View Full Version : Gore-zilla VS. The Smog Monster
Mighty Wingman
06-18-2006, 06:18 PM
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/gvssmog/gvssmog3.jpg
If only Godzilla were here to save us from ourselves.
Joe Nascar and Betty Trustfund will never believe it . They’re still too busy blaming Clinton for 9-11, trying to create links between Saddam and al-Qeada . And still too entertained by watching cars drive in around in a circle for four hours to be inconvienienced by the facts of global warming. Heck, they’d never even believe the world was round, unless Bush-Haliburton told them to.
So I know ,(sigh,) it will come as a shock to most of you, that. A) Global warming is real . And B) Human activity is causing it.
Gore has been going all around the world giving this lecture , connecting the dots from the first earnest measurements of Co2 in the atmosphere in 1956 to the more recent cataclysmic tsunamis and hurricanes of the past year. Using these thingies scientists refer to as graphs and charts along with then-and-now visuals of what the chillier regions of Earth used to look like, he guides you through the climatological events of the past thousand years towards the impending “nature walk through the book of Revelations“. Comparing the temperature spikes of the past thousand years to the current one , is like comparing a BB to a beach ball. He’s gathered all the evidence together and found that not one (real) scientist denies the current effects of global warming are caused by industrialized human activities.
I suppose what really gets me is that the greed of some is so insatiable they’d attempt denial, to cloud the issue with doubt rather than lose profits. The point is made comically in the film with a scale , on one side, bars of gold , on the other, the Earth itself.
Gore states decisively that his intention here is to change the world one mind at a time. The caveat he fails to mention is that time, is what we‘re out of. The presentation is very gentle, and unfortunately, fails to articulate the urgency of the situation. What’s worse is , he’s preaching to the choir. Joe Nascar and Betty Trustfund wont see this film and don’t care about the truth anyway. Ignorance is bliss so they will continue under the assumption that anything a Democrat says is a lie, until Bush and the oil companies say otherwise. It’s easier to believe global warming is a hoax perpetrated by tree-hugging, corporation-hating hippies. Rather than the facts presented by the best scientists in the world.
Besides, the truth is usually, like, totally depressing anyway.
The Inconvienient Site (http://www.climatecrisis.net/)
Includes trailer , some of those factoid thingies scientists are so fond of, how to reduce your carbon footprint, and other such hippie-liberal nonsense.
By-tor
06-19-2006, 03:06 PM
Lock-box.
jjcourtright
06-19-2006, 03:21 PM
He’s gathered all the evidence together and found that not one (real) scientist denies the current effects of global warming are caused by industrialized human activities. But...but...but...what about Roy Spencer, and William Gray, and Fred Singer. They're real scientists, right? Just because they are paid advocates of the oil industry doesn't mean that they're biased, right?
Has the earth's climate always been as it is now? A static system devoid of change?
Are the scientists lying about the last ice age? the little ice age we're just now coming out of? (I really can't believe the Vikings named Greenland Greenland as one big joke.)
Are the geologists lying about the recent hard evidence that the polar ice cap used to be... well, not be? Are they lying about the evidence that Antartica was once tropical in nature?
Does anyone honestly believe that we humans can stop or start climate change if we really want to?
And who is to say the "normal climate" for the earth isn't warmer than it is now? We've only been around for 100,000 years. The earth is how old?
The climate is going to change whether we dismantle all industry and become "enlightened" or not. Mother Nature- the climate- is a bigger system with too many variables for us to make any predictions. We can't even reliably predict the weather past three days, how is it even remotely possible to predict the climate? I thought that the world was supposed to be one big desert by now. That was the big topic when I was an eighth grader- I did a piece on it for UIL debate. Farms would become vast dust bowls rivalling the '30s and major metropolitan areas would dry up as arid conditions produced by global warming encroached upon them. That was all supposed to happen by 2000... My yard's still green. And the world is producing more grains and vegatables than ever. On a side note, I thought the oceans were supposed to be dead by now as well... I can still buy fresh fish everyday of the week...
Amazing...
jjcourtright
06-19-2006, 03:42 PM
I can see disagreeing with the consensus of every climatologist in the world. While you're at it, ignore the consensus on evolution, too.
... While you're at it, ignore the consensus on evolution, too.
There you go, making assumptions again.
Dude, you don't know a damn about my beliefs except the very few I have expressed here.
jjcourtright
06-19-2006, 03:57 PM
You're missing the point. I'm not making an assumption. All I'm saying is that ignoring the scientific consensus on one issue is no different than ignoring it on another. Just as biologists know more about evolution than the Intelligent Design people, climatologists know more about climatology than you.
Edit: Oh, and you get upset too easily.
Who's upset? I'm just annoyed that you think you know where I stand on other issues based on a very brief statement about a completely unrelated issue.
I dunno, I am just a backwards hick from a red state who never got no reel schoolin' beyond junior high...
jjcourtright
06-19-2006, 04:18 PM
Again...I didn't say that you are ignoring the consensus on evolution. I'm saying that there is no difference. It doesn't matter where you are from, or what your education level is (assuming that you don't have a PhD in the related field). Ignoring science is ignoring science.
Which is precisely what the global warming crowd is doing. Listening to Al Gore and his follower(s), you'd think the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything. Junk science.
jjcourtright
06-19-2006, 04:34 PM
Oh, so you've seen the movie?
Mighty Wingman
06-19-2006, 05:39 PM
Has the earth's climate always been as it is now? A static system devoid of change?
There have always been changes of course, though those changes remained within certain parameters for the past 1200 or so, years. We're off the charts now.
Are the scientists lying about the last ice age? the little ice age we're just now coming out of?
The so called LIA ended more than a hundred years ago.
(I really can't believe the Vikings named Greenland Greenland as one big joke.)
The southwest island (where most of the population is located in Fjords ) are somewhat green. The majority of it (roughly 85%) has been covered in ice since humans began seafaring.
Are the geologists lying about the recent hard evidence that the polar ice cap used to be... well, not be?
I'm not sure how long a timeline you're referencing. Are we talking Pangea ? Before the pole shift?
Are they lying about the evidence that Antartica was once tropical in nature?
Again, how many millions of years are you going back ?
Does anyone honestly believe that we humans can stop or start climate change if we really want to?
From Fact Check. (http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html)
A second ad, "Energy," downplays the adverse effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by identifying it as a natural biological occurrence.
"The ad correctly asserts, "we breathe it out, plants breathe it in." As many of us learned in high school biology classes, humans and animals breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, and plants take in the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
The ad goes on to say, "they call it pollution, we call it life." It is true that some politicians and environmental groups want to label CO2 as a "pollutant." Several environmental groups, states and municipalities are currently suing the EPA to do so.
But they are doing so for regulatory purposes so that CO2 emissions can be brought under the Clean Air Act. Nobody is claiming CO2 poses the immediate health threat that smog, smoke, and other conventional pollutants do. But in June 2005, the science academies of 11 leading industrial nations (including the National Academies of Sciences from the US) released a statement listing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and saying :
Joint Statement: Carbon Dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today - higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise ."
The short version goes : We ad millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere while clear-cutting forests that would've helped transform it back into oxygen.
Can you really not understand how that warms the planet ?
And who is to say the "normal climate" for the earth isn't warmer than it is now?
It's already warmer than I like.
How much warmer would you like it to be ?
We've only been around for 100,000 years. The earth is how old?
Eleventy-bazillion eons. And most of the time humans have spent on it, they believed it was flat and the sun revolved around it. Should we take into acoount the weather patterns before life existed here, to find an average you are comfortable with ?
The climate is going to change whether we dismantle all industry and become "enlightened" or not.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting we "dismantle all industry". Just to make it cleaner. The technology is here. Greed and backwards thinking keeps it off the market.
Mother Nature- the climate- is a bigger system with too many variables for us to make any predictions.
I could say that about a calendar. How do we know we wont wake up tomorrow and find it's Augstober 45th the year 12 , and our calendars have been lying to us all this time ?
We can't even reliably predict the weather past three days, how is it even remotely possible to predict the climate?
Ice cores and tree rings, for starters.Though those samples are specific to their regions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rising at an equivalent rate with the temperature over the past 60 years. Makes a pretty clear case For the global scale.
I thought that the world was supposed to be one big desert by now.
See? You were wrong then too.
Happens to the best of us.
That was the big topic when I was an eighth grader- I did a piece on it for UIL debate. Farms would become vast dust bowls rivalling the '30s and major metropolitan areas would dry up as arid conditions produced by global warming encroached upon them. That was all supposed to happen by 2000... My yard's still green. And the world is producing more grains and vegatables than ever. On a side note, I thought the oceans were supposed to be dead by now as well... I can still buy fresh fish everyday of the week...
Amazing...
I can't begin to dissect such a paragraph, or where all the non-sequiter claims come from.
But when the oceans climb twenty feet, it should be very good for the fishing industry. Not so good for off-shore drilling though.
Here's the list of "scientists" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us) supporting your view. All but two of which are readily linked to the oil or transportation industries.
I guess the other 99.9799647% of scientists have it all wrong.
If only they worked for big oil, then they'd see the truth.
There have always been changes of course, though those changes remained within certain parameters for the past 1200 or so, years. We're off the charts now.
What chart?! And the last 1200 years is a literally SQUAT when you look at the amount of time this planet has been around and the number of climate changes it's had. Off the chart... more alarmist bullshit.
The so called LIA ended more than a hundred years ago.
Yeah, and some areas haven't recovered.
The southwest island (where most of the population is located in Fjords ) are somewhat green. The majority of it (roughly 85%) has been covered in ice since humans began seafaring.
It ain't named "Somewhat-green Land"...
I'm not sure how long a timeline you're referencing. Are we talking Pangea ? Before the pole shift?
Again, how many millions of years are you going back ?
My point is that it's pretty damn conceited of us as human beings, who exist but for the mereset tick of time in the span of the existence of this planet to believe that because we here now, everything should stay the same forever and always without change.
From Fact Check. (http://www.factcheck.org/article395.html)
A second ad, "Energy," downplays the adverse effects of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by identifying it as a natural biological occurrence.
"The ad correctly asserts, "we breathe it out, plants breathe it in." As many of us learned in high school biology classes, humans and animals breathe in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, and plants take in the carbon dioxide and release oxygen.
The ad goes on to say, "they call it pollution, we call it life." It is true that some politicians and environmental groups want to label CO2 as a "pollutant." Several environmental groups, states and municipalities are currently suing the EPA to do so.
But they are doing so for regulatory purposes so that CO2 emissions can be brought under the Clean Air Act. Nobody is claiming CO2 poses the immediate health threat that smog, smoke, and other conventional pollutants do. But in June 2005, the science academies of 11 leading industrial nations (including the National Academies of Sciences from the US) released a statement listing CO2 as a greenhouse gas and saying :
Joint Statement: Carbon Dioxide levels have increased from 280 ppm in 1750 to over 375 ppm today - higher than any previous levels that can be reliably measured (i.e. in the last 420,000 years). Increasing greenhouse gases are causing temperatures to rise ."
The short version goes : We ad millions of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere while clear-cutting forests that would've helped transform it back into oxygen.
Can you really not understand how that warms the planet ? Yes, I can, but do you want more government regulation? Especially a regulation attempting to control something that occurs naturally in the environment. I thought the big thing now was water vapor being the largest portion of all greenhouse gases. Also, that big ball of fire in the sky? The one that has been proven to be burning hotter and more erratically lately? Guess that don't mean anything either...
But most, if not all, measures that these ultra die-hard believers in global warming want to put in place will severely limit economic growth in this country while allowing third world nation free reign to do as they please as far as any kind of emissions are concerned. Because they aren't as privilaged and developed as the USA, the deserve the right to build up their industry and catch up. That is the mantra I hear time and time again. We Americans don't deserve half of what we have and the "enlightened" countries deserve more. (This is crap I hear every day at work.)
It's already warmer than I like.
How much warmer would you like it to be ?
See my response above about the conceit of man.
Eleventy-bazillion eons. And most of the time humans have spent on it, they believed it was flat and the sun revolved around it. Should we take into acoount the weather patterns before life existed here, to find an average you are comfortable with ?
Again... conceit of man.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting we "dismantle all industry". Just to make it cleaner. The technology is here. Greed and backwards thinking keeps it off the market.
Those jackasses in ELF for one. It's their mantra.
New technology is being implemented everyday- Let's go back to clear cutting forests. There may be isolated instances in this country, but most reputable, national lumber company nowadays- at least in this country- reseed & replant. I see the jobs listed in the paper every season- are they actually doing something else out there? Remarkable breakthroughs have been made in forest replenishment. There are hybrids that used to take decades to regrow that can be replenished in just years.
I could say that about a calendar. How do we know we wont wake up tomorrow and find it's Augstober 45th the year 12 , and our calendars have been lying to us all this time ?
What the hell are you babbling about here? The calendar is abitrary to begin with! Hasn't got squat to do with making prediction about the climate- predictions that so far have been proven WRONG.
Ice cores and tree rings, for starters.Though those samples are specific to their regions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere rising at an equivalent rate with the temperature over the past 60 years. Makes a pretty clear case For the global scale.
Ice cores and tree rings don't give any indication as to what the average temperature of the world was at any given time. Of course you're going to argue that my mention of fossil evidence doesn't mean shit either, but what kind of lizard can survive under an ice cap...
See? You were wrong then too.
Happens to the best of us.
Of course I was wrong then, because I was argueing on the side of this cockamamie global warming crap.
I can't begin to dissect such a paragraph, or where all the non-sequiter claims come from. . Are they absurd as your spelling skills? Non sequitur. Of course those claims are absurb- they came from a bunch of alarmist environmental kooks.
But when the oceans climb twenty feet, it should be very good for the fishing industry. Not so good for off-shore drilling though..
You'd be suprised what companies not facing severe restrictions on drilling and exploration have come up with.
Here's the list of "scientists" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consens us) supporting your view. All but two of which are readily linked to the oil or transportation industries.
I guess the other 99.9799647% of scientists have it all wrong.
If only they worked for big oil, then they'd see the truth.
See, right there you're implying that this is all big oil's fault and if only they'd go away, this would be a better place.
Mighty Wingman
06-19-2006, 08:40 PM
Dupe-ty dupe-ty doo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKJ2fu_Gluo&mode=related&search=)
Keep believing whatever your [s]elected oil company tells you, I guess.
jjcourtright
06-20-2006, 02:17 PM
JK - read this. (http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/easterbrook/20060517.pdf) It is from a former global warming skeptic. It is long, but he goes into a lot of really good detail concerning: whether global warming would really be a bad thing, is it hopeless, what we can do (he compares it to smog control and how quickly and cheaply that was implemented) to not only control greenhouse gasses here (he's against Kyoto) but also in countries that are just experiencing their industrial revolution while growing, not shrinking the economy (both ours and globally).
In my opinion, it is the must read for people on both sides of the issue.
Mighty Wingman
06-21-2006, 05:22 PM
I finally got around to reading that, JJ, good stuff.
My one point of contention though, is that the gun is loaded with five bullets , not one. But that's me , always the optimist.
That was one of the points in the film, cleaner air, need not hurt industry. In fact the opposite is true. Automakers meeting more stringent MPG requirements are doing considerably more buisness, while those refusing to, are in the red.
Even though it's true it probably wont work, the righties will just assume it's all liberal trick to keep them from making profits.
I'm still going to send that to all my reps.
Sun responsible for Global Warming? Clicky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml)
Dr. William Gray the Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science of Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences says Global Warming a 'hoax' clicky (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807)
Those are just 2 links i've found from "reputable" sources, as i know you'd immedately dismiss stuff from NewMAX and WorldNetDaily.
jjcourtright
06-22-2006, 02:20 PM
This from the Denver Post article cracks me up:
"He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions."
It's like he's talking about his side. As Wingman noted, Wikipedia has a list of global warming-deniers...and anytime somebody on the right writes an article/editorial about global warming, they use the same few names.
There's no question that there are people, and smart people, at that, that don't believe that global warming is caused by humans. Just as there are some that don't believe in the theory of relativity. But relativity is taught because a vast majority of people in the field believe it to be true based on experiments, predictions...basic science stuff. Same thing goes for global warming.
All i'm saying is that there is NO consencious. And that some very credible scientists believe the earth is just in a 'hot cycle'. I'm not saying everyone should be free to pollute all they want (i know you didn't say i did :) ), far from it, in fact i think we should do everything we can to cut down on pollutants, and break our addiction to fossel fuels. (why are we still using coal to power anything much less power plants?)
jjcourtright
06-22-2006, 04:36 PM
Cuz coal's cheap!
I would say that climatologists as a whole would, if a vote was taken, say that man-made global warming is happening. Hence, a consensus.
Right after your earlier post about the sun being hotter, I came upon this (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/22/warming-not-equal/). Here's the important part in regards to your post:
In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
In other words, the Academy factored in the natural variations in temperature -– volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. -– and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
By-tor
06-22-2006, 05:04 PM
Stick with physics, ya bum. :p
Cuz coal's cheap!
I would say that climatologists as a whole would, if a vote was taken, say that man-made global warming is happening. Hence, a consensus.
Right after your earlier post about the sun being hotter, I came upon this (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/22/warming-not-equal/). Here's the important part in regards to your post:
In particular, the numerous indications that recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia, in combination with estimates of external climate forcing variations over the same period, supports the conclusion that human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.
In other words, the Academy factored in the natural variations in temperature -– volcanic activity, solar radiation etc. -– and concluded that these can’t explain the warming trend. What does explain it is increased carbon dioxide emissions from human activity.
I wonder what happened 400 years ago that made it as hot as it is now? Do you think that warming cycles would happen in decades or by the century?
Now hold on a minute...
"This is the warmest it's been in four hundred years..."
Didn't the Little Ice Age begin about four hundred years ago? (between 1550 and 1850 seems to be the consensus) And depending upon which study you look at, the reconstructed temperature prior to LIA is *gasp* warmer than the current temperature...
Mighty Wingman
06-22-2006, 10:26 PM
Sun responsible for Global Warming? Clicky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml)
Yeah Dave, I'm pretty sure THE SUN is at least partly responsible for the globe being warmed , such as it is. This breakthrough changes everything.
Dr. William Gray the Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science of Colorado State University, and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences says Global Warming a 'hoax' clicky (http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807)
"Professor Gray stated, "I'll take on any scientist in this field to talk about this, I predict that in 5 to 8 years the globe will begin to cool". When contacted, like fellow skeptic Richard Lindzen, he refused to accept any bets as to whether temperatures would drop.""
Those are just 2 links i've found from "reputable" sources, as i know you'd immedately dismiss stuff from NewMAX and WorldNetDaily.
Oh c'mon Dave , don't deny us a link from the ever popular bastion of jounalistic integrity that is NewsMax. Afterall, News+Max= AWESOME !
Love ya Dave.
Environmentalists win.
Atlanta loses.
Judge Orders Billions of Gallons Released From Lanier
(WSB Radio) (http://wsbradio.com/news/062306lakelanier.html) - More water than before will be released from Lake Lanier, thanks to an order from an Alabama federal judge.
Judge Karon Bowdre, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, ordered the Army Corps of Engineers to release an additional 2 billion gallons of water a day from Lake Lanier, West Point Lake, Walter F. George Lake and Seminole Lake.
The judge ordered the release for each of the next 10 days. A hearing is set for Friday to determine whether a more permanent order is necessary.
The order comes after Florida filed an action in Birmingham, asking for the additional release into the Chattahoochee River. Florida officials say the water is needed to save two types of freshwater mussels and Florida's Gulf Sturgeon.
The 2 billion gallons amounts to 40 percent more water than the corps has been releasing into Florida, and is five times the amount of water metro Atlanta uses each day.
State water officials say this could be a catastrophe for Lake Lanier as we enter into the summer recreation season.
E. Patrick Robbins, with the corps Mobile district, says Lanier would drop 2.3 feet by July 21, and another 3.8 feet by Labor Day. Lake Lanier is currently at a level of 1065 feet, 6 feet below full. If the lake level drops below 1063 feet, recreation activities on the lake are curtailed.
According to calculations conducted by the corps, if the releases continue, the lake level would drop to 12 feet below full by Labor Day, making Lanier unsuitable for boats and swimmers. Georgia's worst case scenario during this drought shows Atlanta's water supply threatened by mid September. But that situation did not include this additional release of water. One state official, commenting on the release of an additional 2 billion gallons of water during a drought was blunt. He says, at that rate. it may run Atlanta dry.
A fish and some clams are more important than one the nation's largest cities...
Insane.
Judge Bowdre is an Awful judge (she persided over the Richard Scrushy trial, i believe), but that aside, that ruling is good news for me and my favorite rivers.
Frankly, Lake Lanier was better before it was over-developed and now that it's over crowded, Atlanta real-estate investors are looking to move to the lakes of East Alabama. They have already successfully changed the law regarding houseboats on those lakes, places were people have lived cheaply for years will now be Condo-ized and filled to the brim with ski-boats. Good-luck getting your bream catch then.
jjcourtright
06-23-2006, 02:15 PM
Why would 1071 feet deep be full, but 1063 feet is unsuitable for boats and swimmers? Does 3/4s of a percent make that big of a difference? Are there giants swimming in Lake Lanier?
By-tor
06-23-2006, 03:28 PM
"This is the warmest it's been in four hundred years..."
I prefer cold weather.
http://www.drummerman.net/shining/frozen.jpg
FanGirl
06-23-2006, 03:39 PM
My friend is going to a screening of this with a Q&A session with Al Gore after it. I am begging her to ask "Now that you have killed Manbearpig, what is your next project?"
ratm1966
06-24-2006, 11:21 AM
http://www.badmovies.org/movies/gvssmog/gvssmog3.jpg
Oh look! It's Al Gore's airplane spewing CO2 all around the globe as he tours the world trying to get the rest of us to sacrifice to save the world from sun spots and solar flares which have a greater effect on our weather than CO2 does. Why doesn't he start sacrificing his lifestyle for his cause?
Why would 1071 feet deep be full, but 1063 feet is unsuitable for boats and swimmers? Does 3/4s of a percent make that big of a difference? Are there giants swimming in Lake Lanier?
That's 1071' in relation to Mean Sea Level (that's feet above sea level for anyone who went to government schools like I did) not the actual depth of the lake. Information on the lake can be found here (http://lanier.sam.usace.army.mil/). Of course, it's a government website, so they're probably lying. :rolleyes: Most, if not all, of the boat ramps will be closed if the water level gets any lower than 1063' as they're mostly at a depth of about 1058'. The ramp has to have at least 3.5 feet of water above the end of the ramp in order to safely be used- any sailor should know this.
Boat Ramp elevations are measured in relation to Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the lowest point of the end of the ramp. Ramps are usually closed when the lake level has dropped to within 3.5 vertical feet of water which causes an unsafe condition for launching. To calculate ramp closures, add 3.5 feet to the ramp elevation. (Example: Lanier Park elevation 1058.7’ + safe launching depth 3.5’ = ramp will close at lake elevation 1062.2’ MSL.)
A lot of businesses rely upon the lake during the summer- but of course, they are evil capitalists who say "Screw the Environment! We want our money!". And those of us living in the metro-Atlanta area are really only good at polluting the atmosphere with our evil SUV's and miles of highways- no societal contributions what-so-ever. The world will go on without even blinking an eye if Atlanta dried up and blew away...
On the other hand, if these mussels died out and this school of sturgeon ceased to exist, the universe would literally STOP in it's tracks. God save the Sturgeon!
This judge made her decision based on an endangered species law written in the early seventies, way before there was 285, way back when my neighborhood was still farmland...
Screw common sense and screw Atlanta- we've got to save those seven sturgeon and that bed of mussels!
Mighty Wingman
06-24-2006, 07:10 PM
See, if I was concerned about the lake levels dropping in order to preserve fish and clams , I’d do some research on the individual species inhabiting the lake and then throw that back in the face of the environmentalists. Example : If you release the water from the lake you might help the clams and the sturgeon but what about the _________ and the ________.
One of my favorite things to do is use peoples own arguments against them.
Take for instance, in post # 13 of this thread when you say ” My point is that it's pretty damn conceited of us as human beings, who exist but for the mereset tick of time in the span of the existence of this planet to believe that because we here now, everything should stay the same forever and always without change.” it becomes a pretty interesting point. Why ? Central to your argument is the claim that man can’t change Mother Nature , yet here is a case where man did just that , building the Buford dam to put a lake where mother nature didn’t think she needed one. More importantly if it hadn’t been for that “conceit of man “ in the first place . You’d have no lake and therefore nothing to complain about. None-the-less, I’m quite sure the irony of the situation is lost on you.
Further, you ask if I “want more government regulation”, (though the question could’ve been rhetorical) it was government regulation in the form of the Army corps of engineers that created the lake and therefore, the problem, to begin with. But according to you, man can’t change Mother nature. I kinda don’t know why I’m bothering to type all this , as your mind seems to have closed for business on this issue long ago.
But speaking of dried lakes and dustbowls , have you read up on what happened in Darfur ?
Now back to post #13.
I thought the big thing now was water vapor being the largest portion of all greenhouse gases.
Who told you that ? It’s one of the scientists on “the list “ isn’t it ?
Also, that big ball of fire in the sky? The one that has been proven to be burning hotter and more erratically lately?
Again refer to the list of scientists getting paid as shills for the oil industry or the Bush administration
( same thing, far as I’m concerned ).
But most, if not all, measures that these ultra die-hard believers in global warming want to put in place will severely limit economic growth in this country while allowing third world nation free reign to do as they please as far as any kind of emissions are concerned. Because they aren't as privilaged and developed as the USA, the deserve the right to build up their industry and catch up. That is the mantra I hear time and time again. We Americans don't deserve half of what we have and the "enlightened" countries deserve more. (This is crap I hear every day at work.)
1. Developing clean energy alternatives will create jobs and businesses.
2. It’s true , we Americans do more polluting per person than any country on earth. As far as all that “elightened countries “ stuff, well ,I don’t know where you’re hearing that. Other countries will follow along when they see we’re actually making money, creating jobs and new industries by the power of American innovation, they'll follow suit. If not we'll just accuse them of harboring terrorists and having weapons of mass destruction. ;)
3. We should trade jobs. Seriously. The things I hear at work are more like “ The oil companies ain’t screwin’ us, it’s the Goddamn environmentalists , wont let us drill the Gulf Coast or ANWAR.” Course. if I point out that that there are already over 6500 rigs in the Gulf Coast and that what could be mined from ANWAR would likely last America less than a year, it falls on deaf ears.
And I say.
“Thinking that we’re going to reduce our dependence on oil by drilling more of it. Is like a crack-head thinking he’s going to kick his habit by scoring one more bag.” Again , deaf ears.
What I call “conceit of man” would be bitching that you can’t boat on a man-made lake because water was released to save endangered species. Seems what you’d call conceit of man is what I’d call self-preservation.
Do you really think Atlanta is going to run out of water this summer because the lake went down a few feet ? I think that's what I’d call that “alarmist bullshit” . Or are you just afraid your grass wont be green ? Hey, maybe if it weren’t for global warming you’d be getting regular rains and you wouldn‘t need to release water from your man-made lake. Just a thought.
Those jackasses in ELF for one. It's their mantra.
I’m not a terrorists , I would never firebomb or commit arson against anyone , no matter my level of disagreement and I really don’t much care for the insinuation.
Maybe I should stop being polite and ask you how much Exxon/Mobil stock you own? How many millions of people you'd be willing to kill to increase the value of your holdings ?
If you're going to link me or my comments to extremist dickfaces , I can play that game too.
I'd rather try to believe that you're an intelligent person who can be reasoned with.
Anyway , moving on...
New technology is being implemented everyday- Let's go back to clear cutting forests. There may be isolated instances in this country, but most reputable, national lumber company nowadays- at least in this country- reseed & replant. I see the jobs listed in the paper every season- are they actually doing something else out there? Remarkable breakthroughs have been made in forest replenishment. There are hybrids that used to take decades to regrow that can be replenished in just years.
I’d really like to hear more about the specifics on that . Assuming you can provide them.
Are they absurd as your spelling skills?
I guess you need to re-read the post I quoted this from, (#13) do you really want to count up spelling and grammatical mistakes ? Think that would add credence to your argument of believing what less than one percent of scientists say ?
See, right there you're implying that this is all big oil's fault and if only they'd go away, this would be a better place.
See right here, I’m implying that oil companies (just like tobacco companies did) are hiding the truth to keep profits up. Enlisting fringe scientists to lie and spread doubt where there essentially is none.
Seems to be working.
This should be a moral issue , not a partisan one. Do I need to point out the reason it has become a partisan issue ?
See, if I was concerned about the lake levels dropping in order to preserve fish and clams , I’d do some research on the individual species inhabiting the lake and then throw that back in the face of the environmentalists. Example : If you release the water from the lake you might help the clams and the sturgeon but what about the _________ and the ________.
One of my favorite things to do is use peoples own arguments against them.
Take for instance, in post # 13 of this thread when you say ” My point is that it's pretty damn conceited of us as human beings, who exist but for the mereset tick of time in the span of the existence of this planet to believe that because we here now, everything should stay the same forever and always without change.” it becomes a pretty interesting point. Why ? Central to your argument is the claim that man can’t change Mother Nature , yet here is a case where man did just that , building the Buford dam to put a lake where mother nature didn’t think she needed one. More importantly if it hadn’t been for that “conceit of man “ in the first place . You’d have no lake and therefore nothing to complain about. None-the-less, I’m quite sure the irony of the situation is lost on you.
Yeah, I guess it is. After all I never did finish college- jes an ign'ant hick from the sticks.
Creating a lake to supply water for a major metropolitan area is nothing compared to altering the climate on a GLOBAL level. The earth's CLIMATE is going to do what ever the hell it pleases, regardless of what we men do. My arguement stands.
Further, you ask if I “want more government regulation”, (though the question could’ve been rhetorical) it was government regulation in the form of the Army corps of engineers that created the lake and therefore, the problem, to begin with. But according to you, man can’t change Mother nature. I kinda don’t know why I’m bothering to type all this , as your mind seems to have closed for business on this issue long ago. No, it was not a government regulation that mandated "Army Corp of Engineers? BUILD A LAKE!" It was the need of a community that called for it and that need could only be fulfilled by the Army Corp of Engineers.
But speaking of dried lakes and dustbowls , have you read up on what happened in Darfur ? I honestly couldn't give a shit.
Now back to post #13.
Who told you that ? It’s one of the scientists on “the list “ isn’t it ? Considering that some 75% of the earth's surface is water and half of that is out under the sun, evaporating, on any given day, seems fairly OBVIOUS!
Again refer to the list of scientists getting paid as shills for the oil industry or the Bush administration
( same thing, far as I’m concerned ). Yeah, any scientist with any remote connection to the current administration is a bald-faced liar :rolleyes: Is this guy on the list? (http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040718-115714-6334r.htm)
1. Developing clean energy alternatives will create jobs and businesses. I don't doubt that, and so will more regulations- the Feds will need to hire more stooges to enforce the new regulations. God I love regulations.
2. It’s true , we Americans do more polluting per person than any country on earth. As far as all that “elightened countries “ stuff, well ,I don’t know where you’re hearing that. Other countries will follow along when they see we’re actually making money, creating jobs and new industries by the power of American innovation, they'll follow suit. If not we'll just accuse them of harboring terrorists and having weapons of mass destruction. ;) I've read some dozen articles that say just that- USA is the "biggest villain" and only 1% of Americans use public transportation where in other countries the number is much higher. American have too many 4 wheel drive vehicles, America uses too much of the world's oil, America's airports are expanding too fast, blah, blah, blah. In all of those articles, I only saw one other nation being listed as an evil polluter and that was Brazil- I imagine that was because they're cutting and burning the precious Amazon in the process. If they weren't killing yellow-toed tree weasels in the process, I'm sure they wouldn't be mentioned at all.
3. We should trade jobs. Seriously. The things I hear at work are more like “ The oil companies ain’t screwin’ us, it’s the Goddamn environmentalists , wont let us drill the Gulf Coast or ANWAR.” Course. if I point out that that there are already over 6500 rigs in the Gulf Coast and that what could be mined from ANWAR would likely last America less than a year, it falls on deaf ears.
And I say.
“Thinking that we’re going to reduce our dependence on oil by drilling more of it. Is like a crack-head thinking he’s going to kick his habit by scoring one more bag.” Again , deaf ears. People who piss and moan about the cost of oil must have studed economics in a government school. If gas had kept up with inflation we'd be spending a Hell of a lot more than $2.78 at the pump. Fifty-eight cents of every dollar spent on gasoline goes straight to the Feds! Oil companies only make about 9 cents on every dollar. Who's ripping who off? Answer me that. And those rigs in the Gulf? Out in international waters? They don't belong to the US. And I really don't think you could handle my job. :rolleyes:
What I call “conceit of man” would be bitching that you can’t boat on a man-made lake because water was released to save endangered species. Seems what you’d call conceit of man is what I’d call self-preservation. I'm not bitching about not being able to boat on a man-made lake (incidentally GA has not one natural lake) I'm bitching about not being able to water my lawn. I'm bitching about not being able to flush the toilet but once a damn day. I'm bitching about common sense being overruled by jackassery! The Corp already released three months worth water just in April because they couldn't read their gauges right. If that hadn't of happened, WE WOULDN'T BE FACING DROUGHT CONDITIONS. We get plenty of rain here, but when arrogant fools think they know better than the people who live here every day, things tend to go to shit.
Do you really think Atlanta is going to run out of water this summer because the lake went down a few feet ? I think that's what I’d call that “alarmist bullshit” . Or are you just afraid your grass wont be green ? Hey, maybe if it weren’t for global warming you’d be getting regular rains and you wouldn‘t need to release water from your man-made lake. Just a thought. See above...
I’m not a terrorists , I would never firebomb or commit arson against anyone , no matter my level of disagreement and I really don’t much care for the insinuation.
Maybe I should stop being polite and ask you how much Exxon/Mobil stock you own? How many millions of people you'd be willing to kill to increase the value of your holdings ? I don't own stock in ANY company. Like I said, i'm ign.. ignoru... stoopid. And I don't really appreciate the insinuation that I'd kill people for money.
If you're going to link me or my comments to extremist dickfaces , I can play that game too.
I'd rather try to believe that you're an intelligent person who can be reasoned with.
Anyway , moving on... No, I don't really want to move on- you asked for, and I quote...
Originally Posted by Mighty Wingman
I don't believe anyone is suggesting we "dismantle all industry". Just to make it cleaner. The technology is here. Greed and backwards thinking keeps it off the market.
I was just replying to your insistence that no one wants to dismantle industry. Sorry if I hit a nerve. Never implied AT ALL that you were a party to ELF.
I’d really like to hear more about the specifics on that . Assuming you can provide them. Here. (http://www.earthsky.com/earthcare/shows.php?&date=20010421) Ooops, he may be on the "list"...
I guess you need to re-read the post I quoted this from, (#13) do you really want to count up spelling and grammatical mistakes ? Think that would add credence to your argument of believing what less than one percent of scientists say ? I pointed out your spelling mistake to take you down off that high horse you preach from. I've never attempted to make myself look better or more enlightened than anyone else. So point out all the spelling misteaks you wnat.
See right here, I’m implying that oil companies (just like tobacco companies did) are hiding the truth to keep profits up. Enlisting fringe scientists to lie and spread doubt where there essentially is none.
Seems to be working. Essentially no doubt? A LOT of people doubt the accuracy of the crap being propagandized by Al Gore.
This should be a moral issue , not a partisan one. Do I need to point out the reason it has become a partisan issue ? Maybe you do, after all, I am just an uneducated buffoon from a red state.:rolleyes:
I honestly couldn't give a shit.
Let me expand a little on Darfur... The Great and Powerful United Nations doesn't seem to see a problem. Look at what happened last time we (the United States) ignored the UN and did what we felt was "right and just"- an "illegal war." It's a fucking tragedy, but really, it is beyond a third world nation- it hasn't really developed beyond nomadic herdsmen and subsidence farming. Little more than a hundred years ago, they were selling each other into slavery. What are we going to do? Build a Coca-Cola plant out there and give everyone jobs?
Mighty Wingman
06-25-2006, 03:09 PM
Yeah, I guess it is. After all I never did finish college- jes an ign'ant hick from the sticks.
No argument here . :) But really, no one’s calling you stupid , stubborn to the point of willful ignorance, maybe, but…not stupid.
Creating a lake to supply water for a major metropolitan area is nothing compared to altering the climate on a GLOBAL level.
If you dam a river it effects everything downstream , right ?
If you pollute the air it effects everything downwind , doesn’t it ?
The world being round, I don’t see why this is hard to understand.
What comes around goes around .
And speaking of ecosystems checkup up on the Atlantic Conveyor (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/10_5.shtml).
I think it was History channel , though it might’ve been Discovery that I saw the show on, it’s been airing for the past couple years.
Broecker (http://www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/hot/enrbro.html)
The earth's CLIMATE is going to do what ever the hell it pleases, regardless of what we men do. My arguement stands.
My analogy about calendars wasn’t clear and I apologize. So I’ll try a different one. If I had a pot , and it was black, and the vast majority of Colorologists (experts in colorology) agreed the pot was black Then I brought the pot to you and said “look a black pot.” you’d say “ That pot’s not black at all ! “ And I’d say “Yes it is. Colorologists all say the pot is black . “ And then you’d say “ Well, I happen to know a marine biologist, a solar analyst and a proctologist who says the pot might not be black.” And then I’d say “ Well first, they’re not really experts in the given field. Second , they get paid to say ’the pot’s not black’ . Thirdly they’re going against every credible piece of evidence. Fourth, some of them didn’t say the pot wasn’t black but they were misquoted and their comments taken out of context, or just that it required further research. Fifth , and perhaps most importantly , why do you have rectal thermometer in your mouth ?”
And you say “ The proctologist recommended it . And my argument stands ! The pot can’t be black. It isn‘t possible. I don‘t care what more than 99% of scientist say .”
No, it was not a government regulation that mandated "Army Corp of Engineers? BUILD A LAKE!" It was the need of a community that called for it and that need could only be fulfilled by the Army Corp of Engineers.
I see, so without the man-made lake the community would’ve remained small.
Man changed Mother Natures plan. And altered the environment without a thought to the possible negative impact. Either because he didn’t think it could possibly have an impact, or just didn’t think about it at all. Man altered the environment to suit his own needs. If that’s not conceit, I don’t know what is.
Point meet JK, JK this is point .
I honestly couldn't give a shit.
I’d like to continue believing you’re a better person than that. If nothing else, the situation in Darfur makes a pretty solid argument for what happens when a populations water supply dries up.
Considering that some 75% of the earth's surface is water and half of that is out under the sun, evaporating, on any given day, seems fairly OBVIOUS!
Uhh , no it doesn’t , but even if it’s true , what’s heating the water to create the extra vapor ?
I think you’re confusing the condition with one of its side effects. Read the Broecker (http://www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/hot/enrbro.html) link.
Yeah, any scientist with any remote connection to the current administration is a bald-faced liar
Actually a few of them had their comments taken out of context. To make it appear as if they said something they didn’t. At least one has changed his opinion but certain people keep using the old quotes .
Ergo.
Is this guy on the list?
Yes . Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany. Dr. Solanki believes, "that the brighter Sun and higher levels of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact." [12]
And here (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-03-03.asp ) are his CURRENT comments when not taken out of context by right-wing-nuts.
“He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.
"Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
I don't doubt that, and so will more regulations- the Feds will need to hire more stooges to enforce the new regulations. God I love regulations.
You squids and your regs.
I've read some dozen articles that say just that- USA is the "biggest villain" and only 1% of Americans use public transportation where in other countries the number is much higher. American have too many 4 wheel drive vehicles, America uses too much of the world's oil, America's airports are expanding too fast, blah, blah, blah. In all of those articles, I only saw one other nation being listed as an evil polluter and that was Brazil- I imagine that was because they're cutting and burning the precious Amazon in the process. If they weren't killing yellow-toed tree weasels in the process, I'm sure they wouldn't be mentioned at all.
For one, the Amazon has (or perhaps I should say, had) lots of trees . You know what trees breathe in ? And what they breathe out ? Mmmm, tasty photosynthesis. I also remember hearing something about the plants in the Amazon probably containing the cures for various diseases and ailments. Admittedly, I need to research that.
There are different categories and breakdowns, for pollutants. I believe China ranked second for CO2 emissions. But they have shitloads more people. South America removed the most trees.
People who piss and moan about the cost of oil must have studed economics in a government school.
I never “studed” economics , mostly just the ladies and the effects of alcohol on the human brain. And well, that pocket vagina , but I was beyond drunk at the time.
If gas had kept up with inflation we'd be spending a Hell of a lot more than $2.78 at the pump. Fifty-eight cents of every dollar spent on gasoline goes straight to the Feds!
And then right back to the oil companies. In the form of tax-breaks , subsidies and outright giveaways. They rarely (if ever) pay to clean up their own messes and never pay the health care costs they inflict.
Subsidies (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html)
What we pay for. (http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm)
“Immediate Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs – $200 million/year Oil, gas, and coal producers can immediately expense (write off) most or all of their development costs. Other businesses must deduct these expenses over a longer period of time.
Percentage Depletion Allowance for Oil and Gas – $600 million/year
Independent oil and gas companies can deduct 15 percent of their sales revenue using the special percentage depletion allowance – instead of the standard cost depreciation – regardless of the actual loss in value over time.
Requiring Full Coal Firm Support for the Black Lung Fund – $350 million/year
Designed to internalize the health-related costs of coal mining, this fund requires government support to pay for work-related disabilities of coal miners.
Intangible Drilling Costs – $500 million/year
Integrated oil and gas companies can immediately deduct 70 percent of "intangible" drilling costs. Most other businesses deduct such expenses over time and therefore receive less of a tax benefit.
Passive Loss for Oil and Gas – $100 million/year
This tax shelter for investors in oil and gas allows certain owners to offset "passive losses" against income to pay lower taxes.
Non-Conventional Fuel Production Credit – $1.3 billion/year
This tax credit for certain types of fuel extracted from "non-conventional" sources was intended to provide incentives for petroleum alternatives, but most of the credit has gone for oil and gas production.
Tax Breaks for Enhanced Oil Recovery – $100 million/year
Expensing (writing off) tertiary injectant costs and the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery encourage extraction of difficult to reach and expensive oil deposit remnants.
Clean Coal Technology Program – $250 million/ year
This program helps finance private companies to develop cleaner burning coal technologies by providing up to 50 percent in federal matching funds.
Coal R&D – $100 million/year
The Department of Energy supports research in technology programs for producing, refining, and burning coal products.
Other Fossil Energy R&D – $100 million/year
The federal government provides subsidies for oil and natural gas research and development.
Multilateral Development Bank Loans for Fossil Fuel – $80 million/year
The U.S. federal government supports several multilateral development banks, which provide loans for fossil fuel development in other countries.
Export Import Bank Guarantees for Fossil Fuel – $300 million/year
The Export Import Bank provides federal loan guarantees for investments in unstable countries. A portion of these loans are used for fossil fuel development.
Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal – $15 million/year
Individual owners (as opposed to corporations) who lease out their coal mining rights are able to pay capital gains taxes on these royalties, rather than the higher top individual income tax rate.
Income Tax Exemption for Publicly Owned Utilities – $200 million/year
Publicly owned utilities and cooperatives are not subject to federal income tax on their profits or retained earnings. Some of these utilities use fossil fuels.
Rural Utilities Service Loans – $900 million/year
The federal government provides low-interest loans to rural-electrification cooperatives. These cooperatives have invested heavily in energy plants using fossil fuels.
Tax Exemption for Publicly Owned Utility Bonds – $550 million/year
Publicly owned utilities (POUs) can issue tax-exempt bonds. A significant portion of POUs have invested in energy sources using fossil fuels.”
And all that's just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
Oil companies only make about 9 cents on every dollar.
Please , do you really believe that ? Either you’ve been remiss in your homework , or you’re just toeing the party line.
Who's ripping who off?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/1027-06.jpg
Need I say more ?
Do you watch Meet the Press ? Last week they had 3 big oil execs on, whining about how hard it is to make a profit. While reaping record profits during a time period when people were buying less gas. If they were only collecting 9 cents a gallon as you say, that is mathematically impossible.
And those rigs in the Gulf? Out in international waters? They don't belong to the US.
They belong to their respective corporations , but make no mistake OUR tax dollars paid for them.
And I really don't think you could handle my job.
With some training I’m quite certain I could . And I’d get along better with your co-workers too. :) But I wouldn’t live in Atlanta, thanks. I’m happy here where I can get a bacon, double-cheese, jalapeno Whataburger if the urge should strike.
I'm not bitching about not being able to boat on a man-made lake (incidentally GA has not one natural lake) I'm bitching about not being able to water my lawn.
If Mother nature intends for your grass to be green it will be . That’s your own logic. And your “conceit of man” argument bounced back at you.
I'm bitching about not being able to flush the toilet but once a damn day.
Now that does suck , but people supposedly lived millions of years without toilets.
I'm bitching about common sense being overruled by jackassery!
I’m talking about common sense being overruled by greed.
The Corp already released three months worth water just in April because they couldn't read their gauges right. If that hadn't of happened, WE WOULDN'T BE FACING DROUGHT CONDITIONS.
I thought drought conditions were caused by a lack of precipitation , but you’re right , those bastard Army Corps of Engineers fucked New Orleans, and now they’re coming after you.
We get plenty of rain here, but when arrogant fools think they know better than the people who live here every day, things tend to go to shit.
I have long story about the Barton Creek Salamander I’ll have to tell you some day . I Know you’ll be waiting with baited breath . And another about cutting down a four hundred year-old oak tree for a fucking Walgreens. I wouldn’t have minded them cutting down the tree for something useful , but being that there were already 8 Walgreens within 3miles it didn’t make much sense. I don’t think anyone in the city limits has to drive more than three blocks to find a Walgreens. I have to wonder what that says about Americas phamaceutical habit ?
I don't own stock in ANY company. Like I said, i'm ign.. ignoru... stoopid.
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I hear Bubba Gump shrimp is a solid investment.
I know airthing they is to know 'bout the shripmin' bidness.
And I don't really appreciate the insinuation that I'd kill people for money.
I was just replying to your insistence that no one wants to dismantle industry. Sorry if I hit a nerve. Never implied AT ALL that you were a party to ELF.
Cool, just a misunderstanding then.
Here. Ooops, he may be on the "list"...
That’s good news if it’s true , but it still falls short of replacing what we’ve lost , and continue to lose. Moreover , it seems the fast-growth poplars are only grown for harvesting. Meaning we’ll be starting over every 10-20 years. I can see it helping, but not solving, the problem.
I pointed out your spelling mistake to take you down off that high horse you preach from.
I didn't realize citing sources, providing links and stating facts is preaching from a high horse.
But okay…
I've never attempted to make myself look better or more enlightened than anyone else.
Must ..not …let …fingers…type …thoughts…grrrrrrr-uuhhhhhh.
So point out all the spelling misteaks you wnat.
I prefer not to , it’s counterproductive to the discourse and a waste of time , a weak tactic usually only employed by someone when they're losing an argument.
Essentially no doubt? A LOT of people doubt the accuracy of the crap being propagandized by Al Gore.
Please , lets not waste time pretending Al Gore invented global warming .
While I certainly can’t claim to hold majority opinion on most issues , denying this one is a costly waste of time. Refer again “the list” of 10 scientists who deny human activity has an effect on CO2 levels and thus global warming. Stop running in circles and see if you can find any other reputable scientists supporting that claim.
Here’s the list, one more time.
Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes may be more to blame than human activities.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [4][5]
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "…there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. …In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed". [6]
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". [7]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." [8]
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on his blog, asserts "about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes". His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [9]
Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) [10] to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it" [11].
Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany. Dr. Solanki believes, "that the brighter Sun and higher levels of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact." [12]
Bob Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." [13]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [14]
[edit]
Relationship of CO2 to warming is misunderstood
Tim Ball former Professor of Climatology at University of Winnipeg writes: "...atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:
Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.
Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise. "
I can link most of these to the oil or auto industry , the others can be written off to misquotes and out of context quotes .( Note also terms such as “may”, “could”, "possibly" or “likely” .) One has recently reversed his opinion on the matter. And my guess is the others will soon follow , or join the flat earth society.
Maybe you do, after all, I am just an uneducated buffoon from a red state.
If you say so , but please just read this article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5387574) and see how it sits with you. Bipartisan action , new jobs , new opportunities , clean energy and, well, dead birds. I’m all for it frankly, but then, I’m a conceited, half-educated, moron who lives in a little blue dot in a big red state.
FanGirl
06-25-2006, 11:03 PM
Yes, yes, but what about Manbearpig?
No argument here . :) But really, no one’s calling you stupid , stubborn to the point of willful ignorance, maybe, but…not stupid.
If you dam a river it effects everything downstream , right ?
If you pollute the air it effects everything downwind , doesn’t it ?
The world being round, I don’t see why this is hard to understand.
What comes around goes around .
And speaking of ecosystems checkup up on the Atlantic Conveyor (http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/10_5.shtml).
I think it was History channel , though it might’ve been Discovery that I saw the show on, it’s been airing for the past couple years.
Broecker (http://www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/hot/enrbro.html)
My analogy about calendars wasn’t clear and I apologize. So I’ll try a different one. If I had a pot , and it was black, and the vast majority of Colorologists (experts in colorology) agreed the pot was black Then I brought the pot to you and said “look a black pot.” you’d say “ That pot’s not black at all ! “ And I’d say “Yes it is. Colorologists all say the pot is black . “ And then you’d say “ Well, I happen to know a marine biologist, a solar analyst and a proctologist who says the pot might not be black.” And then I’d say “ Well first, they’re not really experts in the given field. Second , they get paid to say ’the pot’s not black’ . Thirdly they’re going against every credible piece of evidence. Fourth, some of them didn’t say the pot wasn’t black but they were misquoted and their comments taken out of context, or just that it required further research. Fifth , and perhaps most importantly , why do you have rectal thermometer in your mouth ?”
And you say “ The proctologist recommended it . And my argument stands ! The pot can’t be black. It isn‘t possible. I don‘t care what more than 99% of scientist say .”
I see, so without the man-made lake the community would’ve remained small.
Man changed Mother Natures plan. And altered the environment without a thought to the possible negative impact. Either because he didn’t think it could possibly have an impact, or just didn’t think about it at all. Man altered the environment to suit his own needs. If that’s not conceit, I don’t know what is.
Point meet JK, JK this is point .
I’d like to continue believing you’re a better person than that. If nothing else, the situation in Darfur makes a pretty solid argument for what happens when a populations water supply dries up.
Uhh , no it doesn’t , but even if it’s true , what’s heating the water to create the extra vapor ?
I think you’re confusing the condition with one of its side effects. Read the Broecker (http://www.af-info.or.jp/eng/honor/hot/enrbro.html) link.
Actually a few of them had their comments taken out of context. To make it appear as if they said something they didn’t. At least one has changed his opinion but certain people keep using the old quotes .
Ergo.
Yes . Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany. Dr. Solanki believes, "that the brighter Sun and higher levels of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact." [12]
And here (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2004/2004-08-03-03.asp) are his CURRENT comments when not taken out of context by right-wing-nuts.
“He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.
"Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
You squids and your regs.
For one, the Amazon has (or perhaps I should say, had) lots of trees . You know what trees breathe in ? And what they breathe out ? Mmmm, tasty photosynthesis. I also remember hearing something about the plants in the Amazon probably containing the cures for various diseases and ailments. Admittedly, I need to research that.
There are different categories and breakdowns, for pollutants. I believe China ranked second for CO2 emissions. But they have shitloads more people. South America removed the most trees.
I never “studed” economics , mostly just the ladies and the effects of alcohol on the human brain. And well, that pocket vagina , but I was beyond drunk at the time.
And then right back to the oil companies. In the form of tax-breaks , subsidies and outright giveaways. They rarely (if ever) pay to clean up their own messes and never pay the health care costs they inflict.
Subsidies (http://www.monitor.net/monitor/10-9-95/oilsubsidy.html)
What we pay for. (http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/fuelsubfact.htm)
“Immediate Expensing of Exploration and Development Costs – $200 million/year Oil, gas, and coal producers can immediately expense (write off) most or all of their development costs. Other businesses must deduct these expenses over a longer period of time.
Percentage Depletion Allowance for Oil and Gas – $600 million/year
Independent oil and gas companies can deduct 15 percent of their sales revenue using the special percentage depletion allowance – instead of the standard cost depreciation – regardless of the actual loss in value over time.
Requiring Full Coal Firm Support for the Black Lung Fund – $350 million/year
Designed to internalize the health-related costs of coal mining, this fund requires government support to pay for work-related disabilities of coal miners.
Intangible Drilling Costs – $500 million/year
Integrated oil and gas companies can immediately deduct 70 percent of "intangible" drilling costs. Most other businesses deduct such expenses over time and therefore receive less of a tax benefit.
Passive Loss for Oil and Gas – $100 million/year
This tax shelter for investors in oil and gas allows certain owners to offset "passive losses" against income to pay lower taxes.
Non-Conventional Fuel Production Credit – $1.3 billion/year
This tax credit for certain types of fuel extracted from "non-conventional" sources was intended to provide incentives for petroleum alternatives, but most of the credit has gone for oil and gas production.
Tax Breaks for Enhanced Oil Recovery – $100 million/year
Expensing (writing off) tertiary injectant costs and the tax credit for enhanced oil recovery encourage extraction of difficult to reach and expensive oil deposit remnants.
Clean Coal Technology Program – $250 million/ year
This program helps finance private companies to develop cleaner burning coal technologies by providing up to 50 percent in federal matching funds.
Coal R&D – $100 million/year
The Department of Energy supports research in technology programs for producing, refining, and burning coal products.
Other Fossil Energy R&D – $100 million/year
The federal government provides subsidies for oil and natural gas research and development.
Multilateral Development Bank Loans for Fossil Fuel – $80 million/year
The U.S. federal government supports several multilateral development banks, which provide loans for fossil fuel development in other countries.
Export Import Bank Guarantees for Fossil Fuel – $300 million/year
The Export Import Bank provides federal loan guarantees for investments in unstable countries. A portion of these loans are used for fossil fuel development.
Capital Gains Treatment of Royalties on Coal – $15 million/year
Individual owners (as opposed to corporations) who lease out their coal mining rights are able to pay capital gains taxes on these royalties, rather than the higher top individual income tax rate.
Income Tax Exemption for Publicly Owned Utilities – $200 million/year
Publicly owned utilities and cooperatives are not subject to federal income tax on their profits or retained earnings. Some of these utilities use fossil fuels.
Rural Utilities Service Loans – $900 million/year
The federal government provides low-interest loans to rural-electrification cooperatives. These cooperatives have invested heavily in energy plants using fossil fuels.
Tax Exemption for Publicly Owned Utility Bonds – $550 million/year
Publicly owned utilities (POUs) can issue tax-exempt bonds. A significant portion of POUs have invested in energy sources using fossil fuels.”
And all that's just the tip of the (melting) iceberg.
Please , do you really believe that ? Either you’ve been remiss in your homework , or you’re just toeing the party line.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/images/1027-06.jpg
Need I say more ?
Do you watch Meet the Press ? Last week they had 3 big oil execs on, whining about how hard it is to make a profit. While reaping record profits during a time period when people were buying less gas. If they were only collecting 9 cents a gallon as you say, that is mathematically impossible.
They belong to their respective corporations , but make no mistake OUR tax dollars paid for them.
With some training I’m quite certain I could . And I’d get along better with your co-workers too. :) But I wouldn’t live in Atlanta, thanks. I’m happy here where I can get a bacon, double-cheese, jalapeno Whataburger if the urge should strike.
If Mother nature intends for your grass to be green it will be . That’s your own logic. And your “conceit of man” argument bounced back at you.
Now that does suck , but people supposedly lived millions of years without toilets.
I’m talking about common sense being overruled by greed.
I thought drought conditions were caused by a lack of precipitation , but you’re right , those bastard Army Corps of Engineers fucked New Orleans, and now they’re coming after you.
I have long story about the Barton Creek Salamander I’ll have to tell you some day . I Know you’ll be waiting with baited breath . And another about cutting down a four hundred year-old oak tree for a fucking Walgreens. I wouldn’t have minded them cutting down the tree for something useful , but being that there were already 8 Walgreens within 3miles it didn’t make much sense. I don’t think anyone in the city limits has to drive more than three blocks to find a Walgreens. I have to wonder what that says about Americas phamaceutical habit ?
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
I hear Bubba Gump shrimp is a solid investment.
I know airthing they is to know 'bout the shripmin' bidness.
Cool, just a misunderstanding then.
That’s good news if it’s true , but it still falls short of replacing what we’ve lost , and continue to lose. Moreover , it seems the fast-growth poplars are only grown for harvesting. Meaning we’ll be starting over every 10-20 years. I can see it helping, but not solving, the problem.
I didn't realize citing sources, providing links and stating facts is preaching from a high horse.
But okay…
Must ..not …let …fingers…type …thoughts…grrrrrrr-uuhhhhhh.
I prefer not to , it’s counterproductive to the discourse and a waste of time , a weak tactic usually only employed by someone when they're losing an argument.
Please , lets not waste time pretending Al Gore invented global warming .
While I certainly can’t claim to hold majority opinion on most issues , denying this one is a costly waste of time. Refer again “the list” of 10 scientists who deny human activity has an effect on CO2 levels and thus global warming. Stop running in circles and see if you can find any other reputable scientists supporting that claim.
Here’s the list, one more time.
Scientists in this section accept the observations of rising temperature, but conclude that natural causes may be more to blame than human activities.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." Mr. Gray, who has worked in the field for 50 years, has labeled global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." [4][5]
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "…there's increasingly strong evidence that previous research conclusions, including those of the United Nations and the United States government concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations. …In other words, natural factors could be more important than previously assumed". [6]
Sallie Baliunas, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air". [7]
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences: "So we see that the scientific facts indicate that all the temperature changes observed in the last 100 years were largely natural changes and were not caused by carbon dioxide produced in human activities." [8]
Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem on his blog, asserts "about 2/3's (give or take a third or so) of the warming should be attributed to increased solar activity and the remaining to anthropogenic causes". His opinion is based on some proxies of solar activity over the past few centuries. [9]
Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project: has changed his position from "The earth is not warming significantly" (paraphrase) [10] to "The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that human activities have little to do with it" [11].
Sami Solanki, director of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany. Dr. Solanki believes, "that the brighter Sun and higher levels of 'greenhouse gasses', such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact." [12]
Bob Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia. Dr. Carter says, "The essence of the issue is this. Climate changes naturally all the time, partly in predictable cycles, and partly in unpredictable shorter rhythms and rapid episodic shifts, some of the causes of which remain unknown." [13]
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada. Dr. Patterson states, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?" [14]
[edit]
Relationship of CO2 to warming is misunderstood
Tim Ball former Professor of Climatology at University of Winnipeg writes: "...atmospheric CO2 levels respond to temperature changes, not the reverse:
Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.
At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.
Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise. "
I can link most of these to the oil or auto industry , the others can be written off to misquotes and out of context quotes .( Note also terms such as “may”, “could”, "possibly" or “likely” .) One has recently reversed his opinion on the matter. And my guess is the others will soon follow , or join the flat earth society.
If you say so , but please just read this article (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5387574) and see how it sits with you. Bipartisan action , new jobs , new opportunities , clean energy and, well, dead birds. I’m all for it frankly, but then, I’m a conceited, half-educated, moron who lives in a little blue dot in a big red state.
You must have an awful lot of free time.
I was busy today, lovin' my woman and avoiding flash floods... not a lot of time to read through your novel here.
You come off with a HUGE air of superiority. I can't think of a single time where you accepted the fact you that were wrong. And anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of the topic, is beaten about the head and shoulders with (what I consider) a bunch of gobblety-gook.
You need to accept the fact that I believe, after reading report upon report and article after article, the left-wing, anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-America, global warming alarmists are full of shit and NOTHING will change my mind.
And no matter how many times George Clooney implores me to have a heart, I'm not going to care any more than I already do about Darfur.
And it's 2006- flush toilets have been around for a while- it's bullshit that I can't flush because some jackass can't read a fucking gauge and a single species of fish- one out hundreds of thousands- might die out. It's a tragedy- about the fish. Smoke a fucking cigarette and then go to bed. May sound heartless, but 99% of the species that ever lived on this planet are extinct. And conversely, new ones are being discovered all the damn time. Hooray for biology. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5065510.stm) I didn't really want to put a link, but you won't shut up about it I don't. Of course, you're going to point out that they're going to turn this into a conservationist and regulation writer's wet-dream, but my arguement- before you get started- is that the shark was just found, how the hell could they know that much about it already?
And I know what trees breathe in and out- I'm not a fucking moron.
I would also say your colorologist was just some slack-ass who couldn't draw. Like a reporter who can't report becomes an anchor. And those who can't anchor, become producers. Those who can't predict the weather, become climatologists... and on and on and on.
Also, Egyptians knew the world was round some 4000 years before Columbus was even born. Just wanted to throw that out there.
By-tor
06-26-2006, 12:22 AM
You boys, don't make me have to take my belt off.
ozchick
06-26-2006, 12:45 AM
I was thinking the same thing... probably for different reasons though ;)
acid_soda
06-26-2006, 12:54 AM
Global warming raped my dad...
Mighty Wingman
06-26-2006, 01:30 AM
Yes, yes, but what about Manbearpig?
Didn't see that episode yet, mostly burnt out on SP after the second season. I still catch one now and again. But mostly it feels like the same joke over and over."Look how offensive and over the top we are!" I think the last ,newest, episode I watched was "Oprah's Vagina " or whatever word they used ? Didn't do anything for me.
Mighty Wingman
06-26-2006, 01:32 AM
You boys, don't make me have to take my belt off.
Nobody wants to see your balls old man! Gah!
:)
Mighty Wingman
06-26-2006, 01:33 AM
I was thinking the same thing... probably for different reasons though ;)
I like your reasons, no , I love your reasons.
Mighty Wingman
06-26-2006, 01:36 AM
You must have an awful lot of free time.
I work an average of 56 hours a week , so probably less than you . Took me less than an hour to type that response.
But ya know ? That sure feels like a personal attack by someone who’s losing an argument.
I was busy today, lovin' my woman and avoiding flash floods... not a lot of time to read through your novel here.
Aww do facts make your wittle head hurt ?
I doubt you posses the mental capacity to comprehend the simplest of my novels, you can't even comprehend the drivel I spill here.
And remeber you chose to make this personal, because you can't provide fact.
I can't think of a single time where you accepted the fact you that were wrong.
Show me where you have. And I’ll show you mine. But proving you wrong is getting boring.
And anyone who disagrees with you, regardless of the topic, is beaten about the head and shoulders with (what I consider) a bunch of gobblety-gook.
I see, politely displaying the facts makes you feel beaten about the head.
Unlike you though, I can separate the facts from my opinion.
You need to accept the fact that I believe, after reading report upon report and article after article, the left-wing, anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-America, global warming alarmists are full of shit and NOTHING will change my mind.
I doubt very much you’ve checked a single link that J.J. or I provided .(Though you wont, some who read this later will.) I doubt even more that you’ve read a single article in it’s entirety that said anything you didn’t want to believe. It’s pretty obvious from your uninformed responses that you haven’t. And I don’t care about changing your mind. I know that's a lost cause . It does bother me though, that willfully ignorant fucktards will continue to spread misinformation long after every shred their argument has been debunked.
And no matter how many times George Clooney implores me to have a heart,
Who is talking about George Clooney ? Is that where you get your news?
I'm not going to care any more than I already do about Darfur.
Well I’d say the same thing about Atlanta, but I know that not everyone who lives there is a willfully ignorant fucktard.
People in Darfur are dying by the thousands because their water supply dried up (likely due to global warming ) and you can’t so much as offer condolences , yet you expect people here to feel sorry for you because you can’t shit in a toilet or water your lawn ?
Well here’s a boo-fucking-hoo for you.
And it's 2006- flush toilets have been around for a while-
Not for everyone. Oh, like people in Darfur
it's bullshit that I can't flush because some jackass can't read a fucking gauge.
Great list of priorities you got there. Shitting in toilet is much more important than caring about other human beings.
and a single species of fish- one out hundreds of thousands- might die out. It's a tragedy- about the fish. Smoke a fucking cigarette and then go to bed. May sound heartless, but 99% of the species that ever lived on this planet are extinct.
It may sound heartless but hopefully ignorance like yours will soon be extinct too, so go smoke your own cigarette , provided you can pull your head out of Bush‘s ass long enough to do that.
And conversely, new ones are being discovered all the damn time. Hooray for biology.
Wow a new species of shark I read about three months ago!
I didn't really want to put a link, but you won't shut up about it I don't. Of course, you're going to point out that they're going to turn this into a conservationist and regulation writer's wet-dream,
Of course you’re going to talk out of your ass spreading your lies and misconceptions and prove yourself wrong once again. Far be it from me to tell you what I’m going to do.
but my arguement- before you get started- is that the shark was just found, how the hell could they know that much about it already?
Duhhh, I dunno Billybob, maybe they fuckin’ researched it.
But then I don't expect you to comprehend research . Let alone do it for yourself.
And I know what trees breathe in and out- I'm not a fucking moron.
You have every right to your opinions , just don’t go around pretending they‘re fact.
I would also say your colorologist was just some slack-ass who couldn't draw. Like a reporter who can't report becomes an anchor. And those who can't anchor, become producers. Those who can't predict the weather, become climatologists... and on and on and on.
And I guess those who can’t make movies get jobs watching TV…
Also, Egyptians knew the world was round some 4000 years before Columbus was even born.
And if that’s true, people like you continued to deny it 300 years after Columbus.
By-tor
06-26-2006, 02:00 AM
Global warming raped my dad...You crack me up, dude. :D
I work an average of 56 hours a week , so probably less than you . Took me less than an hour to type that response.
But ya know ? That sure feels like a personal attack by someone who’s losing an argument. Personal attacks... at least I'm not calling you names. (See below*)
Aww do facts make your wittle head hurt ?
I doubt you posses the mental capacity to comprehend the simplest of my novels, you can't even comprehend the drivel I spill here.
And remeber you chose to make this personal, because you can't provide fact. I made it personal? Who's calling who a liar and an ignorant fucktard? (See below*) Also, while I may not have an education from a state college, I do have the equivalent of a master's degree-through the military- in nuclear engineering. I'm not as dumb as you think. I comprehend a lot more than you realize. I think it just pisses you off to no end that I refuse to be swayed by your arguement. Disagree with Wingman = stupidity.
Show me where you have. And I’ll show you mine. But proving you wrong is getting boring. You haven't proven me wrong- all you're proving is that you can cut and paste a thousand words at a time to push your opnions.
I see, politely displaying the facts makes you feel beaten about the head.
Unlike you though, I can separate the facts from my opinion. I've never made any effort to present my opinions as fact. I've always presented my arguements as opinion. It's your own damn fault if you can't distinguish any difference.
I doubt very much you’ve checked a single link that J.J. or I provided .(Though you wont, some who read this later will.) I doubt even more that you’ve read a single article in it’s entirety that said anything you didn’t want to believe. It’s pretty obvious from your uninformed responses that you haven’t. And I don’t care about changing your mind. I know that's a lost cause . It does bother me though, that willfully ignorant fucktards* will continue to spread misinformation long after every shred their argument has been debunked. Now I'm an ignorant fucktard- real classy. I thought you weren't into name calling.
Who is talking about George Clooney ? Is that where you get your news? He's all over the goddamn place, like Sally freakin' Struthers.
Well I’d say the same thing about Atlanta, but I know that not everyone who lives there is a willfully ignorant fucktard.
People in Darfur are dying by the thousands because their water supply dried up (likely due to global warming ) and you can’t so much as offer condolences , yet you expect people here to feel sorry for you because you can’t shit in a toilet or water your lawn ?
Well here’s a boo-fucking-hoo for you. I pointed out the problem in Atlanta because it was something close to home- something I am personally affected by- Darfur does mean that much to me BECAUSE I'M NOT THERE. Like I said, it's a tragedy, but when opposing tribes are hell bent on killing each other for little or no reason, it's hard to feel any real compassion for them. If they'd stop killing each other by the thousands and spend the time to solve their water problems, maybe it would be a fucking paradise.
Not for everyone. Oh, like people in Darfur Regardless of what you think, I have compassion for my fellow human beings, but What The FUCK do you EXPECT ME DO ABOUT IT? Sell my worldly possession and move to fucking Africa? Maybe I am selfish- maybe I should piss away the mortgage, tell my fiancee to go to hell and become a missionary...
Not fucking likely.
Great list of priorities you got there. Shitting in toilet is much more important than caring about other human beings. Fish are humans? Do you anthropomorphize all your food? It's more than shitting in a toilet- it's about watering the lawn (not just to keep it pretty, but to keep it from eroding away from the foundation of my relatively expensive house) and mostly it's about having water to drink. It's about being able to live in the Twenty-first fucking century! It's not my goddamn fault people in third world shit-holes are still living in mud huts and crapping in a trench they dug out back. It's my opinion that if they want to join the rest of the world, they can. Take the tinhorn solcialist dictators out and allow a free-market economy to thrive and everyone will be shitting in porcelain Hallelujah!
It may sound heartless but hopefully ignorance like yours will soon be extinct too, so go smoke your own cigarette , provided you can pull your head out of Bush‘s ass long enough to do that. Now you're hoping I die? That's real classy, polite- whatever other term you want to use for it. And what makes you so goddamn sure I love Bush? The only thing he's done right, in my opinion, is the war on terrorists. Now you'll tell me how wrong I am to have that opinion.
Wow a new species of shark I read about three months ago!
"Results 1 - 10 of about 37,100,000 for new species discovered. (0.17 seconds) " That's an awful lot of articles about new species out there. Even if some of them are reprints, that's still a lot. And no, I didn't read every goddamn one of them, so feel free to pull examples of how wrong I am from your own search.
Of course you’re going to talk out of your ass spreading your lies and misconceptions and prove yourself wrong once again. Far be it from me to tell you what I’m going to do. And not only am I an ignorant fucktard and should be extinct, but I'm a liar to boot. In Mighty Wingman's world a difference of opinion = a lie.
Duhhh, I dunno Billybob, maybe they fuckin’ researched it.
But then I don't expect you to comprehend research . Let alone do it for yourself. "BillyBob"... more name calling. Real high class. I must have really gotten to you in order for this to happen. You're so much better than me, and all...
You have every right to your opinions , just don’t go around pretending they‘re fact. What? Now you're going to try and tell me trees don't use CO2? You already implied that all my opinions equal lies... must be because they're different from yours. Real open-mindedness there, pal.
And I guess those who can’t make movies get jobs watching TV… It's not that I can't make movies, I just lost interrest. And you don't have a goddamn clue what I really do at work. But at least I get paid
A LOT
to do it.
And if that’s true, people like you continued to deny it 300 years after Columbus. The Egyptians, although disinterrested in astronomy, were able to align the Sphinx with the constellation Leo circa 12,500 BC (build date according astro-archeology and geology) as well as perfectly align the pyriamids latitudinally- circa 2,500 BC- And later, Eratosthenes calculated the size of the round earth in... aw, to hell with it. You'll link him to Bush or big oil somehow. Is Posidonius on your list somewhere?
This is the last response I'm making in this thread- I was having fun argueing this bullshit with you at first, but not anymore- So feel free to pick it apart, call me more names, whatever you like. Just know this- I will NEVER agree with you. Whether it be about the blueness of the sky or the greenness of the grass- I will not ever agree with you or anyone who calls me liar for having my own opinions and an ignorant fucktard for believing in them.
ozchick
06-26-2006, 08:47 AM
Boy, that really escalated quickly.
By-tor
06-26-2006, 11:58 AM
Boy, that really escalated quickly.
http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/1957/1612/lo/co2.jpg (http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/57/1957/gal1612/04.php)
I killed a guy with a trident.
acid_soda
06-26-2006, 12:04 PM
By-tor...where did you get that grenade?
Zens7s
06-26-2006, 12:26 PM
By-tor...where did you get that grenade?
Hey, the guy to the left of him is my ex. I liked to call em' Tex. ;)
Mighty Wingman
06-26-2006, 07:31 PM
From post #4
Does anyone honestly believe that we humans can stop or start climate change if we really want to?
Yes. it's a fact, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are trapping more heat , thus unnaturally warming the earth. If we decrease CO2 emissions to natural levels the planet will cool . Most of the ten scientists disagreeing with this point are paid to. Others have reversed their opinion or were misquoted in the first place.
When more than 99% of scientists agree on something That’s called a “consensus“ the likes of which you‘ll rarely find on any subject.
Despite the fact that this was pointed out to you early on, and “the list” was provided, you continued using misquotes. Because you didn’t read the links . Repeatedly asking, already asked and answered questions, numerous times throughout this thread and you keep pretending info that was already debunked here has some value. This = willful ignorance. You ask a question it gets answered, you ask it again as if it hasn’t been. And then use the eye roll emoticon as if it’s your patience being tested.
Essentially you don’t want the answer. You're happier believing the earth is flat. Fine. Though I didn’t say it till post #32 I knew it from the start. “as your mind seems to have closed for business on this issue long ago.” That means I don’t care what you believe , But bullshit arguments need to be debunked so the more impressionable don’t get the wrong impression, and so when someone like me encounters someone like you the rebuttals will have been covered and the facts will have been established.
From post #6
There you go, making assumptions again.
Dude, you don't know a damn about my beliefs except the very few I have expressed here.
You get all uppity when you think someone is making assumptions about you.
“And I really don't think you could handle my job.”
As a response to the facetious statement that “we should trade jobs.” Merely intended to mean I’d get along better your open-minded , intelligent co-workers and you'd likely get along with mine. You wouldn't like my supervisors though.
Then you assume I “must have a lot of free time.” I make time to debunk bullshit. But what you’re insinuating here( don’t play dumb, you know Goddamn well what you were doing ) is that I have no life. Finding yourself on the losing side of an argument, under a literal mountain of facts you resort to personal attacks on my life and my writing skills, further insinuating you know anything about what I do , who I am, or what I’ve written outside this place. And that’s when the kid gloves come off and the coddling stops… Fucktard.
I make no excuses nor apologies for it. You earned it .
I made it personal? Who's calling who a liar and an ignorant fucktard?
See above. And below.
Also, while I may not have an education from a state college, I do have the equivalent of a master's degree-through the military- in nuclear engineering. I'm not as dumb as you think.
I said repeatedly before this, that I wasn’t calling you stupid, dumb, whatever, you resorted to personal attacks because you know can’t win. Then you get them back and predictably act all offended. Yeah, go ahead and act victimized. I'll try to remember that trick when I come to one of your threads just to troll.
I comprehend a lot more than you realize. I think it just pisses you off to no end that I refuse to be swayed by your arguement. Disagree with Wingman = stupidity.
Just for you ace , just for you .
I’ve already stated my reasons for continuing this. I don’t care what you think I’m not going to let your bullshit go unchecked here . If you tell me my taste in music sucks that’s your opinion it’s not right or wrong. Living in denial about global warming is.
You haven't proven me wrong- all you're proving is that you can cut and paste a thousand words at a time to push your opinions.
You used a Sami Solanki quote as a basis for your argument.
I brought you the current version of the quote, unmolested by Bush puppets.
They say 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.
It’s not a matter of opinion. Denying that is willful ignorance. CHOSEN IGNORANCE. And that’s just one example.
I’d given you “the list” debunked your bullshit administration sponsored opinion. And you still pretend there’s no consensus by scientists . Your denial of facts doesn’t make them any less true.
I've never made any effort to present my opinions as fact.
In post #10 you said
Which is precisely what the global warming crowd is doing. Listening to Al Gore and his follower(s), you'd think the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything. Junk science.
But then, of course you haven't seen the movie and don’t actually listen to anyone who has, if you did you wouldn’t make such an ignorant fucknut claim. Nowhere in that post do you call it your opinion. And you accuse me of some “Air of superiority “ which says a lot about your perception. And still, I played nice.
Go and find an Al Gore quote that says “the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything.”
Or anything even remotely like that.
No, go ahead, I’ll wait ….
It's your own damn fault if you can't distinguish any difference.
And this is where I gain the right to call you a liar. For one , expressing your opinion as fact , for two , making up bullshit you imagined Al Gore saying and then purveying it as if were truth.
Startin’ to get the picture now ? Lying, willfully ignorant , fucktard.
Now I'm an ignorant fucktard- real classy. I thought you weren't into name calling.
Coming into someone’s thread casting aspersions , lying , misquoting , trolling.
Yeah , again, you’ve more than earned it .
He's all over the goddamn place,
He’s not a news source for me .
like Sally freakin' Struthers.
When she sits around the house she really SITS AROUND THE HOUSE.
Maybe we should feed her to those starving African children, two birds…
I pointed out the problem in Atlanta because it was something close to home- something I am personally affected by- Darfur does mean that much to me BECAUSE I'M NOT THERE. Like I said, it's a tragedy, but when opposing tribes are hell bent on killing each other for little or no reason,
If Atlanta really does run out of water , then I bet you’ll understand the reasons.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/graphics/14-lakechad.jpg
Wonder how long before this happens to lake Lanier? Course it’ll all be the Corps fault… Since global warming is “Junk Science”
it's hard to feel any real compassion for them. If they'd stop killing each other by the thousands
It’s really hard for me to to feel any real compassion for you because you only care about you.
Regardless of what you think, I have compassion for my fellow human beings,
Of course you do, why, just recently you said “I couldn’t give a shit .” you must’ve graduated from G-Dumbyas Compassionate Conservative University.
but What The FUCK do you EXPECT ME DO ABOUT IT? Sell my worldly possession and move to fucking Africa? Maybe I am selfish- maybe I should piss away the mortgage, tell my fiancee to go to hell and become a missionary...
You could start not saying “I couldn’t give a shit .” when the subject comes up.
Probably isn’t a good idea get your info from Clooney either.
Fish are humans?
Yes , yes they are . I was still talking about humans the ones you “couldn’t give shit about “ Dur da durh !
Take the tinhorn solcialist dictators out and allow a free-market economy to thrive and everyone will be shitting in porcelain Hallelujah!
Yeah, you tell ‘em, they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, even if they don’t have shoes.
Now you're hoping I die?
Yes, of course , I’ve prepared a voodoo doll just for the occasion. Maybe you’re not willfully ignorant , maybe you just have a reading disability?
That's real classy, polite- whatever other term you want to use for it. And what makes you so goddamn sure I love Bush? The only thing he's done right, in my opinion, is the war on terrorists. Now you'll tell me how wrong I am to have that opinion.
Sure will, but start your own thread for that, then, don’t bitch, or react in any way when I come trolling with a closed mind, posting outright lies about him and pretending I know everything about you.
Cause if you do I’ll act all victimized about it, and pretend not to understand why you’re calling me names. Course I wouldn’t have to make up imagined bullshit , I could use facts and the administrations actual quotes. But then I don’t get my news about the world from E-channels George Clooney specials.
Results 1 - 10 of about 37,100,000 for new species discovered. (0.17 seconds) " That's an awful lot of articles about new species out there. Even if some of them are reprints, that's still a lot. And no, I didn't read every goddamn one of them, so feel free to pull examples of how wrong I am from your own search.
Not really seeing where any of that is pertinent, Buford.
And not only am I an ignorant fucktard and should be extinct, but I'm a liar to boot. In Mighty Wingman's world a difference of opinion = a lie.
Asked and answered .
"BillyBob"... more name calling. Real high class. I must have really gotten to you in order for this to happen. You're so much better than me, and all...
Asked and answered .
What? Now you're going to try and tell me trees don't use CO2? You already implied that all my opinions equal lies... must be because they're different from yours. Real open-mindedness there, pal.
I meant your opinion about you not being a moron. Bocephus.
It's not that I can't make movies, I just lost interrest. And you don't have a goddamn clue what I really do at work.
Let me guess. You sit on your fat ass in the air-conditioning, and in between watching George Clooney on TV and posting here, you occasionally click a mouse and punch a few keys. And apparently hear things from your co-workers you paraphrase and retype here. It must be a real pressure-cooker. I’m sure it’s way outta my league , Hoss. Oh and if you fuck up people watching TV might see a commercial that’s not supposed air for another thirty seconds ! Oh the humanity ! Yeah I’m probly wrong, but it was fun guessing.
(Oh shit ! Did I just admit I could be wrong ? I'll have to edit that later.)
Of course you assume you could do my job. Where if you fuck up just a little bit, people could die. But you “couldn’t give a shit “ long as your toilets flush when you want , right ?
(Get it? shit puns, eh ?)
The Egyptians, although disinterrested in astronomy, were able to align the Sphinx with the constellation Leo circa 12,500 BC (build date according astro-archeology and geology) as well as perfectly align the pyriamids latitudinally- circa 2,500 BC- And later, Eratosthenes calculated the size of the round earth in... aw, to hell with it. You'll link him to Bush or big oil somehow. Is Posidonius on your list somewhere?
Well, don’t check the facts about who's on the list , as you know , they have a decidedly liberal bias. Facts do.
This is the last response I'm making in this thread.
Good, then I can stop debunking your bullshit opinion you have repeatedly tried to pass off as fact.
I was having fun argueing this bullshit with you at first, but not anymore- So feel free to pick it apart, call me more names, whatever you like.
Sure thing , Cleetus.
Just know this- I will NEVER agree with you.
So we agree then ?
ozchick
06-26-2006, 10:09 PM
http://media.movieweb.com/galleries/1957/1612/lo/co2.jpg (http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/57/1957/gal1612/04.php)
I killed a guy with a trident.
I've been meaning to talk to you about that. You should find yourself a safehouse or a relative close by. Lay low for a while, because you're probably wanted for murder.
From post #4
Yes. it's a fact, increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere are trapping more heat , thus unnaturally warming the earth. If we decrease CO2 emissions to natural levels the planet will cool . Most of the ten scientists disagreeing with this point are paid to. Others have reversed their opinion or were misquoted in the first place.
When more than 99% of scientists agree on something That’s called a “consensus“ the likes of which you‘ll rarely find on any subject.
Despite the fact that this was pointed out to you early on, and “the list” was provided, you continued using misquotes. Because you didn’t read the links . Repeatedly asking, already asked and answered questions, numerous times throughout this thread and you keep pretending info that was already debunked here has some value. This = willful ignorance. You ask a question it gets answered, you ask it again as if it hasn’t been. And then use the eye roll emoticon as if it’s your patience being tested.
Essentially you don’t want the answer. You're happier believing the earth is flat. Fine. Though I didn’t say it till post #32 I knew it from the start. “as your mind seems to have closed for business on this issue long ago.” That means I don’t care what you believe , But bullshit arguments need to be debunked so the more impressionable don’t get the wrong impression, and so when someone like me encounters someone like you the rebuttals will have been covered and the facts will have been established.
From post #6
You get all uppity when you think someone is making assumptions about you.
“And I really don't think you could handle my job.”
As a response to the facetious statement that “we should trade jobs.” Merely intended to mean I’d get along better your open-minded , intelligent co-workers and you'd likely get along with mine. You wouldn't like my supervisors though.
Then you assume I “must have a lot of free time.” I make time to debunk bullshit. But what you’re insinuating here( don’t play dumb, you know Goddamn well what you were doing ) is that I have no life. Finding yourself on the losing side of an argument, under a literal mountain of facts you resort to personal attacks on my life and my writing skills, further insinuating you know anything about what I do , who I am, or what I’ve written outside this place. And that’s when the kid gloves come off and the coddling stops… Fucktard.
I make no excuses nor apologies for it. You earned it .
See above. And below.
I said repeatedly before this, that I wasn’t calling you stupid, dumb, whatever, you resorted to personal attacks because you know can’t win. Then you get them back and predictably act all offended. Yeah, go ahead and act victimized. I'll try to remember that trick when I come to one of your threads just to troll.
Just for you ace , just for you .
I’ve already stated my reasons for continuing this. I don’t care what you think I’m not going to let your bullshit go unchecked here . If you tell me my taste in music sucks that’s your opinion it’s not right or wrong. Living in denial about global warming is.
You used a Sami Solanki quote as a basis for your argument.
I brought you the current version of the quote, unmolested by Bush puppets.
They say 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.
It’s not a matter of opinion. Denying that is willful ignorance. CHOSEN IGNORANCE. And that’s just one example.
I’d given you “the list” debunked your bullshit administration sponsored opinion. And you still pretend there’s no consensus by scientists . Your denial of facts doesn’t make them any less true.
In post #10 you said
But then, of course you haven't seen the movie and don’t actually listen to anyone who has, if you did you wouldn’t make such an ignorant fucknut claim. Nowhere in that post do you call it your opinion. And you accuse me of some “Air of superiority “ which says a lot about your perception. And still, I played nice.
Go and find an Al Gore quote that says “the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything.”
Or anything even remotely like that.
No, go ahead, I’ll wait ….
And this is where I gain the right to call you a liar. For one , expressing your opinion as fact , for two , making up bullshit you imagined Al Gore saying and then purveying it as if were truth.
Startin’ to get the picture now ? Lying, willfully ignorant , fucktard.
Coming into someone’s thread casting aspersions , lying , misquoting , trolling.
Yeah , again, you’ve more than earned it .
He’s not a news source for me .
When she sits around the house she really SITS AROUND THE HOUSE.
Maybe we should feed her to those starving African children, two birds…
I
If Atlanta really does run out of water , then I bet you’ll understand the reasons.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vitalafrica/english/graphics/14-lakechad.jpg
Wonder how long before this happens to lake Lanier? Course it’ll all be the Corps fault… Since global warming is “Junk Science”
It’s really hard for me to to feel any real compassion for you because you only care about you.
Of course you do, why, just recently you said “I couldn’t give a shit .” you must’ve graduated from G-Dumbyas Compassionate Conservative University.
You could start not saying “I couldn’t give a shit .” when the subject comes up.
Probably isn’t a good idea get your info from Clooney either.
Yes , yes they are . I was still talking about humans the ones you “couldn’t give shit about “ Dur da durh !
Yeah, you tell ‘em, they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, even if they don’t have shoes.
Yes, of course , I’ve prepared a voodoo doll just for the occasion. Maybe you’re not willfully ignorant , maybe you just have a reading disability?
Sure will, but start your own thread for that, then, don’t bitch, or react in any way when I come trolling with a closed mind, posting outright lies about him and pretending I know everything about you.
Cause if you do I’ll act all victimized about it, and pretend not to understand why you’re calling me names. Course I wouldn’t have to make up imagined bullshit , I could use facts and the administrations actual quotes. But then I don’t get my news about the world from E-channels George Clooney specials.
Not really seeing where any of that is pertinent, Buford.
Asked and answered .
Asked and answered .
I meant your opinion about you not being a moron. Bocephus.
Let me guess. You sit on your fat ass in the air-conditioning, and in between watching George Clooney on TV and posting here, you occasionally click a mouse and punch a few keys. And apparently hear things from your co-workers you paraphrase and retype here. It must be a real pressure-cooker. I’m sure it’s way outta my league , Hoss. Oh and if you fuck up people watching TV might see a commercial that’s not supposed air for another thirty seconds ! Oh the humanity ! Yeah I’m probly wrong, but it was fun guessing.
(Oh shit ! Did I just admit I could be wrong ? I'll have to edit that later.)
Of course you assume you could do my job. Where if you fuck up just a little bit, people could die. But you “couldn’t give a shit “ long as your toilets flush when you want , right ?
(Get it? shit puns, eh ?)
Well, don’t check the facts about who's on the list , as you know , they have a decidedly liberal bias. Facts do.
Good, then I can stop debunking your bullshit opinion you have repeatedly tried to pass off as fact.
Sure thing , Cleetus.
So we agree then ?
I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but what the hell- I am liar, right?
I never called you any names, but what the hell- You're a...
I had some really choice slurs and epithets, but I'm not gonna do that.
I may not have a job anymore where if I fuck up people will die- I used to have a job where if I fucked up, I could effectively kill every last motherfucking douchebag on this planet but then I got out of the nuclear Navy, then I had a job where I was responsible for the safety and security of over ten thousand sailors, Marines, and airmen- COMM SIX FLT: watch commander, field commander, FTO, dispatcher, armorer, I could go on and on. But nowadays I'm just responsible for several million dollars worth of commercial and program inventory a week. If you had really been paying attention, you'd know I don't work in broadcast TV- I work in VOD. You know everything else, (epithet removed) how come you couldn't remember that? Lord Wingman isn't as omniscient as he thought. I spend most of my day verifying commercial and program content, rewriting XML metadata files, inputting media, caching media, previewing media, verifying descriptors, verifying V-Chip, verifying compliance with KidVid guidelines, capturing & encoding media, packaging CLC1.1 mpegs with the aforementioned XML files, QCing the media & XMLs AGAIN, and then finally FTPing it to the aggregators. From there it goes to the cable heads and then on to your set-top box. All of that is for one 1/2 hour show. Right now we handle about forty-three hours of programming a week- one-half hour program takes about four hours from input to FTP. Next month we jump to 140 hours. I'm very proud of the job I do and I do it well- won quite a few awards for it. If you want to denigrate it, fine. (Didn't really want to get in pissing contest about jobs, but since you brought it up...) Bringing home 60K a year to do it is fucking fine by me. Make fun all you want. I'm getting paid.
And I guess I'm just a cold-hearted bastard. Do you fall on your knees and weep every time a Christian Childrens Fund PSA comes on the boob toob? I don't. I guess being more concerned about my life than 'Click-Click-Pop' is just plain evil.
Maybe I really meant to run over that squirrel this morning.
Bottom line, what empathy I have in my heart is none of your goddamn business. What you see of me here isn't who I am. Hell, I really could be Dick Cheney... you don't fucking really know, do you? You honestly think you can sum me up in two thousand five hundred-some-odd posts? I could just be doing all this in an attempt to push you into an early stroke. Ever thought about that? Maybe I really do believe the sky is falling...
And I wasn't implying anything about how much free time you have to keep this bullshit up- I was saying right out loud. You have too much fucking free time to be worrying about my opinions. If it's your mission in life to nip at my heels, more power to you.
Back to global warming- who is paying for these scientists you're holding up on high? Where is their money coming from? As to the Sun that you say isn't burning brighter- saw an interresting article today- the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate... on Mars. Maybe Sojourner ran on fossil fuels. It's like a butterfly flapping it's wings in... Darfur... and creating a hurricane in Florida, Johnny Redneck cranks up his '86 Chevy with a blown 454 and 6" Skyjackers and the ice on Mars melts. There isn't any industry there, no cities of little green men, no real seismic activity to release gases in to the atmosphere, no vegitation. Interresting. And if I want to live in denial about gloab warming, who the fuck are you to tell me I'm wrong for that? Who made you my judge? I only answer to one Judge, and thank God you're not Him. (insert your attack on my religious beliefs here)
And my misquotes? I never actually quoted any body.I provided a few- a couple- of links to articles, but I never quoted anybody. (Must've gone back and edited those when I wrote this, I am a lying fucktard afterall...)
Long and short of it- you're the one who escalated this bullshit, with the name calling and wishing for my extinction. I'm not playing victim, just pointing out a FACT. Hell, I called you on it and you came back with more! (Cletus, Buford, fat-ass, a few more fucktards, think I saw a moron in there somewhere)
Way to go! You are the bigger man!
Salut.
By-tor
06-27-2006, 01:55 AM
See why you other bastages don't wanna fuck with Texans? These two show why the Lone Star State could kick the shit outta every other country out there. We take no prisoners. We don't back down. We say what we believe, and believe what we say. And sometimes we're just arrogant asses. But don't ever fuckin' call us on it.
Texans call this a flesh wound, bitches. ;)
http://arago4.tnw.utwente.nl/stonedead/movies/holy-grail/thumbnails/04-both-arms-off.jpg (javascript:picture('04-both-arms-off'))
Mighty Wingman
06-27-2006, 08:25 PM
I know I said I wasn't going to respond, but what the hell- I am liar, right?
Still haven’t seen you back up what you said about Al Gore. Still waiting on that quote.
I never called you any names, but what the hell- You're a...
No you just insinuated that I have no life and no writing skills, amongst other things.
I had some really choice slurs and epithets, but I'm not gonna do that.
I’m not insecure enough for willfully ignorant thoughts, comments, or misconceptions about my person to bother me . Fire away .
may not have a job anymore where if I fuck up people will die- I used to have a job where if I fucked up, I could effectively kill every last motherfucking douchebag on this planet but then I got out of the nuclear Navy, then I had a job where I was responsible for the safety and security of over ten thousand sailors, Marines, and airmen- COMM SIX FLT: watch commander, field commander, FTO, dispatcher, armorer, I could go on and on. But nowadays I'm just responsible for several million dollars worth of commercial and program inventory a week. If you had really been paying attention, you'd know I don't work in broadcast TV- I work in VOD. You know everything else, (epithet removed) how come you couldn't remember that? Lord Wingman isn't as omniscient as he thought. I spend most of my day verifying commercial and program content, rewriting XML metadata files, inputting media, caching media, previewing media, verifying descriptors, verifying V-Chip, verifying compliance with KidVid guidelines, capturing & encoding media, packaging CLC1.1 mpegs with the aforementioned XML files, QCing the media & XMLs AGAIN, and then finally FTPing it to the aggregators. From there it goes to the cable heads and then on to your set-top box. All of that is for one 1/2 hour show. Right now we handle about forty-three hours of programming a week- one-half hour program takes about four hours from input to FTP. Next month we jump to 140 hours. I'm very proud of the job I do and I do it well- won quite a few awards for it. If you want to denigrate it, fine. (Didn't really want to get in pissing contest about jobs, but since you brought it up...) Bringing home 60K a year to do it is fucking fine by me. Make fun all you want. I'm getting paid.
Gee the last time I read something that interesting was the vomit bag on the back of the Airplane seat. Or maybe the pamphlet on Texas insurance liability , I can’t decide. But I guess all that makes you the premier expert on global warming . Including Al Gore’s comments that you never even bothered to listen to.
Are you done trolling and hijacking my thread with your pompous self-important bloviations about how your job/life/past experience makes you better and more important than everyone else around here?
And I guess I'm just a cold-hearted bastard.
Indeed , you are.
(Sidebar)
Here’s what’s so great about conservative ideology . They pretend to be compassionate while villainizing the victims. Every single time . No really, try asking a conservative, ANY conservative , about anyone who’s suffering . Be it Darfur, Homeless people, The victims of Katrina , whatever . The conservative may, or may not say at some point say they feel sorry for these people . But in every one of these conversations, whoever is suffering ? It’s their own damn fault. Don’t take my word for it, try it with your own favorite conservative tonight .
J.K.s' responses in this thread about Darfur are a truly classic example. First he says , "I don’t give a shit." Then he stops to think that it might make him look bad . And quickly amends his comment in his next post , his first response is his true one. A little later he accuses them of savagery , “ How Am I supposed to feel compassion for these people if they go around killing each other for little or no reason” ( nevermind the comments lack of accuracy ) He absolves himself of any moral obligation by villainizing the victims.
This way he can still pretend to himself and others he’s a good guy. That he cares about people who are worth caring about.
Yet notice , if and when any tragedy, great or small, befalls him ( or any conservative) it will always be someone else’s fault. Usually the Goddamn Liberals. ACoE comes to mind.
This is part of the reason Global Warming became a political issue. At first they denied it existed at all . Admitting it would’ve meant admitting a part of the responsibility for it. (Everyone is partly responsible) Since they can no longer deny the globe is warming, they continue casting propaganda and doubt about what causes it.
Everybody watching this ? Victims in Darfur get dehumanized, while oil companies are defended with great fervor and undying support for making record profits off the war they created, to stem the flow. And by raping Americans during a national catastrophy.
Speak ill of the oil companies and watch conservatives get all uppity about how the government and/or environmentalists are to blame for the high prices. To hear consevatives tell it the oil companies are the victim of high prices.
(End sidebar)
Do you fall on your knees and weep every time a Christian Childrens Fund PSA comes on the boob toob?
No , but I have donated and volunteered to other charitable organizations. And will again in the future , even though I make less money, and have less free time than you.
I’d offer a list but you wouldn’t read it anyway.
Maybe I really meant to run over that squirrel this morning.
Squirrel was asking for it , it was his own damn fault . He should’ve seen you coming. Why the fuck was he in the road anyway , stupid animal. He should’ve pulled himself outta the way with his own bootstraps, that’s what you woulda done. If that squirrel wasn’t on welfare in the first place…
Bottom line, what empathy I have in my heart is none of your goddamn business.
Long as you keep trolling , flame-baiting, and derailing my thread... I’m makin’ it my business.
What you see of me here isn't who I am. Hell, I really could be Dick Cheney... you don't fucking really know, do you?
No, but lawyer season starts in September. Just FYI.
You honestly think you can sum me up in two thousand five hundred-some-odd posts?
Right , keep playing victim , when you decided to make this personal. Keep playing victim when you only came to this thread to add disparaging remarks and shit on the facts like the good little oil company shill you are.
Keep pretending and maybe someone who just started reading at this point will buy your side of the story . “ Gotta catapult the propaganda “
I could just be doing all this in an attempt to push you into an early stroke.
Gonna hafta try harder.
Ever thought about that? Maybe I really do believe the sky is falling...
You still under the impression I give a shit what you believe ?
And I wasn't implying anything about how much free time you have to keep this bullshit up
Yes you were . But go ahead and play dumb , play the victim when it suits you. Keep back-paddling
I was saying right out loud. You have too much fucking free time to be worrying about my opinions.
And you apparently have time to troll my thread . And make personal attacks at me for mine. You started in Post #10.
Back to global warming- who is paying for these scientists you're holding up on high?
If you had any interest in the truth you’d research it yourself . Get back to me when find out who funded the research of 100,000 scientists.
I’ll be waiting longer for that than for you to prove you’re not a liar by sourcing your Al Gore quote.
Tick. Tick .Tick.
But I'm not doing anymore leg-work for a ________ who wont read the answers anyway.
As to the Sun that you say isn't burning brighter- saw an interresting article today- the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate... on Mars.
I’d like to see that article.
And I didn’t say the sun wasn’t burning brighter. I quoted Sami Solanki (who incidentally was nice enough to respond to my e-mail ) and here’s the EXACT SAME quote again for your reading disability to disregard.
", He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.
Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
And if I want to live in denial about gloab warming, who the fuck are you to tell me I'm wrong for that?
Someone who studies researches and knows the facts on this issue.
Who the fuck are you to disparage me for mine ?
Oh right ! A genius who gets paid to watch TV.
And my misquotes? I never actually quoted any body.I provided a few- a couple- of links to articles, but I never quoted anybody. (Must've gone back and edited those when I wrote this, I am a lying fucktard afterall...)
Again for your reading disability. And Faulty Memory
Which is precisely what the global warming crowd is doing. Listening to Al Gore and his follower(s), you'd think the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything. Junk science.
Al Gore never said anything of that sort. But then YOU would never listen to anything Al Gore said anyway . Still, you’re happy to go around purveying your bullshit as if it were true. Also note the parenthesis around the S . You want to explain what you meant by that ? You came here making this a personal attack from the beginning. But keep pretending you’re the victim.
Seems to be working so well for ya.
Long and short of it- you're the one who escalated this bullshit,
Your fact-checking ability is beyond reproach.
with the name calling and wishing for my extinction. I'm not playing victim,
More opinion ? How do I tell ?
just pointing out a FACT
Just pointing out, you wouldn’t know a fact if it flew across the room, attached itself to your face, and laid it’s eggs in your head.
Hell, I called you on it and you came back with more! (Cletus, Buford, fat-ass, a few more fucktards, think I saw a moron in there somewhere)
You earned ‘em all, Einstein
Never mind THE FACT that after I called you on it you keep regurgitating Sami Solanki’s old quote, to support your flailing argument. Instead of accepting the recent one.
He’s a really nice guy by the way, see if he responds to your e-mail.
Zens7s
06-27-2006, 11:23 PM
Here’s what’s so great about conservative ideology . They pretend to be compassionate while villainizing the victims. Every single time . No really, try asking a conservative, ANY conservative , about anyone who’s suffering . Be it Darfur, Homeless people, The victims of Katrina , whatever . The conservative may, or may not say at some point say they feel sorry for these people . But in every one of these conversations, whoever is suffering ? It’s their own damn fault. Don’t take my word for it, try it with your own favorite conservative tonight .
So it is not acceptable for people to lump you into a single minded ideology, but it is ok for you to do so?
Ask me people! I will be your "favorite conservative tonight". Do I think that there are disasters in the world where the victims had no control over there circumstances? Yes. Are there people in this world who take what life gives them and overcome it? Yes, tons, and they are admirable and deserve all our attention and effort and praise.
Do I also think that there are a vast amount of "victims" in this country who spend all their time blaming someone else for what has happened to them instead of investing the same energy in making positive moves to get out of despair. Yep. There are people who define themselves by their own depravity.
Personal responsibility isn't a belief attached to any political party. It isn't conservative, liberal, or middle of the road. It's a personal belief and if you want to nail me for having that belief and voting conservative then fine.
I think that fits nicely into your argument above. Now let's villanize me for my lack of compassion.
By-tor
06-27-2006, 11:34 PM
http://cs-people.bu.edu/jching/photo/thumb_catfight.jpg (http://cs-people.bu.edu/jching/photo/catfight.jpg)
SPHHHHT!!! SPHHHTTT!!
Still haven’t seen you back up what you said about Al Gore. Still waiting on that quote. Al Gore speaks for himself. Contrary to your belief, I have listened to the man, I've read his book- unlike you, I didn't anotate it (or keep it around) I made my mind up about the man and his scientific credentials long, long ago.
No you just insinuated that I have no life and no writing skills, amongst other things. I wasn't insinuating. I was saying right up front- you have way too much free time to be bothering with this. Instead of fucking around with this tripe, why don't you go work for some of your charities or something.
I’m not insecure enough for willfully ignorant thoughts, comments, or misconceptions about my person to bother me . Fire away . I'm not into name calling. Glad you finally realized how that made you look.
Gee the last time I read something that interesting was the vomit bag on the back of the Airplane seat. Or maybe the pamphlet on Texas insurance liability , I can’t decide. But I guess all that makes you the premier expert on global warming . Including Al Gore’s comments that you never even bothered to listen to. Well, you're the one who made your self seem so damn important in the first place, going on about how people would die if you fucked up at your job, quote "Where if you fuck up just a little bit, people could die.", insinuating that I don't know what that responsibility is like.
Have you ever truly held someone's life in your hand? Have you ever been in a situation that demanded that kind of a decision? Have you ever looked another person in the eye, knowing that you had the power to take this person's life in that instant, and they're looking right back in your eyes, knowing that you're willing to do it if you have to?
I doubt it.
You don't have the constitution for it.
Are you done trolling and hijacking my thread with your pompous self-important bloviations about how your job/life/past experience makes you better and more important than everyone else around here? Self-important bloviations? The only time I talked about myself was in response to your malicious comments. Pompous? Look at the volumes of (cut and paste) you have to use to support this image you have of yourself.
Indeed , you are. No, not really.
(Sidebar)
Here’s what’s so great about conservative ideology . They pretend to be compassionate while villainizing the victims. Every single time . No really, try asking a conservative, ANY conservative , about anyone who’s suffering . Be it Darfur, Homeless people, The victims of Katrina , whatever . The conservative may, or may not say at some point say they feel sorry for these people . But in every one of these conversations, whoever is suffering ? It’s their own damn fault. Don’t take my word for it, try it with your own favorite conservative tonight . I think Zens answered that pretty damn well.
J.K.s' responses in this thread about Darfur are a truly classic example. First he says , "I don’t give a shit." Then he stops to think that it might make him look bad . And quickly amends his comment in his next post , his first response is his true one. A little later he accuses them of savagery , “ How Am I supposed to feel compassion for these people if they go around killing each other for little or no reason” ( nevermind the comments lack of accuracy ) He absolves himself of any moral obligation by villainizing the victims. I really don't have a problem with saying I don't give a shit about Darfur- and it's for the reasons I stated. And just who is victimizing the poor people of Darfur? Let me guess -big oil (read: USA) Who is responsible for the genocidal civil war that is raging in that region? I'm not victimizing them and I'm not villainizing them- they're pretty much doing that to themselves. If they'd stop killing each other and began using all that energy and emotion in a positive way, then they begin to help themselves. But right now, dropping crates of food won't do any good- remember Somolia? Sending in doctors to inocculte the children? Remember Sierra Leone? Here's a source about the genocide in Darfur (http://www.darfurgenocide.org/), just one of many, since you like links so much. Or should I cut and paste?
This way he can still pretend to himself and others he’s a good guy. That he cares about people who are worth caring about.
Yet notice , if and when any tragedy, great or small, befalls him ( or any conservative) it will always be someone else’s fault. Usually the Goddamn Liberals. ACoE comes to mind. No, I've never blamed any one else for my misfortunes. If someone has wronged me- I will point that out. But if I fuck up- I don't blame everyone else. You seem to be hung up on this 'victim' bullshit- funny, I don't feel like a victim. Afterall, I'm the one who "hijacked" your thread. Project much?
This is part of the reason Global Warming became a political issue. At first they denied it existed at all . Admitting it would’ve meant admitting a part of the responsibility for it. (Everyone is partly responsible) Since they can no longer deny the globe is warming, they continue casting propaganda and doubt about what causes it. Again, I doubt you have any concept of what real responsiblity is. I don't deny the Earth is warming up- facts show that we went up a whole degree over the last hundred years. The global climate is cyclical. Ask any geologist and/or archeologist. (Which, incidentally, is where climatologist get their information about the global climate prior to the inception of modern weather recording instruments) It was my college geology professor I was quoting when I said "global warming is bullshit."
Everybody watching this ? Victims in Darfur get dehumanized, while oil companies are defended with great fervor and undying support for making record profits off the war they created, to stem the flow. And by raping Americans during a national catastrophy. The court found NO evidence of any kind of price-fixing or collusion on the part of big oil. Ever. Investigation after investigation has shown no such activities. Your girl Pelosi has gone on to say that they will keep investigating until they find the proof, because they (and you) have already decided that oil companies are evil and should be extinct, to use your vernacular.
Speak ill of the oil companies and watch conservatives get all uppity about how the government and/or environmentalists are to blame for the high prices. To hear consevatives tell it the oil companies are the victim of high prices.
(End sidebar) The oil companies are victims. Victims of over-regulation. Victims of evironmentalism run amok. In a free market economy, one would imagine that growth of industry and commerce would be encouraged. But as far as oil is concenred- no. They're evil, right? Can't explore and drill new sites. Can't build new refineries (no new ones in last 30 years) God forbid, they want to build a new supply line anywhere. It's simple supply and demand! Next to China, the US has the greatest demand for oil in the world- we're a huge nation, 300 million people- vast wide open spaces and an independent streak a mile wide. Right now, supply barely meets demand. Why? Because overly-restrictive environmental regulations prevent any real developement on the supply side! I would love to have a car that I could fill up with a water hose. I've dreamed about that since I was kid- my mom still has the drawing I did of one in the eighth grade. But right now, the world runs on oil. The infrastructure is built to handle oil and gas. That can't be replaced overnight, or even in a decade. Until the demand for alternative fuels is greater, why can't the oil industry be allowed to improve? Why can't new refineries be built? Why can't new sites be explored and drilled? Who's keeping who down when it comes to the gas pump?
No , but I have donated and volunteered to other charitable organizations. And will again in the future , even though I make less money, and have less free time than you.
I’d offer a list but you wouldn’t read it anyway. No, I wouldn't. If you have to tell everyone about all the charities you have donated to, odds are pretty good you're not really doing it out of the kindness of your heart. Who are you trying to impress?
Squirrel was asking for it , it was his own damn fault . He should’ve seen you coming. Why the fuck was he in the road anyway , stupid animal. He should’ve pulled himself outta the way with his own bootstraps, that’s what you woulda done. If that squirrel wasn’t on welfare in the first place… Man, you must hate squirrels. Geez- what a cold-hearted bastard. I was pretty upset about it all day. I was upset for week when I had to kill a water moccasin in my backyard. Dude, have some compassion. They're animals- just like people.
Long as you keep trolling , flame-baiting, and derailing my thread... I’m makin’ it my business. I thought and I quote "That means I don’t care what you believe" If you don't care what I believe, then why are you trying so damn hard to convert me? You think I'm sexy or something? You like tattoos? If people really wanted to talk about Al Gore's movie, people would post about it.
Oh, and how come the distributors took his name off the movie posters? He's the director, the producer, and the freakin' star for crying out loud!
No, but lawyer season starts in September. Just FYI. Yeah, they taste great with lemon butter.
Right , keep playing victim , when you decided to make this personal. Keep playing victim when you only came to this thread to add disparaging remarks and shit on the facts like the good little oil company shill you are.
Keep pretending and maybe someone who just started reading at this point will buy your side of the story . “ Gotta catapult the propaganda “
Again with the victim crap- you haven't done anything to make me feel like a victim. Yeah, you called me fucktard, Cletus, liar... You even wished I would become extinct. I wasn't crying about it- just pointing out how you, the bigger man with such higher morals than me, felt it necessary to denigrate me in that way because your volumous posts couldn't sway me from my arguement. I still think your projecting. Look who's whing about hijacked threads, trolling and flame-baiting. It's not my fault you look like an ass- you're doing a good job of that all on your own.
Gonna hafta try harder. You're easy. I know this keeps you up at night. Me? I slept like a lamb last night. In fact, I went to sleep with a smile on my face, dreaming about warm fuzzy kittens. This is just plain fun for me.
You still under the impression I give a shit what you believe ? Look back at this thread. You've spent more time and effort in this thread in the past hree days than you have on any other topic in these boards in the past month. No! Pshaw! I didn't get under your skin!
Yes you were . But go ahead and play dumb , play the victim when it suits you. Keep back-paddling Again, if you would stop picking apart my reponses word by word, I wasn't insinuating- I was putting it right out there for anyone with a reading comprehension level above the sixth grade to understand. You whine like little girl with a skinned up knee.
And you apparently have time to troll my thread . And make personal attacks at me for mine. You started in Post #10. Post #10, which seems to be what really set you off for some reason, was a broad generalization of environmental kooks and pretty much opnion. MY opinion. But this is, afterall your thread. All opinions are welcome as long as they're the same as yours, right? How's that for a generalized statement about someone's political leanings?
If you had any interest in the truth you’d research it yourself . Get back to me when find out who funded the research of 100,000 scientists.
I’ll be waiting longer for that than for you to prove you’re not a liar by sourcing your Al Gore quote.
Tick. Tick .Tick.
But I'm not doing anymore leg-work for a ________ who wont read the answers anyway. I already know who funded them- looked it up several months ago. It was a rhetorical question, Mister Smarty Pants. And I never actually quoted Al Gore. I know, I went back and looked. See, I'm able to read what someone else writes and can distill it down and use it to form my own opinions. I don't need to cut and paste.
I’d like to see that article.
And I didn’t say the sun wasn’t burning brighter. I quoted Sami Solanki (who incidentally was nice enough to respond to my e-mail ) and here’s the EXACT SAME quote again for your reading disability to disregard.
", He says that based on his team's research, the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20 to 30 years.
Just how large this role is, must still be investigated," he says, "since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide." Here's one (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html). And right there in the quote you provided, it would seem that your bud there has already made up his mind about greenhouse gases and the Sun is inconsequential at best.
Someone who studies researches and knows the facts on this issue.
Who the fuck are you to disparage me for mine ?
Oh right ! A genius who gets paid to watch TV. I'm not disparaging you for having opinions. I think you're wrong. But I'm not going to tell you you're a fucktard for believing what you believe. Here again, it would seem it's okay to have an opinion as long as it's yours.
And you KNOW you wish you had my job.
Again for your reading disability. And Faulty Memory I read just fine, thank you.
Al Gore never said anything of that sort. But then YOU would never listen to anything Al Gore said anyway . Still, you’re happy to go around purveying your bullshit as if it were true. Also note the parenthesis around the S . You want to explain what you meant by that ? You came here making this a personal attack from the beginning. But keep pretending you’re the victim.
Seems to be working so well for ya. Damn, you think everyone's a victim.
What I meant with paranthetical 's' was that the number of people who believe Al Gore's propaganda, in relation to the rest of the world, is infinitessimal at best. You're the one who read waaaay too far into it. Lighten up, slappy.
Your fact-checking ability is beyond reproach. If you want to check my information, use Google like everyone else.
More opinion ? How do I tell ? I dunno, maybe it's that reading comprehension thing you were going on about.
Just pointing out, you wouldn’t know a fact if it flew across the room, attached itself to your face, and laid it’s eggs in your head. And you know this because... I don't agree with you? That speaks volumes about you. Volumes.
You earned ‘em all, Einstein
Never mind THE FACT that after I called you on it you keep regurgitating Sami Solanki’s old quote, to support your flailing argument. Instead of accepting the recent one.
He’s a really nice guy by the way, see if he responds to your e-mail. Again, I never actually quoted ANYONE. And it seems the only way I "earned" the monikers you have applied to me is through disagreeing with you. Again, that says a lot about you.
Zens7s
06-28-2006, 01:59 PM
http://cs-people.bu.edu/jching/photo/thumb_catfight.jpg (http://cs-people.bu.edu/jching/photo/catfight.jpg)
SPHHHHT!!! SPHHHTTT!!
Nice pussy!
Nice pussy!
That's what I said... d'oh!
By-tor
06-28-2006, 02:20 PM
Nice pussy!Thanks, I just had this stuffed.
http://www.entm.purdue.edu/Wildlife/BEAVER5.jpg
Mighty Wingman
06-28-2006, 11:52 PM
Al Gore speaks for himself.
And when or where did he ever say anything like “the world was one big happy place with moderate seasons and no hurricanes and so on and so forth until the evil industrial complex (read: USA) came along and began destroying everything.”
Still here ? Your fiancee getting jealous yet because you spend more time with me ?
Can you even prove you have a fiancee or a job ? Hmm?
Contrary to your belief, I have listened to the man, I've read his book-
Wait ! You can read ?
For some reason I get a picture of a monkey in a diaper holding a book upside down and scratching his head.
unlike you,
I thought the panthietic spirituality aspect was a bit overdone , and he failed to drive home some his more crucial points,. He’s not an especially skilled writer , And I didn’t find it very interesting at the time, but that’s just my opinion. I did agree with the idea that God put us here to be stewards of his planet , not exploiters of it . And that all life is connected.
Glad you know everything about me.
But now you’ll try to say it was a trick question. And call me a sheep for having read the book.
Read it to a cancer patient, by the way .
didn't anotate it (or keep it around) I made my mind up about the man and his scientific credentials long, long ago.
That’s a given. I never liked his bitch wife much, tryin’ to take profanity my out of my music. Who does she think she is ? A moral leader?
wasn't insinuating. I was saying right up front- you have way too much free time to be bothering with this. Instead of fucking around with this tripe, why don't you go work for some of your charities or something.
Ditto , why don’t you drag your knuckles down to the local hillbilly bar and swill beer with the rest of the Neanderthals. Bitch about how Clintons blowjob Fucked America all up and it was worth all the tax-money you spent getting it pointed out.
I'm not into name calling. Glad you finally realized how that made you look.
Yeah, you’ve really proven that.
Well, you're the one who made your self seem so damn important in the first place, going on about how people would die if you fucked up at your job, quote "Where if you fuck up just a little bit, people could die.", insinuating that I don't know what that responsibility is like.
Is that what I was insinuating? Again, glad you know everything about me , do you work for the NSA?
Have you ever truly held someone's life in your hand?
Yeah, and they fuckin’ died, so I guess you can be judge now.
Have you ever been in a situation that demanded that kind of a decision? Have you ever looked another person in the eye, knowing that you had the power to take this person's life in that instant, and they're looking right back in your eyes, knowing that you're willing to do it if you have to?
I doubt it.
You don't have the constitution for it.
I’m not self-important enough to waste the time and bore the people here by pretending my life makes more interesting conversation than theirs. That’s your game.
Self-important bloviations? The only time I talked about myself was in response to your malicious comments. Pompous? Look at the volumes of (cut and paste) you have to use to support this image you have of yourself.
Oh right again, you know it all . Why don’t you save me the time and tell everyone here my whole life story ? Where I went to school , the first girl I kissed , what my first car was , who my grandfather was. And especially when my constitution was written. Apparently it was written by you . So you should know.
I think Zens answered that pretty damn well.
I think you need other people to answer tough questions for you .
But I’m not going make myself a fucktard by commenting on something I haven’t, and wont read.
That’s your game . “To listen to Al Gore and his follower(s) tell it.”
I really don't have a problem with saying I don't give a shit about Darfur
That’s what Jesus would do. Conservative Jesus anyway.
remember Somolia?
Yeah and it was fucked up , but at least our hearts were in the right place that time.
No, I've never blamed any one else for my misfortunes.
Prod me on this , please , dare me to find you blaming your problems on someone else.
Afterall, I'm the one who "hijacked" your thread. Project much?
And then you play the victim after I start giving you tastes of your own medicine. You're the master projector
Again, I doubt you have any concept of what real responsiblity is.
Then you better get started on my Biography .
I don't deny the Earth is warming up
Why don’t you dare me on that one too. Bet I can find a place where did.
It was my college geology professor I was quoting when I said "global warming is bullshit."
I thought you said you never went to college. How many lives are you living here . Guess it’s hard to keep track.
The court found NO evidence of any kind of price-fixing or collusion on the part of big oil.
You mean a court, in this country, for big oil, and by big oil, found them not guilty ? Inconcievable !
The court found Clinton Not Guilty, too . But he was sworn in before his testimony , see if you’re not sworn you can lie and it’s not a crime.
The facts are , oh why bother you hate those, But tell me how they made record windfall profits while selling less gas ? Try not bust a vessel in your head while you do.
Investigation after investigation has shown no such activities.
I remember one , the fake investigation, but if you can find a link…
Your girl Pelosi has gone on to say that they will keep investigating until they find the proof, because they
My girl ? (my girl , my girl ) talkin’ bout myhii giiiirl.
my girl.
Why bother ? Really . I mean Spectre acted like them being asked to testify under oath , ( And according to law ) was a shocking travesty . If they could get the charges through the senate Bush would just pardon them anyway.
(and you) have already decided that oil companies are evil and should be extinct, to use your vernacular.
I posted a link a ways back , I politely asked you to read it , I don’t think you did. It was about wind farming in the Gulf , a former LA oil man wants to do it , using the technology developed from off-shore rigs. Guess who’s in the way ? The Goddamn environmentalists, they say the fan blades will kill migratory birds (And they probably will , but ). Stupid fucks want to have their cake and eat it too. I like clean energy and the jobs that it will create . Guess who would build these wind farms ? C’mon guess ?
The point ? Sorry birds , if we don’t get off of fossil fuels , there’ll be nothing for you to migrate to anyway. So fly around the goddamn wind farm already.
The other point. Clean energy does not mean damaging the economy. When I speak of backwards thinking , it goes to the oil compnies , sure , but sometimes , environmentalists too.
But you wouldn’t read it and wouldn’t acknowledge it if you did. Because there can’t possibly be any common ground here.
The oil companies are victims.
Please, the only thing that could victimize an oil company is a bigger oil company .
Victims of evironmentalism run amok
Nope sorry , you’re not allowed to agree with anything I say.
They're evil, right?
That’s what I been saying all along .
Right now, supply barely meets demand. Why?
Take a look at how many BPMs Iraq was pumping into the market prior to the ‘03 invasion .
You know that bastard Saddam was going to raise production , don’t you ?
See if you can find out how much oil Iraq put into the global market in 2002 , compare that figure with their output in 2005. Simple supply-side economics. Less of something on the market means you get to charge more for it. Or get charged more for it. Depending ...
Because overly-restrictive environmental regulations prevent any real developement on the supply side!
Is that from Exxons site or Chevrons ?
I would love to have a car that I could fill up with a water hose.
Damn, then your lake would really be dry… mine too. I think more can be done with rechargeable batteries though. I’m bout ready to trade mah blazer in for a gohldern golf cart.
But right now, the world runs on oil.
The oil companies must really hate that !
Poor fellas.
The infrastructure is built to handle oil and gas. That can't be replaced overnight, or even in a decade.
A decade sounds more than reasonable to me.
Until the demand for alternative fuels is greater,
The demand is greater !
why can't the oil industry be allowed to improve? Why can't new refineries be built? Why can't new sites be explored and drilled?
You mean like the vast shitloads sitting under Iraq ? We know where it is already. No need to explore .
No, I wouldn't. If you have to tell everyone about all the charities you have donated to, odds are pretty good you're not really doing it out of the kindness of your heart. Who are you trying to impress?
The list isn’t that long. Who were you trying to impress with your autobiography over there?
Man, you must hate squirrels.
I still have a scar. (http://moviepoopshoot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=81490&postcount=40)
Geez- what a cold-hearted bastard. I was pretty upset about it all day. I was upset for week when I had to kill a water moccasin in my backyard. Dude, have some compassion. They're animals- just like people.
Blasphemer ! Animals are nicer than people ! But not squirrels. They’re solid evil.
I thought and I quote "That means I don’t care what you believe" If you don't care what I believe, then why are you trying so damn hard to convert me?
You’re still posting here, have ya asked yourself that question ?
If people really wanted to talk about Al Gore's movie, people would post about it.
Again, you’re still posting here. Oh but that’s right you’re not people.
Oh, and how come the distributors took his name off the movie posters? He's the director, the producer, and the freakin' star for crying out loud!
Guggenheim directed , don’t know who produced , Earth, is the star, Gore’s just the narrator.
Yeah, they taste great with lemon butter.
I can see making shoes or luggage , or even wallets out of their scaly skin, but you eat lawyers ? You ! Sick ! Fuck ! I’d sooner eat an armadillo.
Again with the victim crap- you haven't done anything to make me feel like a victim. Yeah, you called me fucktard, Cletus, liar... You even wished I would become extinct. I wasn't crying about it- just pointing out how you, the bigger man with such higher morals than me, felt it necessary to denigrate me in that way because your volumous posts couldn't sway me from my arguement. I still think your projecting. Look who's whing about hijacked threads, trolling and flame-baiting. It's not my fault you look like an ass- you're doing a good job of that all on your own.
Pretty solid logic you got there.
You’re just mad because you can’t prove you didn’t say what I said you said he said . And then you said I said what you said was what I didn’t say . So I had to say what I had to say. And then you said “waaah why you gotta be namecallin ?’ “ So I said why I said what I had to say then, now I’m sayin’ you said I said something’ I never said and you’re still acting like the victim .
You started it !
You're easy. I know this keeps you up at night. Me? I slept like a lamb last night. In fact, I went to sleep with a smile on my face, dreaming about warm fuzzy kittens. This is just plain fun for me.
When you write my biography make sure you throw in everything you think you know about my sleeping habits. That’s a great strategy you got there if it weren’t so transparent.
Look back at this thread. You've spent more time and effort in this thread in the past hree days than you have on any other topic in these boards in the past month. No! Pshaw! I didn't get under your skin!
Cliché, yes , but
Pot to kettle ….
You’re right though, I’m doing this to make myself miserable.
I'm a cryin'-on-the-inside kind of clown.
Again, if you would stop picking apart my reponses word by word, I wasn't insinuating- I was putting it right out there for anyone with a reading comprehension level above the sixth grade to understand. You whine like little girl with a skinned up knee.
But you said he said something’ he didn’t say …..
Post #10, which seems to be what really set you off for some reason, was a broad generalization of environmental kooks and pretty much opnion. MY opinion. But this is, afterall your thread. All opinions are welcome as long as they're the same as yours, right? How's that for a generalized statement about someone's political leanings?
And the fact that you felt you had to post it ? How's that for a generalized statement about someone's political leanings?
I already know who funded them- looked it up several months ago.
You know who funded 100,000 scientists? I doubt it , but that’s a trick statement.
It was a rhetorical question, Mister Smarty Pants.
Did you know operating a gas powered lawn-mower for an hour emits as much air-pollution as driving a car for thirteen ? ( according to the California air resources board)
And I never actually quoted Al Gore.
“Precisely“.
I know, I went back and looked. See, I'm able to read.
I’m getting that monkey in a diaper picture again..
what someone else writes and can distill it down and use it to form my own opinions. I don't need to cut and paste.
I can tell. You haven’t used cut-n-paste anywhere in this thread .
Here's one. And right there in the quote you provided, it would seem that your bud there has already made up his mind about greenhouse gases and the Sun is inconsequential at best.
That’s pretty cool. I hope they get busy with that terra-forming , gonna need a new planet soon.
Here's another (http://moviepoopshoot.com/forums/showpost.php?p=81490&postcount=40) , I wonder if you can tell the difference between mine and yours. I mean, mines bigger , that goes with out saying , but it’s also a bit newer. And it’s built by NASA. But I wonder what other differences there might be ?
I'm not disparaging you for having opinions. I think you're wrong. But I'm not going to tell you you're a fucktard for believing what you believe. Here again, it would seem it's okay to have an opinion as long as it's yours.
I wasn’t calling you a fucktard for believing what you believe , I was calling you a fucktard for being a fucktard.
And you KNOW you wish you had my job.
Lots of people draw a check for sitting on their ass watching TV , it’s called “unemployment“.
And I don’t really wish I had your job , not that I’m crushing over mine , But I’d wish for something else , if we’re talking about wishes ? Starfighter Pilot.
I read just fine, thank you.
Monkey in a diaper….
What I meant with paranthetical 's' was that the number of people who believe Al Gore's propaganda,
The count was around 198,000 when I pledged allegiance to Al Gore.
It was about 219,000 the last time I checked.
I refer you back to your shrinking list of Ten.
But I’m just a sheep .
in relation to the rest of the world, is infinitessimal at best. You're the one who read waaaay too far into it. Lighten up, slappy.
*Sniff Sniff* Why you gotta be all namecallin’ n’ stuff ?
Oh, and what do the words "popular vote" mean to you ?
If you want to check my information, use Google like everyone else.
What’s Google ?
and you know this because... I don't agree with you? That speaks volumes about you. Volumes.
Pump up the Volume !
Pump up the volume !
Pump up the volume ! Dance !Dance !
Again, I never actually quoted ANYONE. And it seems the only way I "earned" the monikers you have applied to me is through disagreeing with you. Again, that says a lot about you.
You know what you said .
ratm1966
06-29-2006, 12:29 AM
Oh my God/Supreme Being/Higher Level of Intelligence/etc!! These posts are getting longer and longer as they go.
So, did anyone catch the new Blade TV show tonight? I missed it. Was it any good?
And when or where did he ever say... (blah, blah, blah)
...
Pump up the Volume !
Pump up the volume !
Pump up the volume ! Dance !Dance !
You know what you said .
I think I broke him.
None of that makes any sense! (the "blah blah blah" was mine- just trying to cut down on space)
Monkey in a diaper? More with the fucktard? Knuckle-dragging neanderthal? Randomly quoting song lyrics? He's so desperate to make a point, he's literally picking my sentences apart, fragment by fragment...
Should I dare him to find an instance where I blamed someone else for problems? Of course he'll find posts where I complained about people that did shit that pissed me off, but I don't recall any time that I said it was someone else's fault when I fucked something up. I take responsibilty for my life and the aspects that I can control.
Wingman, you crack me up. Do I really sound angry? Go back and re-read my reponses, but this time in a happy, gleeful tone. Because that's how I felt with every keystroke- getting people like you worked up to this point is a hobby of mine. If it weren't so damn early in the mornning and I didn't have to go to work, I'd be sitting on my deck, enjoying a glass Jack Daniels and the Macanudo Maduro I've been saving. A little celebration of sorts. Because this last post of yours is a rambling, nearly incoherent mess. I'm not gloating- I don't feel like I won anything, but dude- you're cracked.
And if you really hate and despise me so much that you'll pore over 2600-some odd posts in an attempt to prove me wrong, you need some serious help, dude. If you've already done it- well, that's a little creepy. But hey, do you what you feel you gotta do, man- whatever it takes to make you feel better about yourself.
Have a wonderful day (if you can keep the sky from falling on your head)
Zens7s
06-29-2006, 09:47 AM
DING DING DING! JK is declared the winner because that was a rambling mess of whatever in the last round.
Can fucktard really be used as a point of debate? I vote no.
I'm sure he'll be back this evening.
I'm sure it'll be something worthy of printing out and hanging on the wall...
like a trophy.
Yes, Wingman, I edited the post. I din't want to hurt your feelings.
Mighty Wingman
06-29-2006, 02:04 PM
I think I broke him.
You also think the world is flat. Goes to show how what you think is rooted in fact
None of that makes any sense!
I wouldn't expect it to for you.
But you’re right , of course, making off-hand comments about something you know nothing about makes any sense.
Monkey in a diaper?
Just the picture I get in my head when you say you “read” something . I’m not quoting or calling it fact. Or saying “That’s precisely what you are .”
More with the fucktard? Knuckle-dragging neanderthal? Randomly quoting song lyrics?
Along with the monkey in a diaper comment , do you really get the impression that an angry person wrote that ? Perception is key.
Should I dare him to find an instance where I blamed someone else for problems? Of course he'll find posts where I complained about people that did shit that pissed me off, but I don't recall any time that I said it was someone else's fault when I fucked something up. I take responsibilty for my life and the aspects that I can control.
And you expect others ( like Katrina victims , Darfur , etc ) to take responsibility for the aspects they don’t control. It's easier to assume they're all murderers ? Bad people ? Not worth caring about ?
Wingman, you crack me up.
Me too.
Do I really sound angry?
Yes , do I ?
Go back and re-read my reponses, but this time in a happy, gleeful tone. Because that's how I felt with every keystroke- getting people like you worked up to this point is a hobby of mine.
Back at you , perception and intent are often two different things.
If it weren't so damn early in the mornning and I didn't have to go to work, I'd be sitting on my deck, enjoying a glass Jack Daniels and the Macanudo Maduro I've been saving. A little celebration of sorts. Because this last post of yours is a rambling, nearly incoherent mess. I'm not gloating- I don't feel like I won anything, but dude- you're cracked.
Apparently your conception of humor is much like your conception of global warming .
But keep pretending you understand.
And if you really hate and despise me so much that you'll pore over 2600-some odd posts in an attempt to prove me wrong, you need some serious help, dude. If you've already done it- well, that's a little creepy. But hey, do you what you feel you gotta do, man- whatever it takes to make you feel better about yourself.
If you believe I hate and despise you to make you feel better about yourself , then what does that say about you ?
Have a wonderful day (if you can keep the sky from falling on your head)
You too, watch your knuckles.
I especially like the fact you can’t back up one thing you "believe" about the oil companies .
I'm sure he'll be back this evening.
Hah ! I'm early ! Wrong again .
I'm sure it'll be something worthy of printing out and hanging on the wall...
like a trophy.
If you’re pathetic enough to print out a copy of you losing an argument and call it trophy , by all means .
Yes, Wingman, I edited the post. I din't want to hurt your feelings.
As if .
Oh and bush is losing support (http://www.udargo.com/mub/2006/05/bush_losing_core_supporters.html) faster than your sides argument for global warming .
Well, in my original post, before I edited it, I predicted you'd come back and pick my post apart word by word... pretty close. Glad to see something original :rolleyes:
And when did I say the world was flat? Who's the illiterate now? Didn't you read my post? Everyone else seemed to understand it. I stated the fact that ancient Egyptians, as well as gave you the names of several ancient Greek scholars who knew the world was round WAAAAAY before Columbus was conceived. Even the King of Spain knew the world was round when Columbus walked into his court. Go back and read my post again, slappy.
You lost this round, bub. So go on and drink yourself stupid down on Sixth Street and keep telling yourself how much of a better person you are than me, how much more compassion you have than me, how much more you give to charity than me, how much of a more meaningful job you have than me. At the end of the day, you're still acting like a whiny little bitch.
Mighty Wingman
06-30-2006, 07:01 PM
Even Evangelicals are coming around. (http://www.truthbook.com/15565.cfm)
And the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster recognizes, decline of pirates causes global warming (http://www.venganza.org/) :)
Mighty Wingman
07-02-2006, 10:26 PM
Discovery Channel
Sunday, July 16th
9:00pm
"What you need to know." (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/06/22/climate_pla.html?category=earth&guid=20060622153030)
Don't Believe the Hype (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597)
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore's gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush's obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."
That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.
The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."
So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.
They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif
The other elements of the global-warming scare scenario are predicated on similar oversights. Malaria, claimed as a byproduct of warming, was once common in Michigan and Siberia and remains common in Siberia--mosquitoes don't require tropical warmth. Hurricanes, too, vary on multidecadal time scales; sea-surface temperature is likely to be an important factor. This temperature, itself, varies on multidecadal time scales. However, questions concerning the origin of the relevant sea-surface temperatures and the nature of trends in hurricane intensity are being hotly argued within the profession.
Even among those arguing, there is general agreement that we can't attribute any particular hurricane to global warming. To be sure, there is one exception, Greg Holland of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., who argues that it must be global warming because he can't think of anything else. While arguments like these, based on lassitude, are becoming rather common in climate assessments, such claims, given the primitive state of weather and climate science, are hardly compelling.
A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science.
A clearer claim as to what debate has ended is provided by the environmental journalist Gregg Easterbrook. He concludes that the scientific community now agrees that significant warming is occurring, and that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system. This is still a most peculiar claim. At some level, it has never been widely contested. Most of the climate community has agreed since 1988 that global mean temperatures have increased on the order of one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, having risen significantly from about 1919 to 1940, decreased between 1940 and the early '70s, increased again until the '90s, and remaining essentially flat since 1998.
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system. Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising impact. Thus, although the conflicted state of the affair was accurately presented in the 1996 text of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the infamous "summary for policy makers" reported ambiguously that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." This sufficed as the smoking gun for Kyoto.
The next IPCC report again described the problems surrounding what has become known as the attribution issue: that is, to explain what mechanisms are responsible for observed changes in climate. Some deployed the lassitude argument--e.g., we can't think of an alternative--to support human attribution. But the "summary for policy makers" claimed in a manner largely unrelated to the actual text of the report that "In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."
In a similar vein, the National Academy of Sciences issued a brief (15-page) report responding to questions from the White House. It again enumerated the difficulties with attribution, but again the report was preceded by a front end that ambiguously claimed that "The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability." This was sufficient for CNN's Michelle Mitchell to presciently declare that the report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse and is due to man. There is no wiggle room." Well, no.
More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
Even more recently, the Climate Change Science Program, the Bush administration's coordinating agency for global-warming research, declared it had found "clear evidence of human influences on the climate system." This, for Mr. Easterbrook, meant: "Case closed." What exactly was this evidence? The models imply that greenhouse warming should impact atmospheric temperatures more than surface temperatures, and yet satellite data showed no warming in the atmosphere since 1979. The report showed that selective corrections to the atmospheric data could lead to some warming, thus reducing the conflict between observations and models descriptions of what greenhouse warming should look like. That, to me, means the case is still very much open.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/images/storyend_dingbat.gif
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.
Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky. Mr. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
Mighty Wingman
07-03-2006, 05:08 PM
6-22-06
NEW YORK(AP) Exxon Mobil Corp. faces another lawsuit over a massive underground oil spill in Brooklyn that is still seeping sticky goo into a city waterway, decades after the leak was first noticed.
The slow pace of the cleanup has prompted residents and elected officials to launch a series of lawsuits against the oil company, and now state environmental officials want to take the issue to court, too.
An estimated 17 million gallons of petroleum once lay in a vast plume beneath the streets that was a major home to oil refineries for more than a century. Countless spills went unnoticed for decades and eventually formed a 52-acre subterranean blob.
Authorities have been aware of the problem since 1978. Exxon Mobil accepted responsibility for much of the damage in 1990 and has since pumped some 9 million gallons out of the ground.
The Department of Environmental Conservation said Wednesday it would pursue legal action against Exxon "to ensure that the company fulfills its obligation to clean up petroleum contamination" in Brooklyn.
DEC Commissioner Denise Sheehan said officials had been negotiating with Exxon in an attempt to improve the cleanup plan, but were dissatisfied with the discussions.
A spokesman for Exxon Mobile, Brian Dunphy, said he couldn't comment on the details of the negotiations or the state's complaints, but said the company was "committed to meeting our environmental responsibilities at the site."
The state also has negotiated with Chevron Corp. and BP PLC, which also had facilities in Brooklyn, but has not taken legal action against them.
================================================== ==============================
6-29-06
LAS VEGAS, N.M.(AP) The drought in this community is now so severe that water isn't provided with restaurant meals unless a diner requests it, and then it's served in a paper cup. Car washes operate only two days each week.
The hotel pools are empty, and long-term guests must ask if they want linens changed more than once every four days.
"I sleep, eat and drink with worries about how we're going to get through this," said Richard Trujillo, the city's utilities administrator. "When it hasn't snowed or rained, people will want to know, 'What are you doing to solve this?' "
As in much of the Southwest, the high desert lands of New Mexico are locked in another drought cycle this summer, with wildfires raging in tinder-dry forests. According to the National Weather Service, statewide precipitation for May was 36 percent of the normal amount _ the seventh straight excessively dry month.
Santa Fe has received only 1.2 inches of precipitation during the seven-month period since November, the lowest in 133 years of record keeping. The 0.41 inches in Albuquerque is the lowest in 114 years of data.
And in Las Vegas, a community along the eastern edge of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the 60-month data show precipitation 18.71 inches below normal, according to Charlie Liles, meteorologist in charge of the Weather Service in Albuquerque.
"That's essentially a year's precipitation over a five-year period," Liles said.
As a result, Las Vegas has imposed some of New Mexico's most restrictive water rules. Outdoor watering has been banned since last fall, leaving lawns withering in once-lush neighborhoods.
Deborah Martinez, who has lived for 42 years in the stately Victorian home where she grew up, gave up her vegetable garden this year. Where her grass hasn't yellowed, it has blown away, and the morning glories that once grew on her fence are history.
She and her husband, William, can only watch as the roses and vines adorning their porch wither. They've even begun to share their bath water.
"We'd rather have survival water," Mrs. Martinez said as the two sat on a porch swing. "It's OK if everything dies, as long as we don't."
Las Vegas relies almost entirely on surface water. Melting snowpack and rainfall collects to form the Gallinas River, and 98 percent of the water for the town's 18,000 residents is stored in two reservoirs in the mountains above town. The river then trickles through the meadows of Las Vegas, barely ankle-deep and a few yards wide this summer.
"Through the '70s and '80s, you'd usually see spring runoff last into June," Trujillo recalled. "By the middle of July, we'd get into the monsoon season. There was always enough water. It was like clockwork."
But the clock seems broken. It wasn't a snowy winter this year. And as months pass without rain, city reserves have dropped to 50 percent of capacity _ enough to last only into September unless monsoonal rains sweep across New Mexico as they usually do in July and August.
Liles said forecasting models suggest precipitation should be close to average in July and August, meaning the late-summer downpours may be coming.
But he offered a word of caution: The most recent years for poor snowpack in New Mexico were 2000 and 2002 _ close together over the 56-year study span. Liles wonders whether those years might indicate a trend toward deepening drought.
Despite the water restrictions, Trujillo said there have been few complaints. Residents are consuming about 1.3 million gallons daily, compared with 2.8 million gallons during normal usage last year.
"Our citizens have been great," Trujillo said. "We've been working since 2000 to implement year-round awareness programs to help conserve water during the droughts, and the response has been outstanding."
And to anyone who may be swayed by the arguments of Richard Lindzen.
Note the following from the much overrated wikipedia :
"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] Climatologist James Annan,[17] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[18] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[19] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[20]
In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.[21]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's response.[22]). "
Lindzen was one of the six I e-mailed personally to see if he would put his money where his mouth is, and one of the five whose response is still pending ( I don't expect one ). Any who wish to e-mail him personally, can do so from here. (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm)
6-22-06
NEW YORK(AP) Exxon Mobil Corp. faces another lawsuit over a massive underground oil spill in Brooklyn that is still seeping sticky goo into a city waterway, decades after the leak was first noticed.
The slow pace of the cleanup has prompted residents and elected officials to launch a series of lawsuits against the oil company, and now state environmental officials want to take the issue to court, too.
An estimated 17 million gallons of petroleum once lay in a vast plume beneath the streets that was a major home to oil refineries for more than a century. Countless spills went unnoticed for decades and eventually formed a 52-acre subterranean blob.
Authorities have been aware of the problem since 1978. Exxon Mobil accepted responsibility for much of the damage in 1990 and has since pumped some 9 million gallons out of the ground.
The Department of Environmental Conservation said Wednesday it would pursue legal action against Exxon "to ensure that the company fulfills its obligation to clean up petroleum contamination" in Brooklyn.
DEC Commissioner Denise Sheehan said officials had been negotiating with Exxon in an attempt to improve the cleanup plan, but were dissatisfied with the discussions.
A spokesman for Exxon Mobile, Brian Dunphy, said he couldn't comment on the details of the negotiations or the state's complaints, but said the company was "committed to meeting our environmental responsibilities at the site."
The state also has negotiated with Chevron Corp. and BP PLC, which also had facilities in Brooklyn, but has not taken legal action against them.
This has what do with global warming? Or are you still insisting that I'm somehow in cahoots with Big Oil? I wish I were, then I wouldn't have to worry about my mortgage.
================================================== ==============================
6-29-06
LAS VEGAS, N.M.(AP) The drought in this community is now so severe that water isn't provided with restaurant meals unless a diner requests it, and then it's served in a paper cup. Car washes operate only two days each week.
The hotel pools are empty, and long-term guests must ask if they want linens changed more than once every four days.
"I sleep, eat and drink with worries about how we're going to get through this," said Richard Trujillo, the city's utilities administrator. "When it hasn't snowed or rained, people will want to know, 'What are you doing to solve this?' "
As in much of the Southwest, the high desert lands of New Mexico are locked in another drought cycle this summer, with wildfires raging in tinder-dry forests. According to the National Weather Service, statewide precipitation for May was 36 percent of the normal amount _ the seventh straight excessively dry month.
Santa Fe has received only 1.2 inches of precipitation during the seven-month period since November, the lowest in 133 years of record keeping. The 0.41 inches in Albuquerque is the lowest in 114 years of data.
And in Las Vegas, a community along the eastern edge of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, the 60-month data show precipitation 18.71 inches below normal, according to Charlie Liles, meteorologist in charge of the Weather Service in Albuquerque.
"That's essentially a year's precipitation over a five-year period," Liles said.
As a result, Las Vegas has imposed some of New Mexico's most restrictive water rules. Outdoor watering has been banned since last fall, leaving lawns withering in once-lush neighborhoods.
Deborah Martinez, who has lived for 42 years in the stately Victorian home where she grew up, gave up her vegetable garden this year. Where her grass hasn't yellowed, it has blown away, and the morning glories that once grew on her fence are history.
She and her husband, William, can only watch as the roses and vines adorning their porch wither. They've even begun to share their bath water.
"We'd rather have survival water," Mrs. Martinez said as the two sat on a porch swing. "It's OK if everything dies, as long as we don't."
Las Vegas relies almost entirely on surface water. Melting snowpack and rainfall collects to form the Gallinas River, and 98 percent of the water for the town's 18,000 residents is stored in two reservoirs in the mountains above town. The river then trickles through the meadows of Las Vegas, barely ankle-deep and a few yards wide this summer.
"Through the '70s and '80s, you'd usually see spring runoff last into June," Trujillo recalled. "By the middle of July, we'd get into the monsoon season. There was always enough water. It was like clockwork."
But the clock seems broken. It wasn't a snowy winter this year. And as months pass without rain, city reserves have dropped to 50 percent of capacity _ enough to last only into September unless monsoonal rains sweep across New Mexico as they usually do in July and August.
Liles said forecasting models suggest precipitation should be close to average in July and August, meaning the late-summer downpours may be coming.
But he offered a word of caution: The most recent years for poor snowpack in New Mexico were 2000 and 2002 _ close together over the 56-year study span. Liles wonders whether those years might indicate a trend toward deepening drought.
Despite the water restrictions, Trujillo said there have been few complaints. Residents are consuming about 1.3 million gallons daily, compared with 2.8 million gallons during normal usage last year.
"Our citizens have been great," Trujillo said. "We've been working since 2000 to implement year-round awareness programs to help conserve water during the droughts, and the response has been outstanding."
It's crying shame, but you know what? They live in a DESERT. Why do you think early settlers passed right through on their way to California? This just proves my point that in the face of Mother Nature, man is insignificant. We can build all the resevoirs we want, but if it doesn't rain, they ain't gonna fill.
And one would deduce that with hotter global temperatures and the melting ice caps, that there'd more water available for more evaporation- but where is that water going? You've already said you don't believe water vapor is the most plentiful greenhouse gas, so it must be going to... outer space? Or is it a big conspiracy with Big Oil- they've already invented cars that run on water but they won't release them to the market until they control the world's water supply? Is that it? Do I get a tin-foil hat when I sign on to your organization or do I have to provide my own?
And to anyone who may be swayed by the arguments of Richard Lindzen.
Note the following from the much overrated wikipedia :
"The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now."[16] Climatologist James Annan,[17] who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase,[18] contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet.[19] Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor and that no bet occurred.[20]
In response, Lindzen denied telling Reason that he would bet at 1:1 odds that temperatures would be lower in 20 years than they are now, and stated that he would only bet if offered "much higher odds." According to Lindzen, he and Annan exchanged proposals for bets, but were unable to agree.[21]. (Annan subsequently responded to Lindzen's response.[22]). "
[23] [24] [25]... What is that? Some sort of secret code? Or did you get sloppy with the cut and paste? I don't trust anything from wikipedia, especially since any schlub can come along and edit an entry anyway they choose.
Lindzen was one of the six I e-mailed personally to see if he would put his money where his mouth is, and one of the five whose response is still pending ( I don't expect one ). Any who wish to e-mail him personally, can do so from here. (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm)
And did you really expect him to take a bet from some (relative) nobody? I can't really speak for him, but I can say I never make bets with strangers. Odds are good that they never pay up.
jjcourtright
07-05-2006, 12:49 PM
One of the essays in The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer is entitled Lisa and American Anti-intellectualism. It seems to be quite apt to the debate, both here and nationwide, over global warming. It talks about the love-hate relationship that Americans tend to have with intellectuals. "Everyone respects a historian, yet a historian's opinion may be disregarded on the grounds that it is 'no more valid' than that of the 'working man.'" the essay says. It goes on to suggest that due to our belief in "all men are created equal," we tend to extend that to also mean "my opinion is equal to yours" even when, based on expertise, that is not really the case.
Just wanted to throw that out.
Threadkiller
07-05-2006, 01:25 PM
I think it goes deeper than that. People don't like it when someone is smarter than them. That's why a successful politician is plenty smart but never appears intellectual or uses big words. That's why super villains are so often geniuses while the heroes that defeat them are usually good-natured fellas with average intelligence. We fear and loathe that which we don't understand. That's why I hate most everyone, because they all act like they are smarter than me. But I know better ;)
Also, I didn't read the entire argument above but I did see Gore's movie and was pretty disappointed. It was exactly the type of propaganda I expected. I think he would have done much more to further his cause if he had made a documentary that wasn't designed to manipulate the audience and their emotions. Not sure if this has already been brought up but the quote from Al Gore at http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
pretty much summed up the movie for me.
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. "
I believe that he underestimates and insults the audience's intelligence. Americans may not have the best scholastic scores but they have the the most highly developed bullshit detectors in the world.
jjcourtright
07-05-2006, 02:38 PM
I think it goes deeper than that. People don't like it when someone is smarter than them. That's why a successful politician is plenty smart but never appears intellectual or uses big words. That gets touched on in the essay, too:Populist commentators and politicians frequently exploit this resentment of expertise while relying on it as it suits them, for example when a candidate attacks his opponent for being an "Ivy League elitist" while in fact being a product of (or relying on advisers from) a similar educational background.
"I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis. " Over the weekend, Andrew Sullivan made a comparison (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/07/global_warming_.html)between global warming and the run-up to the war in Iraq. He basically argues that in both cases the pro position was so alarmingly argued that it made the real debate impossible to have. Here's part of it:In both cases, however, the evidence is complicated and hard to pin down with absolute certainty. We know we are at much greater risk now from Islamist terror than we were a decade ago - but measuring how much, and where from specifically, is very hard. Equally, we know that global warming is real, but whether it has reached or will soon reach a dangerous tipping point is not a given. And in both cases, the entire argument rests a great deal on what we do not and cannot know. It seems to me prudent to take both risks seriously, but not so seriously that we abandon objective, empirical judgment. If such judgment had been in more evidence four years ago, the Iraq WMD intelligence debacle might have been avoided.
Threadkiller
07-05-2006, 02:55 PM
He basically argues that in both cases the pro position was so alarmingly argued that it made the real debate impossible to have.
[/indent]
Very nice. That's exactly where I was going with that. Fear, as always trumps even sex as the best way to sell anything, including a political ideology. Both major parties use it and pretend that it's only their opponents who do. I'm pretty convinced I'm going to be killed by a gun-toting, book- censoring, islamo/christian fundamentalist greenhouse gas some time in the near future.
jjcourtright
07-24-2006, 03:01 PM
An article (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/24/economic-castration/) about how little economic effect there would be if we actually made changes to stop global warming.
Wow, I thought we were all supposed to be drowned by now... So much for all the expectations (http://www.weatherstreet.com/hurricane/2006/hurricane-atlantic-2006-below-normal-season.htm), Mother Nature will do exactly as she pleases.
I get nervous with things like that, Joe. It's like tempting the fates asking for the mother of all Hurricanes to smash thru Florida go out into the Atlantic again and smash into Savannah or Charleston again.
Halidar
09-15-2006, 04:46 PM
All of you read my signature, think about how little we all know, and shut up already!
Are you all a bunch of scientists?
WELL?
I didn't think so.
(and no, a masters degree in wanking yourself doesn't count)
Would a PHd in Wanking count? 'cause i've got that.
By-tor
09-15-2006, 05:15 PM
shut up already!
No, you shut up!
http://www.shayesaintjohn.com/shaye-shut-up.jpg (http://www.shayesaintjohn.com/DVD-ORDER-PAGE.html)
All of you read my signature, think about how little we all know, and shut up already!
Are you all a bunch of scientists?
WELL?
I didn't think so.
(and no, a masters degree in wanking yourself doesn't count)
This topic was dropped... almost three weeks ago? You need to take your new-age, existential sig, roll it up, and smoke it down with whatever else you like you toke up with. Because you're obviously higher than a kite, jumping into this discussion.
Tracker
09-16-2006, 04:37 PM
Yo. Dick Weeds. Just because he dosent live in his parent Basment and actuly has A life and dosnet spend all of his time beaing a Stuck up ass wipe dosent mean you have to tell him what to do. In 10 years all you'll be saing is " HEY BUDDY. GOT SPARE CHANGE?". Hostly some of you on these boards are so hard assed if I stuck a peace of Coal up your ass In 2 weeks I could get a Dimond.
By-tor
09-16-2006, 08:27 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/Stunner.jpg/300px-Stunner.jpg
WHAT?!!!!
acid_soda
09-16-2006, 09:21 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f5/Stunner.jpg/300px-Stunner.jpg
WHAT?!!!!
That never gets old :D
Yo. Dick Weeds. Just because he dosent live in his parent Basment and actuly has A life and dosnet spend all of his time beaing a Stuck up ass wipe dosent mean you have to tell him what to do. In 10 years all you'll be saing is " HEY BUDDY. GOT SPARE CHANGE?". Hostly some of you on these boards are so hard assed if I stuck a peace of Coal up your ass In 2 weeks I could get a Dimond.
Hmmm...
You couldn't use proper grammar if your life depended upon it.
I own the basement where I spend some of my time. (See No.3)
Ten years from now I'll be a third of the way through paying for my 2300 square foot home.
No, I won't give you any of my spare change. Go beg somewhere else.
My ass is so hard I never even take a shit- therefore, I don't give one either.
Halidar
09-17-2006, 01:40 AM
Hmmm...
You couldn't use proper grammar if your life depended upon it.
I own the basement where I spend some of my time. (See No.3)
Ten years from now I'll be a third of the way through paying for my 2300 square foot home.
No, I won't give you any of my spare change. Go beg somewhere else.
My ass is so hard I never even take a shit- therefore, I don't give one either.
I must admite, that was nice. And so I never read the dates of posts, or really think about what I'm saying. But the most powerful people in the world are idiots who don't think before they speak, or look before they leap.
(Bush case and point)
FanGirl
10-27-2006, 01:21 PM
Hey, JJ and Sheriff - can you comment on how it feels to be shovelling all this global warming going on in your neck of the woods?
Not really related to global warming, but what's with these Wild Fires California is always having? do you guys just have a high population of firebugs or what? you'd think it would have all burned down by now...
FanGirl
10-27-2006, 02:25 PM
Well, this particular fire was arson. The last big set of fires were naturally occurring. Not sure what sets them off. I mean we all know earthquakes are caused by couple having affairs. Maybe the fires are the result of pre-martial sex.
Hey, JJ and Sheriff - can you comment on how it feels to be shovelling all this global warming going on in your neck of the woods?
Yeah, I was wondering that as well. I thought we were all supposed to be burning in the Fires of the American Capitalist Hell this winter...
I get nervous with things like that, Joe. It's like tempting the fates asking for the mother of all Hurricanes to smash thru Florida go out into the Atlantic again and smash into Savannah or Charleston again.
Seems the season came and went (http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBHKNBE0VE.html) with a wimper...
Hmmph. Go figure.
Threadkiller
12-18-2007, 01:54 PM
Here's the latest on the stupid "buy this eco-friendly crap or you hate the planet" trend.
From: http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=blog&blog_id=1700000170&blog_post_id=1860018986
--Now sure, buying a green washing machine may save a little energy on your bills, but there will sure be a ton of energy wrapped up in the production of that new machine versus just keeping your old machine running. --
--It turns out that consumers are pretty smart. In order to justify a 4000-dollar purchase for some “green” technology, they expect to see monthly savings equal to the additional mortgage payment they would need to make on that four grand. --
-- If that does not come off the gas or electric bill they realize that you are just trying to sell them some new crap that does not make economic sense.--
It's like the pendulum swung too far away from the "buy this patriotic crap or you hate America" trend. I'm a big fan of being a patriot or saving the planet or whatever, but it's got to make sense to consumers as well as businesses.
I get all riled up when some marketing genius decides to use fear and/or guilt to make a few extra bucks. Please, please stop scaring the crap out of my grandma just so you can sell her a new appliance or a pair of skis or whatever.
While I'm ranting I'll explain the skis comment. A local ski shop here aired a radio commercial explaining how the North American Union ("NAU") is going to supplant the constitution and the Amero is going to replace the dollar in order to compete with the Euro. And we're all going to be taken over by Mexicans and we should rise up to put a stop to it. Well, it's all crap.
They offer $2,500 to anyone who can prove the NAU doesn't exist. Anyone who paid attention in High School science knows you can't prove that something doesn't exist. So their cash is safe.
There is a business cooperation agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico but there is no freaking way in hell that's ever going to cross into political realm like it did with the EU. There is no "Amero" currency, it was a hypothetical idea made up by some dude. Bunch of freaking fearmongers.
Czaple
12-18-2007, 02:49 PM
It's like this whole anti-smoking bullshit. They're passing all these laws under the guise of health and environmental concerns, meanwhile are these factories are dumping chemicals into the land, sea, and air. It's hypocritical communist-pinko-scum bullshit. The government is so cock and ball controlled by corporations and lobbies that they have to pick on the citizenry about environmental issues.
It pissed me off so much when Illinois passed anti-smoking legislation that I went out and bought a couple packs of smokes and tried to start smoking. After two weeks I felt like cracked out shit and could barely breath, and had to give up the blow stick due to uncontrollable bowel movements that came shortly after having a smoke, but hey... If someone wants to smoke I'm all for it.
Damn, am I going to miss walking into the HOB in Chicago and not smelling musty cigars being puffed on by big cats up in the balcony. Least I can still go to Wisconsin for my smokey dank-den fix, they haven't went bat-balls insane their, yet.
Threadkiller
12-19-2007, 02:25 PM
The government is so cock and ball controlled by corporations and lobbies.
Word!
True 'dat!
(I'm not sure which of those is the most appropriate way to agree so I went with both.)
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.