MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Me: "We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it." whoever it was... "well that's an utterly ridiculous position", Preposterous! Rediculous! got any more amazing proofs up your sleeve? Enlighten us O great one. But without the invective, if you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Sometimes the correct course is not a maverick one. Note how I have not said leadership demands following, I have also not said that leadership demands maverick action. A correct course of action is independent of either because who follows, or doesn't, or how many, simply has no relation to what is supportable objectively. You're not making a point, here, at least not one that's relative to the Doctor's argument. The fact that Bushie is in bed with the energy industry and is as such heavily influenced by what they want is not supportable objectively. Unless you are going to include Clintons *larger* role in Enron's dealings, this isn't a very balanced view of Enron as they relate to presidencies. DFA didn't say a thing about Clinton, bucko, but if he was campaigning on Enron's dirty dollar, then he obviously had some problems too. The point of what DFA said being that if Bush was accepting such blatant favors from the big E, it's pretty likely his decision making is heavily influenced by their wants, and not his own innate leadership. Also, perhaps you'll enlighten DFA as to what Clinton's role in Enron's dealings was, as this is the first the Doctor has heard about it. Why not? If you don't beleive in Kyoto, why *wouldn't* you put bigwigs in a task force? You'd only avoid doing so if you did swallow Kyoto hook line and sinker. Actually, you might appoint someone besides the corporate pimps who hold your leash to an energy policy task force if you had any interest in the wise use of resources, or at least a balanced approach to energy policy. Given Bush's oily background and his buddy-buddy relationship with the energy ind., it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that his rejection of the Kyoto treaty had a lot more to do with money than any apparent flaws in the treaty itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iain Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 It's pointless to present the data that support a case for exponential warming secondary to post-industrial human activity, as minds are made up already and it's pretty damn tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by MtnGoat: Me: "We'll get used to for one important reason, it happens all the time, we have nothing to do with it, nor can we stop it." whoever it was... "well that's an utterly ridiculous position", Preposterous! Rediculous! got any more amazing proofs up your sleeve? Enlighten us O great one. But without the invective, if you can. How about the fact that there is scads of scientific data indicating that our rampant pollution and consumption of fossil fuels (which leads to pollution) is causing the ozone layer to look like Swiss cheese? Honestly, do you really believe that the megatons of chemicals that humans spew into the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate change? Page top, you Republican motherfuckers! [ 09-16-2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Dr Flash Amazing ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "The fact that Bushie is in bed with the energy industry and is as such heavily influenced by what they want is not supportable objectively." Wether he is in bed with them makes no difference with regards to the validity of energy planning. It is entirely possible to have connections and influence with people and still be correct on the issues surrounding same. Who you deal with and why are not inextricably connected to the reality or not, of warming. "it's pretty likely his decision making is heavily influenced by their wants, and not his own innate leadership." Doesn't it seem curious that if his decision making is so influenced by their wants, that he let them go under? What is more "wantable" than their corporation to go on making the big money? What good was all that influence (supposedly) when he refused to bail them out? "Also, perhaps you'll enlighten DFA as to what Clinton's role in Enron's dealings was, as this is the first the Doctor has heard about it." Clinton had his executive office aid Enron directly in making deals in India, and Enron gave it's largest *ever* campaign donation to Clinton, among other things. "Actually, you might appoint someone besides the corporate pimps who hold your leash to an energy policy task force if you had any interest in the wise use of resources, or at least a balanced approach to energy policy." It completely depends on what you call wise use and balanced energy policy, which is entirely arguable. The wise use of resources in my mind is using energy with proven reserves capable of lasting centuries, with known technology, well developed infrastructure, and low cost. Balance is shown by allowing mature technologies to continue until the free operation of the market, and consumers, rules it out for for cost reasons or reasons of personal choice. I don't care who sits on the board, as long as their reasons are defensible and not illegally implemented. "Given Bush's oily background and his buddy-buddy relationship with the energy ind., it's not difficult to reach the conclusion that his rejection of the Kyoto treaty had a lot more to do with money than any apparent flaws in the treaty itself." No, it's not difficult, but it's also not provable beyond "looks like". I am more interested in the outcome and actual policy than who claims who had a hand in it, because I don't care whose hand is in the pie as long as it is defensible using standard practice. I do not expect people to do nice things because they want to, I expect people to do what they want for their reasons, and I will decide if that suits me, for mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MtnGoat Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 "Honestly, do you really believe that the megatons of chemicals that humans spew into the atmosphere has nothing to do with climate change?" Honestly don't know. But I do know I do not support the subjugation of hundreds of millions of free individuals to ideas that no one can prove, when it will cost them personal choice and labor. Especially when the earth, and us, and zillions of types of flora and fauna has *demonstrably* survived hotter and cooler periods all on it's own quite nicely, even in the last millenia. Especially when all those zillions of megatons are a tiny fraction of naturally emitted CO2. Which is one of lots of greenhouse gases. The worst of which is...... water vapor, with a greenhouse retention of something like 30x that of CO2. And what comes from fuel cell and hydrogen combustion engines? Water vapor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Fuck you Flash, you knee-jerk tree-hugging whacko. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poseur Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Kudos to Necro for making this hapen in his search for the perfect Avatar Image..... I love thread drift. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev_D._Wayne_Love Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 [ 09-16-2002, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Rev D. Wayne Love ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 media tools...can you quote the "scientific" bahaha "proof" that you heard Dan Rather spew on his bull shit liberal media propagandist soap box? no...we just said... "scientist (note scientist not most or even lots) said that global warming has had a negative effect on the climate" now back to greenland in case you didn't know...right now it isn't the most fertile region...but it was proved (and i mean P-R-O-V-E-D) that people farmed there in the past when the climate was warmer... now...where the fucks your proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev_D._Wayne_Love Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 oh yeah and who do you think would have handled the osama situation better than bush? gore bwa hahaha freaking ha....uhmm..."ladies and gents of america...we are gonna bend over and take it in teh ass and let our thousands of fallen cohorts die for nothing because my media sources say that war is bad and must be soemthing that only republicans do...therefore we will just live in bomb shelters awaiting the next plane to hit our neighborhoods and the survivors better get used to wearing burkas and turbans..." i think i'll take the alternative thank you very much Dr. Media tool Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: media tools...can you quote the "scientific" bahaha "proof" that you heard Dan Rather spew on his bull shit liberal media propagandist soap box? no...we just said... "scientist (note scientist not most or even lots) said that global warming has had a negative effect on the climate" now back to greenland in case you didn't know...right now it isn't the most fertile region...but it was proved (and i mean P-R-O-V-E-D) that people farmed there in the past when the climate was warmer... now...where the fucks your proof? If you're going to talk shit, then you can fuck off, shitbrick. And DFA doesn't watch TV, so whatever the alleged liberal propagandist Dan Rather may have said on the idiot box is not known to the Doctor. DFA will find you some information, asshole, and if there's none to be found, then he'll gladly admit that he was mistaken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: Fuck you Flash, you knee-jerk tree-hugging whacko. OK lets get something straight. I'm sick of the term, "tree hugger," being used to describe left wing hippy types. I can tell you from a lot of experience that if you want to kill trees in an urban environment you will spend a lot of time hugging trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Let me rephrase...kneejerk, environmental wacko. BTW, I say that with no real malice and a big grin on my face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html OK, you smartass meathead. The above two links came from the second item DFA clicked on in a google search on "global warming study". It would seem that while there is some contention regarding whether CO2 and other gases are causing the earth to warm up, there is no contention regarding the fact that things like CFC's are wrecking the ozone layer, allowing more UV to get through the atmosphere. OK, so global warming due to CO2 may be a crock. Fine. How about the well-documented link between UV exposure and skin cancer? Is that no big deal to you? How about the fact that the climate has grown rapidly warmer since the 1920's? You know, around the time we started getting after the fossil fuels? It is clear that the above links are not from some paranoid leftist media source, and the information is about the study of climate, not politics. So, the Doctor will bet that there are a shitload more websites out there with more specific information indicating that man is having a detrimental effect on the earth's climate. DFA would love to provide you with more links, but he's busy, so you'll have to wait. Until then, stick your snotty holier-than-though right-winger attitude up your pasty white ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: oh yeah and who do you think would have handled the osama situation better than bush? gore bwa hahaha freaking ha....uhmm..."ladies and gents of america...we are gonna bend over and take it in teh ass and let our thousands of fallen cohorts die for nothing because my media sources say that war is bad and must be soemthing that only republicans do...therefore we will just live in bomb shelters awaiting the next plane to hit our neighborhoods and the survivors better get used to wearing burkas and turbans..." i think i'll take the alternative thank you very much Dr. Media tool Oh, yes, your great white hero has done a ton about Osama Bin Laden, that's for sure. Hey, wait a second ... where is Osama Bin Laden, anyway? Ah, that's right! We haven't actually found him yet! We managed to cluster-bomb and daisy-cutter a World Trade Center's worth of civilians, yet we still seem to be facing a major terrorist threat. Way to go, USA! Wooooooo! It's OK, though, because we're distracted by the supposed threat of Saddam Hussein, which even Republican elected officials aren't buying. Touché, fucker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 hey shit for brains i checked out your website and if you look at the scales of the N. america temp chart...it is skewed for dramitization...it goes -1.5,-1,-.5,0,1,2,3 etc... hm...i wonder why they would have done that...also ...without that chart...there is no E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E that P-R-O-V-E-S that this is not the tail end of a ice age...so doc..did you get your PH.D. online or what? that's some pertty shoddy dectetive work as even this undergrad lad figured that lil' trick out...and bye the way that is the same trick (the graph) that the liberal media uses...funny how they both use the same propaganda techniques...the tree fuckers and the liberal propagandists... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 and also they used "tree rings" to identify the temp of the year... well hot damn...i wonder how many 600 year old trees they found alive...(or even follisized for that matter in good enough shape)...cause their graphs go back to waht 1400 a.d.? wonder how they knew the temp within .01 degree 6oo years ago...and the change in teh last 600 years is only less than what .5 degree? bwa ha ha freakin ha like to know how they are that accurate when they cant even predict teh weather within 10 degrees the day before...dream on tool... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fence Sitter: and also they used "tree rings" to identify the temp of the year... well hot damn...i wonder how many 600 year old trees they found alive...(or even follisized for that matter in good enough shape)...cause their graphs go back to waht 1400 a.d.? wonder how they knew the temp within .01 degree 6oo years ago...and the change in teh last 600 years is only less than what .5 degree? bwa ha ha freakin ha like to know how they are that accurate when they cant even predict teh weather within 10 degrees the day before...dream on tool... There are lots of 600 year old trees. Take a drive down to Mt Rainier or out to the Hoh river. I should add ice core samples give a good record of temperatures back thousands of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 yeah mabe on ranier...bu what about in other areas...there has been so much clear cutting that i would think it very difficult to get a 600 year old sample from very many places all over the world. cause we are talkin about micro climatology...within .2 degrees difference... one tree in each state wouldn't even cut it because you are dealing with averages and i can assure you taht in the south there are very few 600 eyar old trees and you must have a large sample covering ALL the areas you are measuring (in their case the world) and you jsut dont have that...for .2 degrees differencein 600 years...i just need more than a pathc in MRNP...and then down in cali...and northern noerthern canada...and very very very few in s. america...etc...seriously how precice can this be? certainly not to .2 degrees C c'mon.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 ding ding ding...did you also fail to notice that on their graphs that the surface temp of the earth was shown to be rising since 1500? WTF? we didn't really start pumping the earth with ash till much later...like industrial revolution...1500 man i'm sure king arthur was really polluting with his f-350 power stroke back then... c'mon even the green propaganda shows that the earth was getting hotter previous to the 1500's and probably before that.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 and by the way i'm not a republican...shit wipe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 Sorry I'm not getting sucked into this again. If you like you can find plenty of stuff on global warming in some old threads. BTW 009 says you're a dork. [ 09-17-2002, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: AlpineK ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted September 17, 2002 Share Posted September 17, 2002 009...haha has he gotten a paycheck yet? cause i have ...i'll bet he hasn't...tell him to have fun tree raping... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.