 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Palin v. Gore...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:25 PM Wrong, as usual. Russia is also dropping in population. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Donuel Date: 16 Dec 09 - 01:53 PM pdq, true but not as much. Secondly and most importantly in light of the holidays, you are consistantly downright mean and defamatory towards me and others here which is both glaringly wrong and certainly not helpful to you in the long run. You know there are exceedingly generous living breathing people who have put you on the lump of coal list simply due to a lack of good will and civility. Cheer up, gear up and get along. Seasons Greetings Don. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:14 PM Does our real standard of living have to drop for us to radically decrease carbon emissions? It is my understanding that California is 30-40% more efficient than the rest of country in terms of home electricity use. If the rest of the country caught up that would mean significant gains. Then there is the weatherization plan that Obama recently unveiled. Replacing 12 MPG suburbans with 30 MPG hybrid minivans. Teleconferencing rather than business trips. etc. Heating and cooling of McMansions. There is a lots of waste in our society that does NOT really add to our standard of living. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:16 PM There is an elephant in the room which no one seems to be addressing. And that is that fossil fuels are a non-renewable resource. New deposits (which is to say, deposits that have been there for millions of years, but have just recently been discovered) are getting much more difficult to find. When it's gone, it's gone! What do we do then? In the meantime—I recall a conversation I had back in the early 1960s. The conversation was with Jerry Pournelle, the science fiction writer, who was living in Seattle at the time. This was while he was going for advanced degrees at the University of Washington and working in the aero-space division of the Boeing Airplane Company, and before he moved to California and—among other things—started writing science fiction. Jerry was talking about the egregious wasting of fossil fuels. He held up a ball-point pen and said, "When you consider the number of things that are made out of petroleum—the barrel of this pen, for example—AND such things as medicines, fertilizers" (and he recited a long list of things that people use all the time, but have no idea are actually petroleum products, and some of which are essential to some peoples' lives) "it is a crime against future generations to simply burn it to produce energy!" He then went on to list a number of renewable sources of energy that are not being utilized, such as solar, wind, tidal, and he outlined a couple that sounded pretty far out, but which, he assured me, would not just work, but would work more inexpensively than fossil fuels. "And," he went on, "would not stink up the atmosphere!" Jerry was (is) politically pretty conservative (he served as one of Ronald Reagan's science advisors and was an advocate of Star Wars, even designing a number of weapons systems for it), but he was right on the money when it came to being concerned about what humans were doing to the planet—and where it could eventually lead. What do we do when the fossil fuels run out? Worry about it then!?? Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 02:56 PM And Jack the Sailor has hit on a key point. The city I live in has an excellent recycling system, with waste pre-sorted by people themselves. Cans go in this container, bottles in this, paper products here, matter that can be used for mulch goes here, etc. How does the sanitation department encourage this? If it isn't properly sorted, they won't pick it up! You have to haul it to the dump yourself. Only most dumps are turning into recycling plants where, if it isn't sorted, they won't take it. The building I live in is a coop apartment. A couple of decades ago, we took out a big mortgage and had this 100 year old building weatherized, complete with thermal windows, got rid of the coal-fed boiler that inefficiently fed an antiquated radiator system and installed electrical baseboard heat (Seattle City Light is all hydropower, no coal-fired plants), and got a tax break and historical status as a result. Several of the people who live in this building work for Microsoft. They don't hop in their cars and drive across the Evergreen Point bridge to get to work, they telecommute. My wife works at the Seattle Public Library and she takes public transportation to work (our car, a 1999 Toyota Corolla spends most of its time in the garage; ten years old and about 25,000 miles on the clock). Energy Star compliant electrical appliances (including my computer). Energy efficient light bulbs everywhere! Saturday is "Farmers' Market" day in Seattle. In addition to the famous Pike Place Market, almost every district has a location where local farmers bring their produce, so it's not too difficult to get fresh, locally grown food, trucked in from various areas such as the Kent Valley south of Seattle, not trucked halfway across the continent. It's generally less expensive than what you can get in the supermarkets and it doesn't have all the nutrition processed out of it. I see a lot of Priuses and "Smart Cars" around. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: gnu Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:08 PM Don... Smart Car... fine if you don't live here. When the roads are snowy, or, worse, slushy, a Smart Car could kill you. Fine for fair weather but dangerous as hell in snowy weather. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:10 PM The problem with petroleum used for transportation is that it is easy and cheap. Don Firth's post- the need for plastics in one hell of a lot of our goods (my keyboard as I type this as well as all those ballpoints we dump in drawers that have been sent out with duns for donations, the bottle my milk comes in, many items around the house and now a major component in the wings for the new Boeing people carrier)- is one factor that may cut petroleum use as a fuel. Reserves economically feasible will last at least 50 years; hopefully measures will be taken to find substitutes before then. China with their one child policy did cut population growth, but now they have the beginnings of a problem of a lot of oldsters with no young to support them, necessitating extensive and expensive care facilities, etc. China is building extensive nuclear energy facilities to supplant inefficient power plants dependent on coal (and oil), and is now the biggest user of solar panels to supplement home heating and other small needs. Admittedly a big source of 'greenhouse' gases, toxins and black carbon, perhaps China, for all its size, will become the leader in reducing materials that harm the environment. Petroleum for energy generation and plastics will continue to be important to their economy for many years, hence their new gas pipelines and lease bids in Iraq and elsewhere (Like the U. S., new or increased pipelines from Canada and the Arctic, and continued exploration and bidding for sources. I cannot see people willingly reducing standards of living, nor will they elect leaders that will enforce reductions. Education leading to use of more efficient substitutes for high-pollution sources is needed now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:20 PM Smart cars a poor choice here as well (Alberta). Distances are long, and more power is needed in the Foothills and mountains, and dangerous in snow and ice. Also impossible to take the kids anywhere with all their hockey gear or skiing equipment. Mid-size cars and SUVs are the choice here; the Prius is good within the city, but for the above reasons mid-size and SUVs are Toyota's sellers here, not the Prius. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 04:47 PM Okay, but that's hardly an argument against hybrids and vehicles like the Smart Car. There is plenty of real estate within the United States, and the whole world for that matter, where one never sees a snow flake. Yet many folks there drive SUVs, Hummers, and other gas-guzzling road crushers. I'm not advocating "one size fits all," I'm advocating "look around you and use your head." Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:25 PM 'I suspect that the same people who say this would be among the first to raise the alarm if they became aware that we are imbibing birth control through our water or some such means." Why would they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 09 - 05:47 PM Object to mandatory birth control or institute mandatory birth control? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:25 PM Back to Palin and Gore, it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience that the North Pole might melt in 5 years. He cited a scientific source, but the scientist he cited didn't want any part of that claim. I think Gore must have felt that he was addressing an audience who understood that his extreme claims (the poles aren't melting; lot's of ice; South Pole sets a new record every year; North Pole has less ice than average, but more than last year or the year before). Gore has the chops to win his debates, but he sure runs his mouth without thinking sometimes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 06:35 PM Glad that Palin ain't like that John... *grin*... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:33 PM No wonder that coal miners are paid so well... Some of those mines are close to 2 kilometers deep... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:42 PM The mine in Springhill, Nova Scotia, which prompted two disaster songs, was over ten thousand feet deep, about 2 miles. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:12 PM Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq - PM Date: 16 Dec 09 - 07:04 PM "... it would help the folks on Gore's side of this thing if he would refrain telling an audience..." Gore recently said that "if you go down 2 kilometers, the Earth's core is a million degrees". He did not say whether that is F or C. #### That lie is like the fish that grows a couple of feet every time the story gets told. What Gore said on the Conan O'Whatisface show was that in some areas of the earth, two kilometers down, it's "very hot." [thermal vents near volcanoes, Yellowstone Park, etc.] The discussion was about alternative energy sources, and in this case, they were talking about geothermal energy. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:29 PM From the actual transcript of the show mentioned, Al Gore said: "It definitely is, and it's a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy — when they think about it at all — in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places 'cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees aces there are these incredibly hot rocks, , and the crust of the earth is hot ..." Priceless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:39 PM Off by a few orders of magnitude, but right on the rest of it. That's the problem with ad lib discussions. One goofs on television and there are people who will leap on it like flies on a doggie dropping. I'm sure, however, that Gore knows better. That does not invalidate what he says about global warming. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:48 PM If Gore was talking about the North magnetic pole, which I think he was, the group who went there this year to take direct measurements had one hell of a time because of melted and rough ice. "Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over the past thirty years" "Monthly November ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows a decline of 4.5% per decade." National Snow and Ice Data Center. Arctic sea ice I wish more people would check government agency or peer-reviewed data rather than vomiting garbage from Palin, CNN or tabloid news, or quoting out of context (guest John and his ilk). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 08:51 PM Re: Gore's misstatement on TV, and just as an interesting—but relevant—aside to put things into perspective. Einstein thought that the idea that the universe is expanding was hogwash until he had a long, face-to-face discussion with Edwin Hubble. Einstein's figures established the theoretical possibility of black holes, but he was sure that they could not possibly actually exist. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:11 PM Antarctic trends are not clearly defined because data on ice volume is inaccurate, and few scientists care to make firm statements based on incomplete measurements. For a list of current studies, see National Snow and Ice Data Center, THERMAP: Ice Temperature Measurements of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Antarctic |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 16 Dec 09 - 09:33 PM "Object to mandatory birth control or institute mandatory birth control?" No, I dont' think you can legislate birth control, but you could re-write the tax codes so a couple can get a deduction for 2 children, half a deduction for a third one, and nothing there after. A responsible government could encourage smaller families. If you had strong leadership, I think you could do a lot with that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 16 Dec 09 - 10:03 PM 2008 figures: India- 2.7 children born /woman U. S.- 2.1 children born/woman = replacement rate United Kingdom- 1.96 children born/woman Sweden- 1.9 children born/woman Japan- 1.3 children born/woman China- 1.7 children born/woman (reflects the one child policy) Thailand- 1.65 children born/woman (down strongly from 1960s as a result of government measures). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:01 PM Well, Q I guess I must be part of some ilk. We all have our burdens, after all. Are you saying that the Arctic is going to thaw in 5 years? Got a good source for that? Are you saying that the Arctic doesn't have more ice this year than last? Or the year before that? Or are you just saying that people who have notions that don't match with those of your ilk aren't to be given free rein... I guess I agree with that 'cause that's sort of what moves me, too. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Don Firth Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:46 PM Here you go, John. CLICKY #1. CLICKY #2 Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 16 Dec 09 - 11:57 PM Facts? Facts? We don't need no steenkin' facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,John Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:56 AM Thanks Don. It looks like you read the same sources I do. Does that make us an ilk? Gosh, I hope so. Your ilkmate, -John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:00 AM The main thing that concerns most people is not seeing any steenkin' facts that cast doubt on their own opinon, whatever it is. You're not really in a position to decide about anything till you've got ALL the relevant facts. And few people do. What most people do is this: they hunt up whatever facts seem to support their viewpoint. Those opposing them hunt up other facts which seem to support the opposing viewpoint. Those with yet a third viewpoint hunt up still more facts that seem to support that viewpoint. Only somone who has ALL the known and relevant facts, and in their order of importance...not just those facts that appear to help his argument...is in a position to figure out what's actually going on...assuming he wants to. Most people are surprisingly unreceptive to facts that don't seem to help their cause. I'm taking no particular side in the foregoing comments from the last 15 or 20 posters when I say that....I'm just taking note of what people generally seem to do whenever they argue a position. They select only the facts they like for close attention rather like a Dachshund picks the meat chunks out of the kibble... ;-) They show very little interest in the facts that don't prove helpful to their argument. Thus are carefully selected facts trotted out to support every opinion and proposition under the sun. Hitler used various facts to justify his crazy policies, sprinkling them among many falsehoods, exaggerations, and utter misconceptions. It always helps to throw in a few real facts. It makes you sound quite convincing. Every demagogue in history has done it. Facts CAN be used to back a faulty proposition...you just have to make sure you quote only the specific facts that work for that proposition and ignore or discount the ones that don't. This is a key tactic in all effective propaganda. It has surely been used by every government that ever existed, I would think. As a matter of fact, it's a standard debating tactic. The important thing is to "sound" right. Quoting a few facts will work wonders in that direction. If you also believe you ARE right...and most people naturally do...then you will quote your few carefully selected facts with such absolute assurance that you may succeed in convincing not only yourself, but many others as well, that your ENTIRE message is right and complete. All politicians need to study this technique carefully. Self-deception is a very powerful tool in achieving the deception (or conversion) of others. No demagogue succeeds as well as the man who actually believes his own lies, exaggerations, and ommissions even as he utters them! And I have seen this in action...yessirree. It's quite common. People who do it are generally quite unconscious of what they are doing, because they're so caught up in the process of winning their point. Thus are facts used to obfuscate. Much better than just making up stuff. Get the facts! But make sure you get only the facts that help YOU. That's what Google is for. ;-D |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:47 AM No Little Hawk, one does not need ALL the known relevant facts to have a valid position. One might reevaluate when new facts come to ones attention. But only a fool would treat arguments from vested interests as facts. If your Dachshund picks the meat out of the kibble given him by the nasty neighbor next door, the one who complains about dog poo in his rose bushes, without first sniffing it very very carefully, then poochie might end up puking on your carpet on his way to the vet. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 05:59 AM "But only a fool would treat arguments from vested interests as facts." Unless of course the argument is in FAVOR of the person's viewpoint. When I see the same questioning of Gore that I do of the oil companies, then I might consider that person is trying to look at facts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:20 AM Pretty neat Bruce, you've managed to combine straw man and ad hominem in the same argument. I noticed that Fox "News" was selling the theory that Gore had a vested interest. I never thought that anyone would buy into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:29 AM So you buy into the Obama claim that anyone reporting anything critical of him is not a real "news" station? Then I guess you only look at MSNBC. ALL the others are at least willing to look at the facts. Gore HAS a vested interest- Do you deny that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 17 Dec 09 - 06:48 AM Bruce, Compare Gore's interest in lying to that of the oil companies. Gore would be personally much better of without GW as an agenda. He certainly would be richer. He probably would have been President. "So you buy into the Obama claim that anyone reporting anything critical of him is not a real "news" station?" Where the hell did this BS come from? If you are going pretend I said things that I didn't, you don't need me. You can have the conversation all by yourself. Just as "Newsmen" O'Reilly, Hanity and Beck do. No Fox "News" is not a News Channel and I was saying that long before I had even heard of Obama. I enjoy Olberman because he says funny things that I agree with. I do not get my news from him. On controversial topics I often compare news sources. Fox "News" is an enterganda channel. MSNBC is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for Fox "News". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Bobert Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:14 AM Speaking of facts... I really don't have time right now to figure out if Palin is getting paid by The Big Polluters Lobby or if they are helpin' her with her musings/writings but I suspect that she is getting help on both counts... Al??? He could use some help... The problem is that if you are pro-human and pro-Earth there aren't alot of well funded lobby groups to get behind you and help in the slog... But if yopu are willin' to be a spokesman for the corportists it really doesn't much matter if can't name any of the newspapers you read... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:34 AM Fox is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for MSNBC "News". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 07:35 AM sorry, last was mine: Fox is more opinion than news but when they report news it is with as little bias as any US network. The same cannot be said for MSNBC "News". I look at as many sources I can find- even Al-Jazeera and BBC. So don't put your bias's on me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:02 AM "pro-human and pro-Earth " No such thing- to be pro-Earth, one must consider the human population loading that would NOT change the environment. Estimates vary, from 500,000 up. IF the goal is a static environment ( which is NOT natural) than we need to get rid of at least 99 out of every 100 people. I am sure we can depend on our resident Ubermench to decide who has to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:55 AM People die eventually, if you simply don't replace them too quickly, you'll get where you want to be eventually. Shooting them creates a larger carbon footprint. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Riginslinger Date: 17 Dec 09 - 08:58 AM "2008 figures: India- 2.7 children born /woman U. S.- 2.1 children born/woman = replacement rate United Kingdom- 1.96 children born/woman Sweden- 1.9 children born/woman Japan- 1.3 children born/woman China- 1.7 children born/woman (reflects the one child policy) Thailand- 1.65 children born/woman (down strongly from 1960s as a result of government measures)." It looks like Thailand is on the right track. There might be something to be learned from Thailand. I wonder what the US rate would be if they got rid of "birth right citizenship." Then all the babies born to illegal aliens would be attributed to some other country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 11:35 AM "If you also believe you ARE right...and most people naturally do...then you will quote your few carefully selected facts with such absolute assurance that you may succeed in convincing not only yourself, but many others as well, that your ENTIRE message is right and complete" And where do you get your facts, Little Hawk? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:48 PM Here is a My Turn essay in our local paper this morning written by a local man: Palin Views Don't Match Reality "... the conservative push to portray global warming as a hoax perpetrated by liberals and the majority of the world's scientists. "What motive liberals and scientists would have for doing so is unexplained and inexplicable. Are we all buying stock in windmills so that Palin, riding a rabid elephant, will have a new, crowd-pleasing hallucination to joust with?" Lisle brings up an important point: What is the motivation for the alarm sounders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 12:54 PM Ebbie, Power, and transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor. Great for everyone who benefits. Not so great for the rich, like the US. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Ebbie Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:19 PM I don't buy that, bb (no pun intended). Say that the alarmists win the attention of the world and everybody spends their wealth on ameliorating the effects of the worst case scenarios with all the inconvenience and hardships that is entailed in that action. And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees. No. There's a whole lot more to it than that. Think about it some more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:28 PM I get my facts the same place everybody else does, Ebbie, and in the same fashion. ;-) But I am aware of it! ;-) I mean...I'm fully aware of the fallibility and inadequacy of my available means of acquiring facts. Most people, I find, aren't. They are fueled by utter certainty regarding their opinion, and they don't seem to realize how little they know. It makes them a pain to talk to... ;-) They probably find me a pain to talk to for the same reason....! You see, I am, like Mark Twain, simply commenting wryly on the common weaknesses of human beings, myself included. I know what pompous, babbling, opinionated little yammerers we all are. I think it's important to remember this marvelous quote that Amos put on another thread awhile back. It is so apt: Don't believe anything. Regard things on a scale of probabilities. The things that seem most absurd, put under 'Low Probability', and the things that seem most plausible, you put under 'High Probability'. Never believe anything. Once you believe anything, you stop thinking about it. The more things you believe, the less mental activity. If you believe something, and have an opinion on every subject, then your brain activity stops entirely, which is clinically considered a sign of death, nowadays in medical practice. So put things on a scale or probability, and never believe or disbelieve anything entirely. -Robert A. Wilson (interview with "innerview") I don't actually KNOW if the popular Global Warming theory is correct or not. Neither does anyone else here. I can only make the best "educated" guess I am capable of about it, based on what others have said here and there about it, look up some stuff on the Net or wherever, and then I might develop an opinion...but I still don't know. My knowledge is fragmentary and very limited. So is everyone else's here. I neither believe in the GW theory nor do I disbelieve in it. I just feel a certain measure of skepticism regarding, because I've seen so many of these kind of alarmist theories come and go in the past. They all resound in our media with a frenzy while they're in fasion...a year or a decade goes by...and they are completely forgotten and soon replaced with another alarmist theory. Each alarmist theory generates a whole new industry and makes money for a bunch of interested parties. It's like that with medical stuff too...like the latest H1N1 hoopla, which I am very skeptical about. But here's the clincher: I don't KNOW for 100% certain sure about any of these things, because I have no way of knowing all the facts. And neither does anyone else here. They can only do what Mr Wilson above advises, and avoid clinging to the dogma of utterly rigid belief. That way at least they will continue thinking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:32 PM "And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees." The GW "hotheads" have stated it will be up to 200 years before GW has major effects- but the tipping point is RIGHT NOW- so we better put them in charge and do what they say.- so THEY will be dead before the hoax is exposed. How will it affect them to be proven wrong a hundred years after they are dead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:33 PM last was me... "And nothing happens. Science reverses itself and says, Whoops! We were wrong and the earth is going to be fine without any interference from people. How well would the "power" the alarmists had gained serve them then? They would probably be hanged from the nearest trees." The GW "hotheads" have stated it will be up to 200 years before GW has major effects- but the tipping point is RIGHT NOW- so we better put them in charge and do what they say.- so THEY will be dead before the hoax is exposed. How will it affect them to be proven wrong a hundred years after they are dead? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Little Hawk Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:41 PM Face it.....you're gonna DIE without ever knowing if you were RIGHT!!! God, it's frustratin', ain't it? ;-) If we could only live long enough...we'd eventually have the answers to all these vexing questions that trouble us now. But there'd be some new ones coming down the line. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: pdq Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:43 PM ...from Ebbie's post: "... Are we all buying stock in windmills so that Palin, riding a rabid elephant, will have a new, crowd-pleasing hallucination to joust with? Well, it sells papers and fans the flames on hate radio..." That statement has no merit whatever. It is hateful, fact-free character assasination. Some people must be really afraid of Sarah Palin because she is the #1 target of the paid attack dogs right now. BTW, I do not believe she is presidential material and see no way the she will be successful in getting elected to any office higher than the US Senate. I believe she is being targeted because her beliefs seem to threaten certain special interest groups. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Palin v. Gore... From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 17 Dec 09 - 01:45 PM Don, a summary if Antarctic research is found in the report "Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment," edit. John Turner of the British Antarctic Survey, Robert Bindschadler of NASA and others; some 550 pages but carefully organized. The interpretations for the next century (2100) are explained. The full report is online (pdf). Your second link will lead to it, but the site, for anyone really interested, is: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/SCAR_ssg_ps/ACCE_25_Nov_2009.pdf |
