Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
There isn't a shred of proof anywhere in there that it is caused by man. Once again this board has been presented with more Liberal propaganda and lies.
What to do if Neo-Con Is Found In Load
- Thread starter diesel96
- Start date
There isn't a shred of proof anywhere in there that it is caused by man. Once again this board has been presented with more Liberal propaganda and lies.
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
I am impressed that it took big_arrow_up only 15 minutes to analyze all that information and post a response. (Or, maybe the definition of "proof" makes it so there is no need to even look.)
This board is constantly presented with the propaganda/lies of classical liberalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Yeah it took me only 15 minutes. After I started reading through each of those it only took me a few seconds to realize that I was being fed more BS. It doesn't take long to smell the stench of Liberal propaganda.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by diesel96
I didn't think I needed to post these links Big Arrow,but since you shared your links I'll share mine.
Ref:Global Warming
https://web.archive.org/web/20090526164929/http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/f101.asp
https://web.archive.org/web/20080730070843/http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.change.report/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2023835.stm
In this case I hope your are right with your Explanations/Links that it is global/ocean fluxuating climate changes and barely a human polluton/compsumption issue.However,to much evidence outweighs your "other scientist"that supposedly doesn't depend on funding and grants.Geez ,I wonder where they get their kick backs from?Or maybe they work for free?
This isn't a Rep/Dem or Con/Lib issue,this is a human denial issue.
Big A quote"
"There isn't a shred of proof anywhere that is caused by man?"
Prior to that quote your claiming "there's proof" by your "other scientist"
Big A quote;
And what do other scientists think? Let's take a look.....
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/in...a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
http://www.globalresearch.ca/scient...-invalid-from-a-scientific-point-of-view/5543
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070428170229.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18397549/
So in your view,your "other scientist" and pro-conservative links is all the proof you need to satisfy the far right anti-enviroment conservative agenda Claiming minuscule human involvement concerning global warming.
How ironic,conservatives who brag they love their country more than Libs, ignore and allow the possibility of global warming, the eventual slow decline in the quality of air we breath,the dependency of oil,CO2 Emmissions,dragging their feet with alternative fuel and power programs,etc...
And you guys call yourselves Patriots
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by diesel96
We all communicate better when we leave our Conservative Views at home
We all communicate better when we leave our Conservative Views at home
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Excellent observation Senior and nice job on posting the link. Ironically sometime back I posted a link to Bastiat's "The Law" in another thread http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm but for a variety of reasons I think for the most part it got ignored. I remember being exposed to Bastiat's The Law actually by a Democrat Congressman from the 1970's and early 80's that my wife and I were friends with. He was the Late Larry McDonald who was killed on KAL 007. His influence also led me to Hayek's Road to Serfdom and ultimately onto Classical Liberalism thinking where I really began to appreciate not only men like Thomas Jefferson but more so men like Patrick Henry and the whole anti-federalist idea. The Levianithan that Henry and the anti-federalists feared would result from the Constitution has IMO been more than seen and I dare say even federalists like Hamilton would today when looking at what the federal level has become would likely join Henry and the others in calling for an end to the Constitution and a return to the Articles of Confederation.
I also remember well at the time Reagan also talking about Bastiat and yes he also mentioned and had read Hayek as well and Hayek recieved from Bush 1 in 1991' the US Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions to political and economic thought. I always saw Hayek and Milton as pragmatic libertarians if you will but in there case I do think they were true classical liberals when you compare them to a Murray Rothbard who I also greatly respect from a more anarchist point of view known by the term anarcho-captialism and I'd almost be willing to bet the farm that you are one of the few people here familar with all these terms whether you agree or not. Outstanding on your part in my book!
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by diesel96
We all communicate better when we leave our Conservative Views at home
Still waiting on the proof that Global Warming is caused by man. Still waiting on the Liberal solution to the war in Iraq. I have a feeling I won't get neither. I will probably just recieve more irrelevant links, accusations of being a bigot, lenghty rants, and more "Liberal Bombs" will be dropped.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
My guess is no matter what is said or posted that would happen regardless.
I myself don't believe man in and of himself is solely the cause of global warming. For one it's a known factor that the sun has grown hotter and is currently in a cycle of increased activity making the earth feel hotter. Is that the sole cause of the warming? Nope. It's a contributing factor and if we stopped all human activity today some effects of heating would still be felt.
Do humans contribute in any way shape or form? Sure we do but I also think the cause being this or that of human activity is very narrow. For example, CO2 gas is a known contributor of the green house effect but there is wide disagreement as to what extent.
Let's say for the moment it's not to the extreme of being a globe killer but not to the other extreme of being no impact at all but a somewhere in the middle. What I see being a large impact to this scenario is the fact that as we've grown not only here in America but as we've expanded our commercial/economic footprint across the global (and I'm not suggesting this a good or bad thing either) other areas of the world have developed. What happens is forest and other plantlife are taken down and the land developed for other human usage which involves building, concrete and other impervious surfaces. Now regarding the plants themselves, they being consumers of CO2 and producers of O2, this cycle is no long in play. Since there is a decrease of nature's ability to wash CO2 from the atmosphere, it's logical there would be a build up. Now again, there is wide agrument on just how big this picture comes into play so again like many of the other arguments it's not conclusive.
However there is a part in this rarely discussed that I do think does play a factor. As we develop and spread we then to laydown more concrete and other impervious surfaces that act as large scale heat sinks because of their thermal mass properties. For example, here in the Atlanta area we've seen our area go from the early 70's of being a large rural kinda town to a massive metro area that many refer as on scale to greater LA area in southern California a few years back. A lot is traffic comparision but I'm not sure even LA had as stupid of traffic planners as we have.
In all those years with all the concrete laid down we've also seen the temps go up to the point that in the summertime because of the city heat sink it acutally drives it's own weather. So many times we've seen large rain systems come in from the west only to literally divide and split and then once the whole system passes Atlanta the whole closes back up to reform the solid rainline from north to south. I can't tell you the cussing I've done in the summer when the grass and garden need rain and then to see it disappear into thin air to only reappear once to the east. The weather service as well as Ga. Tech. and others have documented this heat sink effect. Now it helps in the winter to as the city will always be 5 to 10 degrees warmer than the outter lying areas and it's clearly seen on any nightly weather forecast. If your rural areas beitween large scale concrete heat sinks of the cities get smaller and smaller, there's less cooling potential in the ambient air at night and then the overall temps of these heat sinks build and build so that you have little if any cooling effect at night. Do I purpose stop all building and development? How in the world could I square that to a much greater belief in private property rights of the individual? What I do think we need to do is not focus on a single lone gunman of the problem so to speak but look at a vastly larger picture and see what could be done there and hard analysis of causes. Ironically, many environmentalist are joining the ranks of Nuke power advocates because for one it's green and it in some cases stops the use of energy sources that in some ways feeds the Middle East or those who profiteer from the region. Theres a solution to problems on 2 different fronts but where is either party on this? No where to be found that I see!
Until the debate stops this narrow focus and opens it wide open to all possible potentials and answers then it will degenerate down into a childish politicals debate where nothing get's thrown out but insults and the opportunity for some to show the rest how childish they can be.
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
The main problem I have with people blamming humans is that they seem to act like CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. I also laugh at families with children that think that if they ditch the SUV or mini van for two smaller vehicles that then they will be reducing the amount of CO2. LOL. One SUV puts out less than using two cars! The local radio talk show recently pointed out that cow farts put out more CO2 than our vehicles do. LOL. This whole debate is crazy. There simply is no concrete proof that man is causing causing, or even significantly (if at all) contributing to, climate change. The Earth's orbit isn't perfect nor is the temperature of the sun constant. The climate changes because of those two factors.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Oh I've got solutions but I'm sure all I'll hear is, "what is that tripe" or "man that was so long, you writting a book?" or "liberal blah, blah, blah". Sorry sweet pea but something this complex with such a long history can't be really answered in a short 30 sec. sound bite or a 5 sentence, 2 paragraph answer geared for people with short attention spans having been conditioned on moronic sit-coms, reality TV and mindless talk radio. Someone who does try to do so in those limits IMO is setting themselves up for failure or a freakin' idiot and I'll be more inclined to the latter than the former.
If I have complete and open access to say what I need to say to make the point I'll give you my libertarian "classic liberal" if you will take on what needs to be done. Let me know and I'll give you all I got. BTW, Dems. don't like my approach either so if you looking for common ground with Diesel!
The dems IMO want it solved before 08' so they can take the money and buy votes with their do-gooder programs and expand their own power base within gov't. I know you'll like that Big but it is true but the repubs aren't much different so don't strut your tail feathers to much.
Remember Clinton and company (Bill/Al)already had the evidence Bush had and said Saddam needed to come down but lacked the nerve to pull the trigger. In other words, the only difference between Bush and Bill was that Bush pulled out the gun. Bill and Al just wanted to drive the getaway car and devy up the loot after the fact. They just weren't willing to get their hands dirty. The rest of the dems are the same way so don't lose sight of that and have fun with it.But more importantly, let's turn this thing around just a minute. You're the one selling the car so tell me why I should buy it in the first place. I'm apart of the great unsaved so save me. There are no WMD's and there really is no real Al-Queda connections as Saddam was Sunni but politically he was socialist as the Bathist party was and he was also very secular. Iraq society was a very secular society and Saddam would smash religious extremism at home as he had a history of doing. Also Osama (you know I had to retype this line because at first I typed "Also Obama" a little humor at me) anyway Osama asked the Saudia Royals for permission for his al Queda forces to go in and repeal Saddam in 90' when they entered Kuwait so there was a history of opposition already and Saddam feared uprisings of a religious nature from both Shi'a and Sunni and Osama wanted to install govt's using Sunni Wahhabism law as it's bedrock and Saddam was way, way, way away from that stuff. Cramped his style if you will.
With no weapons, with no real Al-Queda threat of a Saddam/Osama/Al Queda alliance what is the reason and justification to enter Iraq, overthrow it's gov't and then institute one over them that we deem acceptable in our eyes? Come on Big, win me over from the dark side to the light. Do the Christian thing and save my soul from liberal hellfire and damnation.
There is a very good and interesting argument for the Iraq operation that I discovered reading all those boring links and websites you won't look at and suprisingly some of them are organizations with members such as Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. and some of the papers were written by some of these folks. So go ahead and win me over with your "superior intellilect" and principled "conservative ideas!" Cure my liberal mental disorder please!
BTW, did you ever consider all the "liberal this" and "liberal that" tags that you've thrown around time and time again that at some point others might be provoked to in kind attack you in the same manner and then you wanna cry foul. Now you understand completely on a personal level what Ron Paul was speaking of when he spoke of the backlash effect or are what you're doing is invoking the "Susie" technique of provoking an attack and then playing the up being the victim? Hey, good idea! I saw Diesel playing the same technique with Moreluck the other day about illegal aliens and man did his response almost mirror what we'd seen here before and specifically to Moreluck which is why it caught my eye.
Come to think of it, I'd be real interested in that IP address!
Do you think..........
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
- The Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton (New Zealand) paid a meteorologist to tell them that global warming is a myth? (This guy is now a paid speaker, but "metorologist" does not do justice to his extensive background in Atmospheric Science...funded largely by coal and oil interests.) He's one [-]denier[/-] skeptic.
- This page looks so official, and it is. It's Senator Inhofe's (R-OK) personal blog. He is one known [-]denier[/-] skeptic of global warming.
- Please, oh please tell me that you consider globalresearch.ca a reliable source of information. Pretty please? The article says, "Zichichi pointed out that human activity has less than a 10% impact on the environment", as if that is not significant. How do we know he arrived at this figure by a method that is coherent and scientifically valid?
- This extract says, "...results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC..." [emphasis mine]. The scientific paper is not about global warming, it is about a smaller weather pheomenon. Why do the [-]deniers[/-] skeptics of global warming latch onto anything that says there might be a temperature drop in part of the world and claim that it applies to the entire globe? (BTW, the top sponsor on my recent visit to this site: Chevron.)
- I've been told that MSNBC is big on surrender, which made me wonder if they are just surrendering on the global warming issue. In any case, this article is about one [-]denier[/-] skeptic whose emphasis appears to be in meteorology, and who concentrates on one part of the world.
I wondered why scientists from so many different fields had come to support human-caused global warming. Now I find why: the models that include human-caused factors always match the data better (and therefore have a higher confidence level) than similar models that leave out human-caused factors. Those other scientists may not be climate experts, but they know the methods and how to interpret the results.
To tie this back to the thread, I suggest [-]denying[/-] expressing skepticism about humans causing any portion of global warming, until you get a chance to leave the area and notify your Sup about a possible source of poisonous invective in your load.
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
It sounds as if I need to upgrade my browser.
All your links smell like cat pee!
Maybe I need to empty the litter box.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Absolutely on the SUV. Calculate the volumetric total of a single cylinder cycle and then expand to 8. Also large engines tend to have to turn at lower RPMs because of the larger operating mass and the physics of centrifical forces whereas smaller engines turn more rpms to burn the same amounts of fuel needed to propel an object forward. We have a large SUV (3/4 ton to be exact) but we have 6 in our family and our kids are musicians who play gigs on a fairly regular basis. We need the vehicle to haul a trailer full of guitars, amps, drums, PA gear, musicians, roadies and sound tech (I'm the roadie, sound tech and chauffer driver) and to do this in small vehicles would require 3 as we had to do one time when the Suv was in the shop and yes we used more gas and I'm sure added more pollution than we would have with the SUV. Now my back and forth to work car in a little small car because UPS doesn't have work schedules (not their fault either IMO) that allows for car pooling. I'd love to do that but depending on the number I might have to roll back into the SUV but how many cars would come off the road as a result? The beast seats 8 so if I could take me plus another 7, getting those 7 cars off the road and you calculate the amount of CO2 saved from the atomsphere, my SUV becomes a "green machine."
A small car does fine with small loads but greatly expand that load and the volumetic efficency goes way down. Here's what I generally throw out at the anti-SUVer's.
"So the sheer size of the vehicle and the large size engine makes this method of transport a large scale polluter, extremely fuel inefficent and a threat to public safety because of it's size hazard." They general jump up with a "Yes! Yes! Yes!" like I've now left the great unwashed and joined the winning team. You gotta get em' on the line before you set the hook you know.
At this point I'm about to be baptised and given holy communion in the First Church of Holy Tree Huggin (that's pretty good ain't it, I made that up too all on my own) but then I commit an act of excommunication when I do the following.
"I just realized we can't stop there, we've got to outlaw public and mass transit too! All those big buses just have to go as they are even worse fuel wasters and polluters than the SUV's. We'll have to fire all those bus drivers and other employees working for these gov't mass transit systems but the money we save we can cut taxes so that people can buy more smaller cars to put on the road and sure poor people will just have to find another way to get around but just think of all the positive enviromental impact we will have. Maybe with the tax cut they can buy new walking shoes or a pair of skates. Hey I see the cable company is over at your house working. You need to put a stop to that because look at the size of his work truck he's driving. What a nasty that is! You're just gonna have to do without cable because the environment just can't stand that kind of impact pressure from that service truck coming out to keep you in TV land.
Wow! I'm starting to like this new found approach. Hey what's that in your hand? A grocery list! Oh No! You can't go and support the grocery store because not only will you waste gas and pollute going there but think of all the pollution being generated getting those groceries to you at the store. You need to get some hand shovels, rakes and hoes and dig and plant your own garden and feed yourself and never ever again step foot in those aweful polluting grocery stores!"
In other words Big, go to the extreme and it doesn't take long before they start running away from you but make sure you keep a straight face and run after them not letting up. After a while you can fall to the ground and just laugh your Arse off at the whole thing. Do it man, I'm telling you it's a blast to hook em' in and land em' in the boat. I do catch and release however!
BTW: You can also calculate the fuel used per compression stroke per vehicle and also get enough data to rough calculate the emmissions and do some side by side comparisions of small car to large SUV's. Now with a lone single occupant in both, the small car wins hands down. But start adding people to both and the small car does not always win. One thing that they argue by assumption is that each vehicle only has the lone driver and no passengers. Don't always sit back and accept those parameters of the argument because that is not always so in all cases.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
OH MY GOD! This reminds me of something I saw on the TV news the other day (I think it was Fox News too) where some reporterette was doing a story and then at some point she makes the following, absolutely brillant statement that I just don't know how I've gone through life without knowing.
"Now remember to start your car in order to leave your driveway!"
As Bill Engval would say, Altogether now,
"HERE'S YOUR SIGN!"
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Stop going to Liberal Propaganda sites. That'll help with the smell. Clear your cache of all Liberal bottom feed...oops..I meant to say facts. Do a defrag. You know?...that thing that basically breaks everthing into little pieces and then puts it all back together. Kind of like what Liberals do when they go looking for ammo to argue with anyone else. Ok...I'll stop now. LOL. We one more thing...just get a Mac. They are great!
SeniorGeek
Below the Line
Arrogance is bliss.
diesel96
Well-Known Member
Stop going to Liberal Propaganda sites. That'll help with the smell. Clear your cache of all Liberal bottom feed...oops..I meant to say facts.
The local radio talk show recently pointed out that cow farts put out more CO2 than our vehicles do. LOL. This whole debate is crazy. There simply is no concrete proof that man is causing causing, or even significantly (if at all) contributing to, climate change.
And the stench of B.S. spewing from your ALMIGHTY Neo Con web sites and far right radio talk shows are a direct result of conservatives sniffing and inhaling and believing the damaging "cow fart" theory is more damaging than our vehicles.LOL
I'd stop sniffing the fresh Cow Crap though to get high,It distorts the brain into irrational thinking
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Stop going to Liberal Propaganda sites. That'll help with the smell. Clear your cache of all Liberal bottom feed...oops..I meant to say facts.
The local radio talk show recently pointed out that cow farts put out more CO2 than our vehicles do. LOL. This whole debate is crazy. There simply is no concrete proof that man is causing causing, or even significantly (if at all) contributing to, climate change.
And the stench of B.S. spewing from your ALMIGHTY Neo Con web sites and far right radio talk shows are a direct result of conservatives sniffing and inhaling and believing the damaging "cow fart" theory is more damaging than our vehicles.LOL
I'd stop sniffing the fresh Cow Crap though to get high,It distorts the brain into irrational thinking
And you Liberals must have inhaled too much of your prescription marijuana to function rationally. And while we are on the subject of BS and talk shows.....I guess BS is why most your Liberal radio talk shows were kicked off the airwaves. Majority rules and I guess either the majority has irrational thinking or the majority just didn't want to listen to the BS propaganda that was being vomitted out into the airwaves by the leftest loons on those shows.
