Another one for the "man made" global warming suckers

[never_fast_enuf]

Wake up people...you have been scammed and that just can't feel good at all.
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966

[Schiada76]

No, only the idiot liberal hysterics have been scammed. Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria.
Now, can they just get back to their global cooling hysteria.:idea: :D :D
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Someone call the Algore, he's honest and will save us all!:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Wake up people...you have been scammed and that just can't feel good at all.
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
DAILYTECH
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.
Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
It would be helpful to all if you pointed out all of the facts, not just the one that support your agenda.
No, only the idiot liberal hysterics have been scammed. Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria.
Now, can they just get back to their global cooling hysteria.:idea: :D :D
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Someone call the Algore, he's honest and will save us all!:rolleyes:
Schiada,
You are correct in your statement that "Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria". Anyone with a whole brain is aware that there is still a great deal to learn about this issue.

[jh4rt]

I don't usually post in this forum. But, I'm going to make an exception and give you a (hopefully) thought provoking comment:
What kind of arrogance must "man" have to honestly purport that in his measly (approximately) 1 million years of existence on earth, he has had the capacity to change the course of a (so far approximately) 3.4 BILLION year cycle? If you can answer that question, maybe you should ponder on this one: What kind of JACK-ASS would believe that man's activity in the last 200 years could considerably alter the outcome of a 3.4 BILLION year cycle?
I'm all for personal conservation. I pick up other peoples' trash when i'm on a beach at Lake Mead. I like my environment to be nice for ME! I don't expect others to behave this way; they won't. Anyone who tries to force others to do so through regulation is a thief. If you want your environment to be better and cleaner, there are lots of countries/places in the world where "civilization" hasn't encroached. Move there!
Meanwhile, the "issue" of anthropogenic global warming is strictly a political one. Religion doesn't work anymore, so the politicos have created a new "god" called the environment. Because it doesn't require the same amount of "blind faith" as the old gods, it is much easier to justify the guilt/fear factor. It's for the children after all.....
Well, now I'm in it, right? Position stated.
peace out... and umm... Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I don't usually post in this forum. But, I'm going to make an exception and give you a (hopefully) thought provoking comment:
What kind of arrogance must "man" have to honestly purport that in his measly (approximately) 1 million years of existence on earth, he has had the capacity to change the course of a (so far approximately) 3.4 BILLION year cycle? If you can answer that question, maybe you should ponder on this one: What kind of JACK-ASS would believe that man's activity in the last 200 years could considerably alter the outcome of a 3.4 BILLION year cycle?
I'm all for personal conservation. I pick up other peoples' trash when i'm on a beach at Lake Mead. I like my environment to be nice for ME! I don't expect others to behave this way; they won't. Anyone who tries to force others to do so through regulation is a thief. If you want your environment to be better and cleaner, there are lots of countries/places in the world where "civilization" hasn't encroached. Move there!
Meanwhile, the "issue" of anthropogenic global warming is strictly a political one. Religion doesn't work anymore, so the politicos have created a new "god" called the environment. Because it doesn't require the same amount of "blind faith" as the old gods, it is much easier to justify the guilt/fear factor. It's for the children after all.....
Well, now I'm in it, right? Position stated.
peace out... and umm... Nuke the gay whales for Jesus!
Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?

[bigq]

Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
and what percentage would that be as opposed to the natural occurences of the gasses?

[jh4rt]

Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
Define environment. Who's is it? Who decides who owns it? Define God. You get the point?
Does dumping pollution in a stream affect/effect the life in that stream? You F*&^Ckin bet! And anyone who does it should be jailed/strung-up/killed equivalent to the damage they do. It's called reactionary law. It was the rule up until Abe Lincoln created the Interstate Trade Commission; the first regulatory agency and F*d our government for the rest of time.
Meanwhile, do you really think that the world will be saved by outlawing my 2-stroke Merc?
I guess the reason I don't post... is that I could speak for hours on this... but I felt compelled for some reason today.
I will sum it up pretty simply and ask you to ask these questions any time the government is "mandating" or regulating anything:
"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
peace out for real this time.

[never_fast_enuf]

Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
Speaking of an agenda...yet another masterful (not) deflection Ultra. Newsflash...pollution does not equate to global climate change. You can't find any sane rational person who advocates blatant pollution. As a boat owner and one who actually enjoys playing in a clean environment, I never ceased to be amazed at those of you who bow to the alter of Algore and your ability to confuse the two topics.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Speaking of an agenda...yet another masterful (not) deflection Ultra. Newsflash...pollution does not equate to global climate change. You can't find any sane rational person who advocates blatant pollution. As a boat owner and one who actually enjoys playing in a clean environment, I never ceased to be amazed at those of you who bow to the alter of Algore and your ability to confuse the two topics.
I'm not cunfused. If you stopped a the barrage of bullshit long enough to read what my position is on this issue it might surprize you. But not the masterdebater.
I'm going boating, have fun

[never_fast_enuf]

There goes that temper again!
Your position is very clear. It is two fold. One, you don't understand the difference between pollution and the theory of man made global warming and two, you refuse to use your own brain and even an ounce of common sense to stop and question what is behind the myth of man made global warming.
The problem with you, indeed the problem with all liberals, is you approach a subject such as this with pure emotion...facts be damned.
BTW, I would already be on the water but I am waiting for our weekend guests to arrive here at the lake house and I had a few hours to kill by busting your balls.:D

[jh4rt]

"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
No response?

[asch]

Wake up people...you have been scammed and that just can't feel good at all.
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=b35c36a3-802a-23ad-46ec-6880767e7966
Oh, I believe its man made alright. Man made BS!
Unfortunetly, with instant, global, communications at our fingertips and 24hr. news service, its proponents have the upper hand at winning over the willing and unwilling dupes. It's the pace at which all this info comes to us--instantly. Even 10 years ago, you couldn't reach the mases like you can today.
It ain't going away any time soon. Far too many people have bought into already. Its a lot like Germany in the late thirties . But yeah, for what its worth, people need to get the facts from both sides.

[Schiada76]

Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
Here's the problem with liberals in a nutshell.
This boob knows the issue of global warming is up in the air, no proof on either side of the arguement so he trys to shift the dicussion thinking we're all idiots because we don't agree with his feelings
The issue is GLOBAL WARMING not environmental degradation try to stay on topic.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[asch]

"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
Theirs
Ours
No end
Those are the short answers. I believe our very existence and every decision will eventually be dictated by a "is it good for the environment and the earth" mentality. It's already that way, imagine it 100 a times worse. We'll all eventually get out of bed to work for and worship the environment, the earth or both. And guess who'll be the one watching and enforcing it all?? Our government
:eek:

[jh4rt]

Theirs
Ours
No end
:eek:
HA! Almost... here's the actual answers:
NONE!
Whomever has the capacity to pay!
Global Control and Submission!
See... now you guys got me started.... I'm taking you down with me.
-j

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Do you actually believe that the amount of shit that man pumps into the air and into the water has no negative affect on the environment?
You ignored this the LAST time I posted it.
MANKIND emits 5% of the world's CO2. FIVE PERCENT
The USA emits 0.0027% of the world's CO2. 27 TEN THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT.
That equates to 35 feet from LA towards New York City.
You will tell us that 0.0027% change will CAUSE OR SOLVE a "crisis"?????

[Schiada76]

You ignored this the LAST time I posted it.
MANKIND emits 5% of the world's CO2. FIVE PERCENT
The USA emits 0.0027% of the world's CO2. 27 TEN THOUSANDTHS OF ONE PERCENT.
That equates to 35 feet from LA towards New York City.
You will tell us that 0.0027% change will CAUSE OR SOLVE a "crisis"?????
He doesn't fcking care if what we do makes any difference what so ever he cares about his "feelings". Liberals are idiot scum.:rolleyes:

[centerhill condor]

Oh, I believe its man made alright. Man made BS!
well stated.
CC

[ULTRA26 # 1]

No one, including me, is arguing that there is significant evidence that the current warming trend IS NOT man made. However, there is credible evidence to the contrary. I'm not a Climatologist nor is anyone else here. It seems like basic common sense to error on the side caution. I have not suggested that the sky is falling nor or do I believe it to be the case. What I have stated and still stand by is that I believe man made climate change is possible and that we as Americans should make some effort to burn less fuel for this as well as many other reasons. . I have no intention of giving up boating and will continue to enjoy my boat often as possible. I have tried to balance my fuel consumption by driving a Honda Civic in town and to and from AZ. For me it's common sense.

[QuickJet]

You are correct in your statement that "Anyone with half a brain has been well aware that global warming is bullshit hysteria". Anyone with a whole brain is aware that there is still a great deal to learn about this issue.
Although I completely disagree with this statement, It is pretty Fvckin funny and well thought out.
Ultra; You finally made a funny and it aided in making your point as well...Good Job :D

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No one, including me, is arguing that there is significant evidence that the current warming trend IS NOT man made. .
WRONG! The vast majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS say it is a natural trend, that has historically shown a roughly 25 year cycle. Cooler, to warmer, to cooler again.
After WWII, for the 50's, 60's, and 70's, global hydrocarbon use SOARED.
Global COx emissions SOARED.
The earth continued to COOL, so much that idiot scientists called a "Global Cooling Crisis", and announced mankind was bringing on the next ice age early.
Finally, in the later 70's, the trend REVERSED ITSELF.
CLIMATOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS are noting this in saying AGW is a crock.
CLIMATOLOGICAL scientists who are named in the UN report, who disagree with the report, who have nothing in the report, are UNABLE TO GET THEIR NAMES REMOVED AFROM THE REPORT, untill they sue anyhow.
However, there is credible evidence to the contrary. .
WHERE???????
The INACCURATE AND UN-FACTUAL information in Algore's film?
I'm not a Climatologist.
Obviously, yet you are convinced.
It seems like basic common sense to error on the side caution..
At what expense?
Yet again, WHAT CHANGE IS CAUSED BY 0.0027%
Zero point zero, zero, two, seven, percent.
Twenty-seven-ten-thousandths of ONE PERCENT, IF we CLOSE the entire US emmissions today.
What I have stated and still stand by is that I believe man made climate change is possible . "And I WILL NOT BE convinced otherwise!"
What an overblown view of Humans and our capability.
and that we as Americans should make some effort to burn less fuel for this as well as many other reasons.
Reasons you cannot seem to diferentiate from the AGW/MMGW reasons.
No-one argues polution to be bad, yet, we polute LESS NOW than we ever used to in your youth, with FAR MORE ENERGY USAGE.
I have no intention of giving up boating and will continue to enjoy my boat often as possible. I have tried to balance my fuel consumption by driving a Honda Civic in town and to and from AZ.
Sounds like Al-Gore and his "Carbon Offsets".
" I can have a couple mansions, and fly on private jets, and sponsor huge concerts that generate trash and use energy, if I pay someone else to not use over here."

[ULTRA26 # 1]

WRONG! The vast majority of CLIMATOLOGISTS say it is a natural trend, that has historically shown a roughly 25 year cycle. Cooler, to warmer, to cooler again.
After WWII, for the 50's, 60's, and 70's, global hydrocarbon use SOARED.
Global COx emissions SOARED.
The earth continued to COOL, so much that idiot scientists called a "Global Cooling Crisis", and announced mankind was bringing on the next ice age early.
Finally, in the later 70's, the trend REVERSED ITSELF.
CLIMATOLOGICAL SCIENTISTS are noting this in saying AGW is a crock.
CLIMATOLOGICAL scientists who are named in the UN report, who disagree with the report, who have nothing in the report, are UNABLE TO GET THEIR NAMES REMOVED AFROM THE REPORT, untill they sue anyhow.
WHERE???????
The INACCURATE AND UN-FACTUAL information in Algore's film?
Obviously, yet you are convinced.
At what expense?
Yet again, WHAT CHANGE IS CAUSED BY 0.0027%
Zero point zero, zero, two, seven, percent.
Twenty-seven-ten-thousandths of ONE PERCENT, IF we CLOSE the entire US emmissions today.
"And I WILL NOT BE convinced otherwise!"
What an overblown view of Humans and our capability.
Reasons you cannot seem to diferentiate from the AGW/MMGW reasons.
No-one argues polution to be bad, yet, we polute LESS NOW than we ever used to in your youth, with FAR MORE ENERGY USAGE.
Sounds like Al-Gore and his "Carbon Offsets".
" I can have a couple mansions, and fly on private jets, and sponsor huge concerts that generate trash and use energy, if I pay someone else to not use over here."
I comment that there is significant evidence that the issue isn't made made and I'm wrong? Do you squirt when you mention Al Gore, cause you sure so talk about him alot. Such a long winded response to a comment about common sense.
Do you have a hangover again this morning weekend boy?

[bigq]

I comment that there is significant evidence that the issue isn't made made and I'm wrong? Do you squirt when you mention Al Gore, cause you sure so talk about him alot. Such a long winded response to a comment about common sense.
Do you have a hangover again this morning weekend boy?
Ultra I think you had a double negative in your first post so it is a little confusing as to what you were saying...
You in politics??:D <------ Humor attempt

[Schiada76]

Although I completely disagree with this statement, It is pretty Fvckin funny and well thought out.
Ultra; You finally made a funny and it aided in making your point as well...Good Job :D
The only problem is half a conservative trumps a liberal brain in any debate.
We use our brains not our feeeeeeeeeeeelings to come to a conclusion.:D
The earth has been evolving for billions of years, climate has constantly fluctuated through out those billions. Humans evolved approx. 4 million years ago and just started burning fossil fuels as our main source of energy 50 to 100 years ago.
Liberal "brain".
OH MY GOD OH MY GOD!!!!! It's hot then it's cold then it's hot then it's cold.
Ban the SUV!! Everyone must buy a chin ball wizard car! No oil!!! Help us oh please some one help us!!! I must worship at the temple of the Algore!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!! Run away! Run away!!:rolleyes:
Conservative brain:
Summers hot, winters cold.:D

[jh4rt]

"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
No response?
Hey... Ultra... you haven't answered these. Back off the statistical rhetoric you read in buddy magazine, and in a philosophical/principled manner, answer these questions.

[never_fast_enuf]

It seems like basic common sense to error on the side caution. I
You do realize that "back in the day" doctors drilled holes in peoples heads to relive a head ache...just erring on the side of caution Ultra. Would you have your arm amputated if you had a splinter in a finger? After all, that finger could get infected and the infection could kill you. Why not just hack it off before that scenario ever had a chance to develop? Err on the side of caution I believe is your point...some serious common sense you exude Ultra.
This is what people like you are asking others to do. People like you who rely on feelings instead of facts will get the rest of us completely screwed because you will help allow bullshit legislation to get pushed through that does nothing to fix a problem man has nothing to do with in the first place.
Evidently, you are just too freaking stupid or naive...or both to see this issue for what it is...another political money grab.
Wake up Ultra. You are a text book example of what is referred to as a "useful idiot".

[Old Texan]

Somewhere in the past week we had a discussion on how bad reactionary legislation has caused problems. Energy and environment issues have both produced bad legislation effecting the state of our nation. We need to learn from the past........:idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Hey... Ultra... you haven't answered these. Back off the statistical rhetoric you read in buddy magazine, and in a philosophical/principled manner, answer these questions.
Originally Posted by jh4rt
"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
1. Standards determined by educated individuals. Not the govt
2. Shouldn't be an expense
3. There is no end to conservation

[jh4rt]

Originally Posted by jh4rt
"By what standard?"
"At whose expense?"
"To what end?"
1. Standards determined by educated individuals. Not the govt
2. Shouldn't be an expense
3. There is no end to conservation
Huh? Did you smoke a bowl before you answered this?
I'll say it again and maybe you can stop speaking DEMOCRAT!!!
By WHAT standard? Name the precept by which we should judge our interaction with the environment. Define the environment and please tell us who owns it?
At whose expense: What do you mean "Shouldn't be and expense"??? What the fock planet are you from? Why the hell do you think gas costs $4? Why do you think your POS Chevy that used to cost $2400 is now $45k? Is it really that much better than a '74?
There is no end to conservation? Then why do it? If there is no end, then I suppose there is no value? Did you just say that?
I'm not calling you out Ultra. Lot's of people buy this shit. Y'know.. their women tell them they should be sensitive and all. They always have this kind of... busted look about them. But, you need to take it down to base principles. You need to decide for yourself that there is more to the answer than what you read in the newspaper and see on the TV. You need to realize that there is always a motivation for whatever people do, and it is always selfish...AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing!!!!
You should have your boat; use it in health and enjoy it. You should have whatever you want to drive and do the same. And in the meantime, realize that the politicians have a specific agenda to control each of us by using our own virtue against us. They will succeed if they have guys like you helping them. Just jump off for a minute and look around. Real science doesn't seek to blame, only to understand. From the very beginning, the agenda of AGW has been to blame and control. To leverage our own guilt and capability against us to enact a level of control by the government heretofore only reserved for religion.
Today, they are telling us we can't have two stroke outboards; tomorrow they will be telling us where we are allowed to reincarnate.
.....not that i have an opinion.... :P

[SmokinLowriderSS]

No one, including me, is arguing that there is significant evidence that the current warming trend IS NOT man made.
You are actually correct. The above statement was SO FAR AT ODDS to your heretofore stated positions on MMGW/AGW, that I was confused.
I stand corrected.
The entire remainder of my post still stands.
I'm still wanting to know what CREDIBLE evidence there is that we caused it.
Americans cause 0.0027% of ALL WORLDWIDE carbon emissions.
By the way, 0.0027% of your 26 foot boat, is .0084 inches, or about the thickess of the paint on your outdrive, 8 mills.
For the metric minded, .0027% of Ultra's 26 foot boat, is 0.21 MILIMETERS., aproximately 1/10 the thickness of a penny.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Huh? Did you smoke a bowl before you answered this?
I'll say it again and maybe you can stop speaking DEMOCRAT!!!
By WHAT standard? Name the precept by which we should judge our interaction with the environment. Define the environment and please tell us who owns it?
At whose expense: What do you mean "Shouldn't be and expense"??? What the fock planet are you from? Why the hell do you think gas costs $4? Why do you think your POS Chevy that used to cost $2400 is now $45k? Is it really that much better than a '74?
There is no end to conservation? Then why do it? If there is no end, then I suppose there is no value? Did you just say that?
I'm not calling you out Ultra. Lot's of people buy this shit. Y'know.. their women tell them they should be sensitive and all. They always have this kind of... busted look about them. But, you need to take it down to base principles. You need to decide for yourself that there is more to the answer than what you read in the newspaper and see on the TV. You need to realize that there is always a motivation for whatever people do, and it is always selfish...AND THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing!!!!
You should have your boat; use it in health and enjoy it. You should have whatever you want to drive and do the same. And in the meantime, realize that the politicians have a specific agenda to control each of us by using our own virtue against us. They will succeed if they have guys like you helping them. Just jump off for a minute and look around. Real science doesn't seek to blame, only to understand. From the very beginning, the agenda of AGW has been to blame and control. To leverage our own guilt and capability against us to enact a level of control by the government heretofore only reserved for religion.
Today, they are telling us we can't have two stroke outboards; tomorrow they will be telling us where we are allowed to reincarnate.
.....not that i have an opinion.... :P
Full of ourselves aren't we?
Name the percept? One's own eduucated judgement. Does it sound like I'm speaking Democrat when I mention NOT CONTROLED by the govt?
Define the environment? The circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded. Noone or everyone.
Expense? I remember when my Father bought a his one and only brand Cadillac CdV in 1964. $6,400. Same car today, nearly 8 times that. Last I heard it was called inflation. Maybe if the Feds would stop devaluing the dollar by printing more, every time they feel the urge, the process would slow. Obviously there is more to it than this.
There is no end to conservation? Then why do it? If there is no end, then I suppose there is no value? Did you just say that?
No I didn't just say that.
Then why do it IMO, most intelligent believe that it is proper to conserve at some level. I'm sure that there some intelligent folks who believe that conservation is a left wing political hoax, but probably not to many.
Please don't get the impression, because of what others suggesst, that I have no understanding of what drives politics. When you state "guys like me" it suggests that you know me and are aware of my views. An assumption at best.
What ever I choose or don't choose to conserve is my business, It is not result of some some left wing imposed guilt, or right wing imposed denial. By choice, I now drive, what some have described as, a "little pussy Civic. I have been conscious of my fuel consumption since 1974 when you had wait
in line to buy gas on odd or even days. My choice.
If trying to live a balanced life make me a hypocrite to some, so be it. I'm not campaigning for some leadership position here.
I have listened to both sides of the climate change issue. Call me ignorant if you'd like, but I'm not convinced that it is all about a political hoax. I'm not conceived that it isn't.
There is life beyond the Political Rhetoric Forum on ***boat.com. It is my plan to enjoy the time I left on this planet, and die not feeling like I was a POS pig while I was here.
Not sure who you believe "they" are. Seems to me that the majority makes the rules and there will always be those who oppose. We have now had almost 7 years from the "less government, less government spending" party, and where are we today? A giant disappointment in this regard. Seems to me there is very little to be proud of from either party.
Gotta go
Take care
John M
Smokin,
Thanks

[jh4rt]

Full of ourselves aren't we?
Way too full!!!! :)
Name the percept? One's own eduucated judgement. Does it sound like I'm speaking Democrat when I mention NOT CONTROLED by the govt?
Well, Precept (hope I didn't spell it wrong) and that isn't quite it. But, OK.
Expense? I remember when my Father bought a his one and only brand Cadillac CdV in 1964. $6,400. Same car today, nearly 8 times that. Last I heard it was called inflation. Maybe if the Feds would stop devaluing the dollar by printing more, every time they feel the urge, the process would slow. Obviously there is more to it than this.
Oh .. hey there... don't get me started on the fed and fiat money.... I'm with ya there. However, inflation isn't the cause of the extra cost in your car. If it was inflation, all things would inflate equally and a loaf of bread would now cost $20. It is the regulation that has driven the cost disproportionate to other objects while delivering less value to the consumer. It is the f$%king with the free market that does that. I'm glad you realize there is more to it than that.
Then why do it IMO, most intelligent believe that it is proper to conserve at some level. I'm sure that there some intelligent folks who believe that conservation is a left wing political hoax, but probably not to many.
Conservation as a practice is great. I appreciate your driving a Honda because you enjoy that it is economical and lasts a long time. I myself bought a lexus this year and one of the driving factors was that it gets 25 MPG no matter how much of an asshole I am while driving it. I appreciate that you would consider your perception of the positive effect on the environment as a value you hold dear; and would never call you a pussy for driving a civic. I expressed earlier that I pick up after others, and am disgusted by the mess left after "Earth Day" in Isla Vista. But that doesn't have anything to do with preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The acknowledgment of AGW, as it stands in the books today is ignorant. To say that man, although we have learned a lot, has the capability to fully comprehend his own affect on the environment, or that the limitation of "greenhouse" gasses in the next 30 to 40 years will in-fact make a difference in a cycle we don't fully understand, well... It's not just that I don't agree with it, it's that I vehemently disagree. When I look at its public proponents, and their agenda, well... I disagree even further.
When you state "guys like me" it suggests that you know me and are aware of my views. An assumption at best.
I apologize for my presumption. Perhaps the G&T was getting the better of me and I ran off at the mouth.
There is life beyond the Political Rhetoric Forum on ***boat.com. It is my plan to enjoy the time I left on this planet, and die not feeling like I was a POS pig while I was here.
......
Seems to me there is very little to be proud of from either party.
......
John M. Glad to know you. You have given me more to write about and think about in the last couple of days than I have had in weeks. I'm glad we had an opportunity for this interchange and would love to sit over a beer or three and discuss with you in person at some point (as long as neither of us is the designated driver). :devil: :D :sqeyes:
Best regards,
Jim.
P.S. Both "parties" are the same and have been since Abe Lincoln was president. The contest is just a media show for those who still vote (with something other than their dollar). :devil:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Couldn't decide whether to put this "information": here, or under the "stupidity" thread, so here it is.
AGW SOLUTIONS, from the AGW pushers.
Planktos, a small California-based "ecorestoration" company, will use a 115-foot (35-meter) research ship to dump a hundred tons of iron dust into international waters some 200 miles (322 kilometers) west of the Galapagos Islands.
Now, this is supposed to stimulate plankton growth, who absorb CO2 while growing.
What's the effect of all that iron powder on the ocean?
The local fish/other sea life populations?
Whats' the effect on the islands of all that plankton suddenly growing?
Planktos ultimately wants to fertilize plankton blooms, measure the carbon they capture, and sell the corresponding credits
Ahah!!!!!!
More .................................................. ...............
A Nobel Prize-winning scientist has proposed a controversial method for protecting Earth from global warming: seeding the atmosphere with sulfur to reflect the sun's rays.
The sulfur particles would be dropped from high-altitude balloons or fired into the atmosphere with heavy artillery shells, he says.
Once airborne the particles would act like tiny mirrors, bouncing the sun's light and heat back into space.
Just how much sulfur is "polution" then? :jawdrop: :idea:
Ok................................................ ..
The initiatives are being fostered by "geo-engineers" - scientists who say headway to reduce the fossil-fuel pollution which drives global warming is so ludicrously slow that bold new ideas are needed to avert climate catastrophe.
Among solutions they sketch is a giant network of tilted mirrors, deployed in orbit, that would deflect some of the sunlight Earth receives.
A huge, orbiting solar shade.
Just, um,,,,, how do we get it there? I sure hope we don't burn rocket fuel.
The SRB's of the shuttle are a lot less cleanly opperating than the main engines are. Lotsa atomized ALUMINUM burned up in them.
More .................................................. ...............
This one should concern you. China is already doing it tho, so perhaps we need to get aboard.
Ahead of Earth Day on Sunday, an advocacy group warned that the United States is ignoring "the most crucial factor in reducing global warming" -- population control.
"Human population growth is the paramount environmental issue," Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization, told Cybercast News Service.
"Global warming is a very serious problem, but it is a subset of the overpopulation problem," he said.
Oberlink argued that an increase in the emission of "greenhouse gases" -- carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for climate change -- is a result of human activity, "like most environmental problems."
Although one part of the equation is what people do, he said, the other part is how many there are.
"If we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem," argued Oberlink.
I will be willing to bet that I know which half of the population HE IS IN.
The 1/2 that gets to stay, not the half that needs to be killed off.
They've been planning THIS since 1968.
Back in 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich published his famous -- and entirely erroneous -- anti-reproduction manifesto, "The Population Bomb." "The battle to feed all of humanity is over," Ehrlich claimed. "In the 1970s the world will undergo famines -- hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." His solution: "The birth rate must be brought into balance with the death rate. We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptoms of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out."
In 1990, Al Gore trumpeted the sequel to "The Population Bomb," writing a glowing blurb for its dust jacket: "The time for action is due, and past due. The Ehrlichs have written the prescription." Gore neglected to mention that Ehrlich's prescription is mass distribution of RU-486.
That's from Al Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!
Professor John Guillebaud, co-chairman of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT). "The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

[SmokinLowriderSS]

April 2007, the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the big AGW supporters, has conceded that "The earth has natural temperature and climate cycles. Nobody has disputed that."
Combine that with the following facts:
"the earth has warmed 0.6 degree C in the last century." (quoth Algore)
Subtract the 0.5 degrees of warming that occurred before 1940, before most human CO2 emmissions.
That leaves 0.1 degrees, over 65 years.
Also, mix in the fact of NO WARMING SINCE 1998.
Shake thoroughly (don't stir), and pour in a glass. What do you get? :idea: :idea: :idea:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Way too full!!!! :)
Well, Precept (hope I didn't spell it wrong) and that isn't quite it. But, OK.
Oh .. hey there... don't get me started on the fed and fiat money.... I'm with ya there. However, inflation isn't the cause of the extra cost in your car. If it was inflation, all things would inflate equally and a loaf of bread would now cost $20. It is the regulation that has driven the cost disproportionate to other objects while delivering less value to the consumer. It is the f$%king with the free market that does that. I'm glad you realize there is more to it than that.
Conservation as a practice is great. I appreciate your driving a Honda because you enjoy that it is economical and lasts a long time. I myself bought a lexus this year and one of the driving factors was that it gets 25 MPG no matter how much of an asshole I am while driving it. I appreciate that you would consider your perception of the positive effect on the environment as a value you hold dear; and would never call you a pussy for driving a civic. I expressed earlier that I pick up after others, and am disgusted by the mess left after "Earth Day" in Isla Vista. But that doesn't have anything to do with preaching Anthropogenic Global Warming.
The acknowledgment of AGW, as it stands in the books today is ignorant. To say that man, although we have learned a lot, has the capability to fully comprehend his own affect on the environment, or that the limitation of "greenhouse" gasses in the next 30 to 40 years will in-fact make a difference in a cycle we don't fully understand, well... It's not just that I don't agree with it, it's that I vehemently disagree. When I look at its public proponents, and their agenda, well... I disagree even further.
I apologize for my presumption. Perhaps the G&T was getting the better of me and I ran off at the mouth.
John M. Glad to know you. You have given me more to write about and think about in the last couple of days than I have had in weeks. I'm glad we had an opportunity for this interchange and would love to sit over a beer or three and discuss with you in person at some point (as long as neither of us is the designated driver). :devil: :D :sqeyes:
Best regards,
Jim.
P.S. Both "parties" are the same and have been since Abe Lincoln was president. The contest is just a media show for those who still vote (with something other than their dollar). :devil:
Jim,
It's always a pleasure to communicate with another reasonable and thooughtful adult. I would be happy to be the DD as I really don't drink much any more.
John

[Schiada76]

Since U26 thinks it's common sense to err on the side of caution I guess he'll be scheduling his prostate removal surgery since prostate cancer is a given in any male that lives long enough. Probably should get his appendix out at the same time and start his chemotherapy if he has ever been out in the sun.
Just to err on the side of caution.:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Since U26 thinks it's common sense to err on the side of caution I guess he'll be scheduling his prostate removal surgery since prostate cancer is a given in any male that lives long enough. Probably should get his appendix out at the same time and start his chemotherapy if he has ever been out in the sun.
Just to err on the side of caution.:rolleyes:
Another masterpiece.
BTW, you can look forward to having your colon checked. As I recall, when they have that tool rammed deeply up your ass, if they see polyps they remove them. Err on the side of caution, is what the Dr told me.

[Schiada76]

Another masterpiece.
BTW, you can look forward to having your colon checked. As I recall, when they have that tool rammed deeply up your ass, if they see polyps they remove them. Err on the side of caution, is what the Dr told me.
So when are you having your prostate removed?
It is common sense to err on the side of caution isn't it?:rolleyes:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So when are you having your prostate removed?
It is common sense to err on the side of caution isn't it?:rolleyes:
At the same time you have your frontal lobe removed, goof :)

[Schiada76]

At the same time you have your frontal lobe removed, goof :)
So explain to me the difference between erring on the side of caution for a completely unproven hypothesis and erring on the side of caution for an absolute fact?:confused:

[ULTRA26 # 1]

So explain to me the difference between erring on the side of caution for a completely unproven hypothesis and erring on the side of caution for an absolute fact?:confused:
http://www.prostate.com/prostatecancer/
If you have been diagnosed with prostate cancer, you are not alone. During his lifetime, a man has about a 1 in 10 chance of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Over 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed annually in the U.S.
What absolute fact are you referring to?
My father lived to be 80 and had no prostate problems.
Next

[Schiada76]

http://www.prostate.com/prostatecancer/
If you have been diagnosed with prostate cancer, you are not alone. During his lifetime, a man has about a 1 in 10 chance of being diagnosed with prostate cancer. Over 200,000 new cases of prostate cancer are diagnosed annually in the U.S.
What absolute fact are you referring to?
My father lived to be 80 and had no prostate problems.
Next
Oh, I'm sorry. So you don't have a prostate gland?
So you can't err on the side of caution.
That explains a lot.:D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Oh, I'm sorry. So you don't have a prostate gland?
So you can't err on the side of caution.
That explains a lot.:D
That's what I said????? You're beginning to sound as lame as Miller.
Seems kind of gay that you are so interested in my prostate.

['75 Miller]

That's what I said????? You're beginning to sound as lame as Miller.
Seems kind of gay that you are so interested in my prostate.
OOH, the lefty hypocrite called me lame....I'm gonna cry!

[Schiada76]

That's what I said????? You're beginning to sound as lame as Miller.
Seems kind of gay that you are so interested in my prostate.
Liberals, what a joke.:rolleyes:
Let me explain it for you, you're a little denser than usual today.
Your statement of that "common sense dictates we err on the side of caution" regarding global warming is just as stupid, actually more stupid, than having ones prostate removed on the side of caution. Now are you ready for this? It's pretty simple except for a lib, especially since there is no guarentee that you will get prostate cancer.
Who here wants to bet that Ultra still doesn't understand my point?:rolleyes: :D :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Liberals, what a joke.:rolleyes:
Let me explain it for you, you're a little denser than usual today.
Your statement of that "common sense dictates we err on the side of caution" regarding global warming is just as stupid, actually more stupid, than having ones prostate removed on the side of caution. Now are you ready for this? It's pretty simple except for a lib, especially since there is no guarentee that you will get prostate cancer.
Who here wants to bet that Ultra still doesn't understand my point?:rolleyes: :D :D
Your point was lame in the 1st place and continues to be lame. I save money and use less fuel with my daily driving. Less emissions too. That's enough reason for me. It's not hard, really. :)
Also, have we coined a new word in "denser" :D :D

[Schiada76]

Your point was lame in the 1st place and continues to be lame. I save money and use less fuel with my daily driving. Less emissions too. That's enough reason for me. It's not hard, really. :)
Also, have we coined a new word in "denser" :D :D
My analogy to your idiotic statement is much more valid than your complete inability to defend your statement.:rolleyes:
You need to fact check a little deeper too Mr. Investimagator, 80% of all eighty year old males in the US have or have had prostate cancer. If a man lives long enough it's guarenteed.
Denser is also in the dictionary spell check boy.:D
Investigator???? No wonder my insurance is so high.:rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

Actually you both (Shiada and Ultra) are making sense in your last posts here. On the micro level, Ultra's choosing to have a civic as a daily driver and doing other personal things to save energy and $$ makes perfect sense. Shiada's "cut out your prostate" analogy is a good one for looking at the macro, re those who would consider using government to force costly and poorly conceived measures, like Kyoto, on us all in order to "play it safe".

[ULTRA26 # 1]

My analogy to your idiotic statement is much more valid than your complete inability to defend your statement.:rolleyes:
You need to fact check a little deeper too Mr. Investimagator, 80% of all eighty year old males in the US have or have had prostate cancer. If a man lives long enough it's guarenteed.
Denser is also in the dictionary spell check boy.:D
Investigator???? No wonder my insurance is so high.:rolleyes:
Which is it??
It's pretty simple except for a lib, especially since there is no guarentee that you will get prostate cancer.
[I]80% of all eighty year old males in the US have or have had prostate cancer
Please follow the link to PROSTATE.COM 1 in 10 get prostate cancer
http://www.prostate.com/prostatecancer/

[Schiada76]

Which is it??
Please follow the link to PROSTATE.COM 1 in 10 get prostate cancer
http://www.prostate.com/prostatecancer/
Not that live to eighty.:rolleyes:

[Schiada76]

Actually you both (Shiada and Ultra) are making sense in your last posts here. On the micro level, Ultra's choosing to have a civic as a daily driver and doing other personal things to save energy and $$ makes perfect sense. Shiada's "cut out your prostate" analogy is a good one for looking at the macro, re those who would consider using government to force costly and poorly conceived measures, like Kyoto, on us all in order to "play it safe".
Oh Great!!!
There you go being all adult.....and chit.:D :D

[Schiada76]

Actually you both (Shiada and Ultra) are making sense in your last posts here. On the micro level, Ultra's choosing to have a civic as a daily driver and doing other personal things to save energy and $$ makes perfect sense. Shiada's "cut out your prostate" analogy is a good one for looking at the macro, re those who would consider using government to force costly and poorly conceived measures, like Kyoto, on us all in order to "play it safe".
Oh Great!!!
There you go being all adult.....and chit.:D :D

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Not that live to eighty.:rolleyes:
The statistics are different on just about every site on the net.
At age 80, the average life expectancy of a US male is 7 years; for those who make it to age 85, the average US male lives 5 more years.[1] The frequency of so-called latent prostate cancer (clinically unsuspected prostate cancer in autopsy series) rises with age from 15% in the sixth decade of life to 30% in the seventh decade and approximately 40% in the eighth decade.[1,2]
Thus, autopsy series would suggest that an 80-year-old man has approximately a 40% chance of having histologic evidence of prostate cancer.[2]
The overdetection of clinically insignificant prostate cancer in this age group, with resultant overtreatment, treatment-related morbidity, and economic burden, is the primary concern. At the same time, approximately 1% of 80-year-old men will have a clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer.[1]
Of these 80-year-old men with a clinical diagnosis of prostate cancer, those with low-grade and moderate-grade tumors would be expected to have a 97% to 98% 5-year disease-specific survival rate and an 87% 10-year disease-specific survival rate without immediate treatment.[3]
However, the 5-year disease-specific survival rate drops down to 76% and the 10-year disease-specific survival rate falls to 34% for those with high-grade cancers (Gleason score 8 to 10).[3]
Considering that the average life expectancy is under 80 years and that, until 3 weeks ago, I was a smoker since the age of 16, I'm not overly concerned.
I sure feels good to be a non-smoker for the 1st time in 40 years. Quiting was easy with a new product on the market.

[never_fast_enuf]

I see Ultra is up to his usual deflection techniques when he is backed into a corner.
BTW Ultra, why DID you ignore my "err on the side of caution" post?
Hmmmm....never mind, I already know why.

[Schiada76]

I see Ultra is up to his usual deflection techniques when he is backed into a corner.
BTW Ultra, why DID you ignore my "err on the side of caution" post?
Hmmmm....never mind, I already know why.
He was erring on the side of caution, didn't want to get caught with his foot in his mouth again.:D

[Schiada76]

I see Ultra is up to his usual deflection techniques when he is backed into a corner.
BTW Ultra, why DID you ignore my "err on the side of caution" post?
Hmmmm....never mind, I already know why.
He was erring on the side of caution, didn't want to get caught with his foot in his mouth again.:D

[never_fast_enuf]

He was erring on the side of caution, didn't want to get caught with his foot in his mouth again.:D
:D
http://atworkandbored.com/jokes-inc/fun-pics/foot-in-mouth-1199.jpeg