk about the CHANGE in average temp? Take any GW article, and ALL the numbers are about the CHANGE in average temp. They almost never talk about the average temps themselves. Why is that?

Talking about CHANGE assumes a constant for the average temp, which then gets represented as a Big Ol' Zero. Look at all the GW charts. You have zigzag lines that start below Zero and go above Zero. Everything in GW discussions assumes this Zero is correctly identified. Without talking about the average temps themselves, it draws away scrutiny on how the average was calculated to begin with, how accurate is that calculation, and how MUCH change is required before it is statistically significant.

Is there an accurate measure of the average annual global temperature to begin with?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/is_there_an_average_global_tem_
1.html

--------------------------
There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
--Mark Twain

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 1, 2008 3:03 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.

No offense, Auraptor, Finn, et al....

"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary

No offense taken, but why would you state that I never tire of being wrong ? You think I'm merely taking this position to be contrarian ? That I'm 'bucking the trend' for the sake of being different? Nope, the fact of the matter is, I' don't see the evidence showing anything out of the ordinary when it comes to the claims of the global warming zealots. How old are you ? By that, I mean to say, how long have you been on this planet ? What is your perspective of how the climate "should be " ? Our recent snapshot of history in the past 100, 500, 10,000 yrs is just that, a thin slice of this planet's history. Our climate has always been in flux, long before the industrial revolution, long before man. So to so boldly state that we're screwing up what " normal " weather should be like, is utterly ridiculous.

Oceans rise and fall. Glaciers advance and receed. We know this to be a undeniable fact, and yet somehow, someone's decided that the state of things as they are NOW, is " normal ",or would be if mankind would stop screwing things up, that nature chose to have it that way for eternity. Sorry, not how it works. There's far too much ignorance of the Earth's history, coupled w/ the arrogance that mankind is sooooo powerful that we alone can alter the entire planet's climate w/ out even trying.

Not so fast, my friend.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 1, 2008 10:31 AM

ANTIMASON

Quote:

Anti,
I really have come to respect your usually very thought provoking rebuttals. It's nice to hear we can have reasonable debates across the aisle.

thats very nice of you to say, thank you. i respect that your honost and admit your 'liberal' leanings, it makes it easier to debate the contrasts in our ideologies

Quote:
Well the problem with saying people have the right to live as they want is that if someone else is pollutes the environment, they don't give you the right to your freedom. I completely agree with freedom so long as it does not affect another persons freedom, i.e. I don't eat meat and would like for everyone to stop, but it is legal and while I would like for people to stop it does not infringe upon my freedoms to not eat them or protect them if they are on my property, just as you owning a gun and shooting it on your own property is none of my business. However if you start taking potshots at the creatures on my property expressly knowing that it is against my wishes then you affect my personal freedom to live as I wish to. If it were a simple matter of you stay over there and I'll stay over here I would agree, but environmental issues affect a global population, therefore protecting everyone's right to live as they choose becomes and issue of limiting an individuals right to affect another persons, unless of course you resort to violence which I'd really rather not have to do.

i thought you might find this interesting, its a response given to a similar scenario by Ron Paul, in an interview with John Stossel(about 5 min). id be curious your response to it(or the whole interview for that matter)

i would like to respond to some of your other comments, but ill have to get back to you

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 3, 2008 5:07 PM

I like most of the talk, however Ron Paul's voting record on the environment is terrible. For someone who is worried about pollution he is not at all worried about drilling in ANWR or offshore. Also I find his positions hypocritical in some cases. Aside form that he may want to actually learn what a bullet can do to a pressurized cabin. Safer if there was a pilot accessible gas system to incapacitate anyone on board along with a personal protective system such as a rubber bullet weapon. So he talks very pretty, unfortunately he protects big business at the expense of the little person far too much and it seems as though he is pandering to try and get votes.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 3, 2008 7:58 PM

You have to take it in context though.

If the US Constitution does not explicitly authorise Congress to do something, he *HAS* to vote No - even if the rest of the planet thinks it's a good idea.

Folk have become so used to Congressfolk violating that document willy-nilly that when it's violated in their favor they cheer for it, not realising that this just further erodes the poor tattered thing even now that it's just a mostly-ignored shell of itself.

The Government does not have any authority over certain things, it most explicitly does NOT, and to usurp it is a Constitutional Violation no matter how strongly someone feels about it, barring an actual amendment of the document itself.

He may not even personally, morally, agree with how he votes, but if the Constitution does not expressly authorise the Gov to do something - that's a no-no, and he WILL vote No, even if he believes the action is morally correct, because that is his DUTY as a member of Congress, something the rest of them seem to have forgotten.

This is a guy who does his duty to the best of his understanding of the Constitution and it's meanings regardless of his personal feelings on the matter at hand and sometimes even despite them, who does the job by the rules, instead of bending them, remaking them to his favor, or throwing them out the window like everyone else does.

I respect that, I respect it a whole hell of a lot, how many people could you give such power, and a set of limits no one else seems to give a damn about, and they would not follow the crowd over the line ?

Not very bloody many, that I assure you.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 9:42 AM

Don't get me wrong I am sure he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean you get to say you're for environmentalism and that you don't want someone polluting upstream, but that you support drilling in ANWR or offshore. They are two polar opposite ways of doing things. If it against the constitution to protect the welfare of our citizen's then I think its time for a different reader. I like Ralph Nader and agree with a lot of his policies, but that doesn't mean I would vote someone who is a pacifist into government. Thats like having Simon on prisoner duty and then giving the prisoner a gun, just isn't kosher. I am sure that the founding fathers really did not mean for the constitution to leave no power in the hands of the president. Keep in mind they started some of the organizations that Paul would like to get rid of.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 11:09 AM

Quote:
If it against the constitution to protect the welfare of our citizen's then I think its time for a different reader.

I disagree, wholeheartedly, that is awful steep slope smothered in crisco, and it's exactly what got us INTO this mess.

"For your own good" is the very worst of all possible tyrannies.

Quote:
I am sure that the founding fathers really did not mean for the constitution to leave no power in the hands of the president.

Well, you could try reading it.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

And if you fail to understand the meaning or reasoning behind any of the terms, conditions or statements...

Try reading the arguments that were the anvil on which this steel was forged.

The Federalist Papers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html

The Anti-Federalist Papers.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html

For the record, the Bill of Rights was created to pacify and encourage the consent of the Anti-Federalists, whom history has proven absolutely correct on almost *every single point*.

Bit of a shame the Federalists won the day, given that it has lead us here.
All of the abuses, usurpations, and exploitations we have suffered at the hands of our own Government today were called, chapter and verse, as far back as 1788.

Anyhows, ignoring and defying the Constitution when it becomes "inconvenient" renders the entire document and it's purpose void - and is exactly what lead to us the disastrous nadir in which we find ourselves today.

By that light, I cannot possibly support the idea of compounding the foolishness by ignoring and defying it some more.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 1:28 PM

Ahem...

The jurisdiction of the public welfare falls under congress. The can even levy taxes to make sure that the public welfare is served.

Oh and according to the constitution there should be no national guard and the disbanding of the air force should commence immediately because there is no provision for it, as well as all armed forces because they should only be called up for two years.

Also
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States

and really by the original constitution that includes the bill of rights, our current president has violated the bill of rights

Been a few years since I've read it word for word, however as the document was meant to be an elastic document, a literal reading makes our country impossible to govern effectively, nor would we have any roads, public schools, standing army, national guard, etc...

So, based upon reading the constitution yes I believe that for the public welfare, companies should use technologies currently available to protect the health and welfare of the population.

so I am not for a massive government, but I feel it is well within the rights of the government to enforce and demand basic protection of environmental policies from companies that choose to do business in the United States.

When there are no heroes where will we turn?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 2:04 PM

No, it was not whatever meant as an "Elastic Document" and that perception only came about via years of Judicial Malpractice by the Supreme Court reinterpreting obvious things to mean the exact opposite - it was meant to be iron-clad save for amendment, and the States to do the things not expressly authorised to the Fed.

And believe me, I am all in favor of returning to it's original principles, and well aware of the simple fact that we are NOT supposed to have a standing army.

Constitutionally, the FedGov has no authority over environmental issues unless specific laws are passed regarding them, in compliance with the Constitution and it's processes.

This means that yes, some of those laws are entirely valid - as well the individual States, under the document, theoretically retain their sovereignity on those issues as well and can set and enforce polices themselves as it's not expressly a Federal Power.

But again, once you start playing into stuff like "Public Welfare" - you run into problems of definition supposed to be the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a duty they have by their own actions abysmally failed, subverted, and even used to usurp authority on behalf of the Executive.

When you open the door to bending rules in YOUR favor, you open to it the other side bending it in THEIRS, do you not see ?

And they have more money, and more lobbyists than you do.

If yer gonna do it, do it by the book, or just toss the thing into the nearest bin and be done with it - but you cannot pick and choose, it doesn't work that way, and was never intended to, which is why I posted those links.

I would say take your concerns to your state officials, and if you wish to broaden the scope then lean on your Congressperson to *introduce* legislation to address those issues, that's why we have them in the first place.

Not meanin to bust your chops, just sayin there's a way to go about it - unless you're interested in diving in with us Anarchists, that is.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, March 4, 2008 4:43 PM