Global Warming-just a bunch of hot air
AZDuffman
Looks like more and more people are starting to question the so-called
science behind "global warming." The first hint should have been that
any solution involves tax increases. Sadly, Congress is working on
Obama's cap-and-tax plan and you will soon be paying more for
everything for no real reason.
Paul Tomblin
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
So a bunch of morons think "If I close my eyes and cover my ears, the
problem will go away". What difference does that make? The article
doesn't mention any actual climate scientists changing their views, just a
bunch of uninformed lay people worried about how much it will cost.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
"Being lectured on fiscal responsibility by George Bush is like being
lectured on law and order by Tony Soprano." - John Kerry
AZDuffman
> In a previous article, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
>
> So a bunch of morons think "If I close my eyes and cover my ears, the
> problem will go away". What difference does that make? The article
> doesn't mention any actual climate scientists changing their views, just a
> bunch of uninformed lay people worried about how much it will cost.
No, more and more people are questioning if there even is a problem in
the first place, which it more and more appears there is not. Why
wreck the economy on a maybe?
John Passaniti
> No, more and more people are questioning if there even is a problem in
> the first place, which it more and more appears there is not. Why
> wreck the economy on a maybe?
First, statements referencing "more and more" people are worthless for
any kind of objective evaluation of the claim. Popular opinion polls
(like the one cited in the article) may be interesting to gauge public
perception, but it says nothing about the science. And opinions
offered by non-scientists, scientists outside the field, and
scientists who don't publish actual research in peer-reviewed journals
also says little to nothing about the science.
Second, when evaluating articles like the one you cited, it pays to
highlight the names of people referenced and then Google them. If you
do that, you very quickly notice a recurring pattern-- far more often
than not they will be scientists and experts employed (directly or
indirectly) by industries, "think tanks", or policy institutes with a
vested interest in denying global warming. That alone doesn't
invalidate their claims, but it certainly raises questions of bias and
demands deeper investigation.
Third, there is no question that global warming (and the various non-
linear climate changing effects that come form it) are happening. The
only questions are (1) how much of it is man-made, (2) what is the
tipping point, and (3) what are the costs of addressing or mitigating
the effects. It's that last question which is immediately relevant,
because while people like you are more than happy to issue dire
warnings of how much the costs could affect the economy, you don't
seem as willing to address the costs if we do nothing. That is, if
you're going to play the game of cost/benefit analysis, then you need
to be honest and factor in the costs of doing nothing.
Fourth, I'm surprised that you-- someone that has a gambling blog--
would pivot your argument on a "maybe." When you're gambling, you
don't think in terms of "maybe" unless you're an emotional gambler who
ignores how the game works. A thoughtful gambler is going to think in
terms of probability, risk, and history. Sorry, the issue of global
warming isn't a "maybe". It's a fact. The mechanism may be in
question. The costs may be in question. Some of the predictive
models may be in question. But what isn't in question is that
addressing or mitigating the effects-- whatever the cause-- is going
to cost money. The question is where is that money best spent.
If you want to have a serious debate about this, you might start by
not citing biased articles and making emotional arguments.
Paul Tomblin
Since that "more and more" doesn't include a single reputable climate
scientist, who the hell cares what they think? Just because the seagulls
squawk doesn't mean they steer the boat.
>wreck the economy on a maybe?
Why wreck the planet because some rich bastards don't want to pay the
price for the lifestyle they live?
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
while true do; mutt -Z; trn; vi; make; done # My typical day
AZDuffman
> In a previous article, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> said:
> Why wreck the planet because some rich bastards don't want to pay the
> price for the lifestyle they live?
Problem is that it is everybody who will be paying and we do not have
proof "the lifestyle they live" is causing anything. All there is out
there is a very short-term rise in temps and even that has subsided
since 2001. But I'm sure you will be happy to end up paying $4/gal
again, right?
John Passaniti
> Since that "more and more" doesn't include a single reputable climate
> scientist, who the hell cares what they think?
What, you mean all scientists aren't interchangeable? Gee, now I'm
going to have to reevaluate every Wall Street Journal article I've
ever read.
> >wreck the economy on a maybe?
>
> Why wreck the planet because some rich bastards don't want to pay the
> price for the lifestyle they live?
More to the point, their lifestyles are funded by deeply entrenched
industries that stand to lose a lot of money as more resources and
effort is channeled to alternative energy sources. So in that sense,
AZDuffman is absolutely right-- cap and trade will wreck the
economy... of those industries that have a vested interest in fossil
fuels. Awww. Too bad.
Paul Tomblin
>On Jun 27, 6:55�pm, ptomblin+netn...@xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) wrote:
>> Why wreck the planet because some rich bastards don't want to pay the
>> price for the lifestyle they live?
>
>Problem is that it is everybody who will be paying and we do not have
>proof "the lifestyle they live" is causing anything. All there is out
Just about everybody in the world with the scientific credentials to
evaluate the evidence disagrees with you. Gee, should I believe people
who study climate for a living, or some random guy on the Internet with no
credentials who thinks thinks that science is a "majority rules"
proposition?
>since 2001. But I'm sure you will be happy to end up paying $4/gal
>again, right?
$4/gal? I'd rather it went up to $10/gal (as long as it went up in India
and China as well), because that might finally spark some decent
alternative energy research and use.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
Can I LART an aol'r for attempting to subscribe to a majordomo list
with their street address, or should I wait for a second offence?
-- Allan Stojanovic
AZDuffman
> First, statements referencing "more and more" people are worthless for
> any kind of objective evaluation of the claim. Popular opinion polls
> (like the one cited in the article) may be interesting to gauge public
> perception, but it says nothing about the science. And opinions
> offered by non-scientists, scientists outside the field, and
> scientists who don't publish actual research in peer-reviewed journals
> also says little to nothing about the science.
What is does say about the science is that the public is starting to
questionj what they are being force-fed.
> Second, when evaluating articles like the one you cited, it pays to
> highlight the names of people referenced and then Google them. If you
> do that, you very quickly notice a recurring pattern-- far more often
> than not they will be scientists and experts employed (directly or
> indirectly) by industries, "think tanks", or policy institutes with a
> vested interest in denying global warming. That alone doesn't
> invalidate their claims, but it certainly raises questions of bias and
> demands deeper investigation.
And people like Al Gore are people with a vested interest in the other
side. In fact, Al Gore has become a de facto spokesperson against so-
called global warming but with no formal scientific training other
than writing a few books. However, Gore is among the people who want
to say, "The debate is over" and not debate it. Gore is kind of like
when Archie Bunker didn't want to continue a conversation and saying,
"There is global warming caused by CO2-_CASE CLOSED!"
> Third, there is no question that global warming (and the various non-
> linear climate changing effects that come form it) are happening. The
> only questions are (1) how much of it is man-made, (2) what is the
> tipping point, and (3) what are the costs of addressing or mitigating
> the effects. It's that last question which is immediately relevant,
> because while people like you are more than happy to issue dire
> warnings of how much the costs could affect the economy, you don't
> seem as willing to address the costs if we do nothing. That is, if
> you're going to play the game of cost/benefit analysis, then you need
> to be honest and factor in the costs of doing nothing.
Your line of questioning forces a stipulation that global warming is
happening. I'm not prepared to conced that it is over a meaningful
amount of time, say 1-2 million years, which would be relavent vs.
50-100 years, which is not relavent. If it is, there is no way to
have a "control group" since there is only one planet. Without that
the rest is a fruit-of-the-poison-tree of sorts as it is all on some
assumption. So we get back to more and more "maybes." I'll still
hold to the probability that mankind can't destroy a 4.5 Billion year
old planet by driving around in cars for 100 years.
> Fourth, I'm surprised that you-- someone that has a gambling blog--
> would pivot your argument on a "maybe." When you're gambling, you
> don't think in terms of "maybe" unless you're an emotional gambler who
> ignores how the game works. A thoughtful gambler is going to think in
> terms of probability, risk, and history. Sorry, the issue of global
> warming isn't a "maybe". It's a fact. The mechanism may be in
> question. The costs may be in question. Some of the predictive
> models may be in question. But what isn't in question is that
> addressing or mitigating the effects-- whatever the cause-- is going
> to cost money. The question is where is that money best spent.
Thank you for visiting the blog-maybe one day soon google will finally
approve my adsense account. Anyways, you are right, I don't gamble on
"maybes." And Obama wants to put a big tax increase on a "maybe."
The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to "help stop" global warming. 10
years later we are still in the same boat. Al Gore said the earth has
"10 years left" before we do irreversible damage. Limbaugh has a
countdown clock to show how silly that will sound. We were much
colder in the ice age and even in the "Little Ice Age" yet we are
still around. In the 70s it was "global cooling." So again, I don't
want to wreck the economy on a "maybe." "Free" health care will do
enough to wreck it.
Warmer has always been better, anyways.
> If you want to have a serious debate about this, you might start by
> not citing biased articles and making emotional arguments.
When Al Gore does that then I will as well.
Paul Tomblin
>And people like Al Gore are people with a vested interest in the other
>side. In fact, Al Gore has become a de facto spokesperson against so-
>called global warming but with no formal scientific training other
>than writing a few books. However, Gore is among the people who want
Ah, I get it. You're like one of those anti-evolution idiots who thinks
if you demonize the person, that somehow invalidates the science. Well,
guess what - even though Al Gore isn't a climate scientist, his books cite
the work of dozens if not hundreds of real climate scientists. You
efforts, on the other hand, cite "public opinion" like it has some
meaning.
>to say, "The debate is over" and not debate it. Gore is kind of like
>when Archie Bunker didn't want to continue a conversation and saying,
>"There is global warming caused by CO2-_CASE CLOSED!"
There comes a point when all meaningful debate is over, because nobody who
studies the science disagrees. Regarding climate change, that point came
about 5 years ago.
So, do you want to debate Newton's Laws of Universal Gravitation? Ohm's
Law? Special Relativity? There is science, and then there is claptrap,
and you are arguing on the side of claptrap.
>"10 years left" before we do irreversible damage. Limbaugh has a
>countdown clock to show how silly that will sound. We were much
Ah, another "scientist" heard from. I wouldn't trust Rush Limbaugh to
tell me what colour the sky is without trying to slant it for political
reasons. The fact that you listen to him proves that there is no point
debating you, because you are obviously as much of closed minded idiot as
he is.
--
Paul Tomblin <ptom...@xcski.com> http://blog.xcski.com/
My family's values included "Always state your assumptions and your evidence",
"first find out what the problem is, then fix it", and "feed your horse before
yourself". But you don't see people legislating those... -- Zebee
AZDuffman
> Ah, I get it. You're like one of those anti-evolution idiots who thinks
> if you demonize the person, that somehow invalidates the science.
You mean like all those global warming supporters who call anyone who
disagrees with them "the flat earth society?"
> >to say, "The debate is over" and not debate it. Gore is kind of like
> >when Archie Bunker didn't want to continue a conversation and saying,
> >"There is global warming caused by CO2-_CASE CLOSED!"
>
> There comes a point when all meaningful debate is over, because nobody who
> studies the science disagrees. Regarding climate change, that point came
> about 5 years ago.
Uh, not really. Global Warming Supporters said that point came 5 or
so years ago. We may finally starting some real debate as sckeptical
scientists see other skeptics and are not afraid of losing trenure
track, etc.
If you want to end debate about "science that works" then why is Obama
wanting to raise taxes on the top 2% when science (economics is a
science) ended the debate that lower taxes are better 15-20 years ago?
> Ah, another "scientist" heard from. I wouldn't trust Rush Limbaugh to
> tell me what colour the sky is without trying to slant it for political
> reasons. The fact that you listen to him proves that there is no point
> debating you, because you are obviously as much of closed minded idiot as
> he is.
Trust Rush for whatever you want, but all he did was put a 10-year
countdown on his website after Gore said we had 10 years to act. It
is a fact Gore said it and Rush is just calling him on it. Just like
the mainstream media is supposed to do!
As of this morning there is 6 years and 7 months until Rush shows Gore
to be the idiot he is and I can't wait. But as far as "closed minded"
goes, YOU are the one who said there is no need to debate, that is
what I call closed-minded.
> --
> Paul Tomblin <ptomb...@xcski.com>http://blog.xcski.com/
John Passaniti
> What is does say about the science is that the public is starting to
> questionj what they are being force-fed.
What exactly are they being force-fed? That by making intelligent
choices they can save money? That by shifting away from fossil fuels
they can reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, create a
new economy, and make America a leader in the products and services
that come from that? One of the fundamental things that gets lost in
the issue of global warming is this: Even if the concern over climate
change is taken completely off the table, the actions proposed save
money, make the environment better, create new industries, and make
America both more secure and independent. I don't see a downside, but
then again, I don't own stock in corporations that make their profits
off fossil fuels.
> And people like Al Gore are people with a vested interest in the other
> side. In fact, Al Gore has become a de facto spokesperson against so-
> called global warming but with no formal scientific training other
> than writing a few books. However, Gore is among the people who want
> to say, "The debate is over" and not debate it. Gore is kind of like
> when Archie Bunker didn't want to continue a conversation and saying,
> "There is global warming caused by CO2-_CASE CLOSED!"
All Gore did was to take existing science and present it in a
compelling way. Which when you think about it, is actually pretty
remarkable: His presentation was essentially a slideshow of graphs
and charts with him standing there droning on. That's normally the
kind of thing that makes an audience fall asleep. The movie added a
bit of flash (and unnecessary biography) to the presentation, but it
was essentially the same thing. The remarkable part is that those on
the other side of the global warming debate have had plenty of time
and certainly plenty of resources to counter his presentation. They
could be saturating the airwaves, newspapers, and movie theaters with
slick and clever rebuttals.
And yet, they don't. Why? There are two reasons:
The first reason gets back to my prior point-- the public understands
that the changes proposed for addressing global warming are good
actions to take *regardless* of what your stance on climate change
is. It's awfully hard to counter the benefits of making those
changes, because doing so exposes corporate bias towards maintaining
the status quo.
The second reason is that they know what will happen when people start
looking at the footnotes. One of the things Gore did was to document
his sources for the statistics, claims, and predictive models. And
when people started to dive into those sources, by and large, the
scientists were respectable, the data and conclusions were peer-
reviewed, and the models and predictions were rational. The fossil
fuel industries would be held by the same standard, and when they
published the footnotes, they would find scientists who were not
respected, scientists paid by the industries, scientists who are
outside climatology, and the endless slew of pundits, commentators,
and entertainers pretending their opinions are facts.
> Your line of questioning forces a stipulation that global warming is
> happening. I'm not prepared to conced that it is over a meaningful
> amount of time, say 1-2 million years, which would be relavent vs.
> 50-100 years, which is not relavent.
You're pulling numbers out of your ass and playing games with words.
Where exactly did you get one to two million years as being
"meaningful," when there have been climatological events that led to
severe changes in the planet's environment over much smaller
timescales-- centuries and even decades?
What's meaningful is *any* timescale where climate changes cause
effects that impact on people's lives. As a mortal being, I honestly
don't care about timescales extending orders of magnitude past my
lifespan. What I care about is how climate change is affecting me now
and those of the next generations. That to me is "meaningful."
> If it is, there is no way to
> have a "control group" since there is only one planet. Without that
> the rest is a fruit-of-the-poison-tree of sorts as it is all on some
> assumption. So we get back to more and more "maybes." I'll still
> hold to the probability that mankind can't destroy a 4.5 Billion year
> old planet by driving around in cars for 100 years.
As a software engineer, one of the things I'm responsible for is
evaluating methodologies related to software development. One very
common issue that comes up often is that it is a rare company that can
afford to run methodologies in parallel. That is, find two equally
matched teams, give them the same problem, have them work using
different methodologies, and then pick the one that gave the best
results. That's expensive and impractical and nobody (at least nobody
facing deadlines and budgets) is able to do it.
So since comparing development methodologies by running them in
parallel is virtually impossible, what do you do? Well one approach
is to throw your hands up in the air, say that you can't do a perfect
comparison, and then quit your job. Or, you can take what information
is available, develop models, run simulations, make predictions, run
experiments, and come up with conclusions that while not perfect are
"good enough."
Likewise, you appear to be saying that because we don't have two
identical planet Earths to test, the best we have is a 50/50 chance of
choosing the best path forward. Ummm, no. We don't have extra
planets lying around, but we do have historical information, we do
have models, we do have simulations, and we can make predictions and
run experiments based on that. And even better, we have the
scientific process which is driving better models, better simulations,
and predictions that have more and more accuracy.
You keep using the word "maybe" as if it's a fair coin toss. That's
intellectually dishonest of you.
> Thank you for visiting the blog-maybe one day soon google will finally
> approve my adsense account.
The world awaits.
> Anyways, you are right, I don't gamble on "maybes."
Incorrect. You *are* gambling on "maybes". You're presenting global
warming as a "maybe" in this very message and in other replies from
you in this thread. And that certainly seems at odds with an
intelligent gambler's approach. The intelligent gambler doesn't just
consider the costs, but also the expected payoff. Your message is
entirely about the costs, but ignores the payoff. My argument is that
the "maybe" doesn't matter in this game.
The cost of maintaining the status quo is zero. The payoff however is
negative-- money being wasted, the environment (you know, where you
live) continues to be polluted, a continued dependency on foreign oil
(and all that goes with that). In terms of payoff, the only positive
is for those who make their money off fossil fuels. Now I know your
Conservative wet dream is that money magically trickles down, but not
everyone can operate post office boxes in the Bahamas for corporations
to hide behind.
The cost of moving to alternative energy sources and "green"
technologies is large, but the payoff is even larger. The payoff is
not just in terms of new industries, new jobs, and new products and
services to sell to others. It's also about increasing independence
from OPEC collusion and having to spend billions of dollars to bring
democracy to regions of the world that just so happen to have oil.
> The Kyoto Protocol was supposed to "help stop" global warming. 10
> years later we are still in the same boat. Al Gore said the earth has
> "10 years left" before we do irreversible damage. Limbaugh has a
> countdown clock to show how silly that will sound.
Amusing. So Rush (and by extension, you) believe that when the point
of irreversible damage comes, suddenly a giant neon sign appears in
the sky that says "game over?" Rush should just expire the clock now,
since if and when we do reach that point, it's something we'll only
know in retrospect. Then you and your friends can slap your flippers
together in unison, wonder why your air conditioning bill is larger,
wonder why you're paying more for food, wonder why your insurance
rates go up because others in the risk pool live near the coastline
and are flooded more often, wonder why we're sending in troops to
defend allies who are being attacked by those who want their
resources, etc.
> We were much colder in the ice age and even in
> the "Little Ice Age" yet we are still around.
Wow. That's impressively low standards you're willing to accept for
humans. So, as long as humans manage to survive, you're happy with
the result. Doesn't matter how many people die-- directly or
indirectly-- from the effects of global warming. Doesn't matter how
low their standards of living drop as goods and services get more
expensive. Doesn't matter what conflicts America is brought into as a
result of competition for resources. None of that matters-- as long
as some humans somewhere survive, then all is fine with you. Wow.
Traditionally Conservatives were all about increasing the standard of
living. You're venturing into a whole new standard with your "if
they're still breathing, all is good" model. Good luck with that.
> In the 70s it was "global cooling." So again, I don't
> want to wreck the economy on a "maybe."
Isn't science great? It monitors itself, decides it's wrong, and the
revises itself. Now, I know this is confusing to the religious mind,
but try to follow along.
> Warmer has always been better, anyways.
Unless you're on a coastline. Unless your land is adjacent to an arid
area. Unless that warmth drives species out of their normal
environments and into new ones where they cause problems. Unless
warmer on one part of the planet makes it colder or wetter or just
more chaotic than it was before. You do understand that "global
warming" is about a general trend, right? The actual climate changes
are non-linear and will affect different areas of the planet in
different ways.
> > If you want to have a serious debate about this, you might start by
> > not citing biased articles and making emotional arguments.
>
> When Al Gore does that then I will as well.
Your infatuation with Gore is cute. But he's only a messenger. Your
beef should be with the science and scientists. But apparently the
best you can come up with are recycled quotes from Limbaugh. Last I
checked, he's an entertainer, not a climatologist. Still, I applaud
your efforts in overcoming the need to support arguments with biased
articles and emotion. Maybe we can start a support group for you.
AZDuffman
> What exactly are they being force-fed? That by making intelligent
> choices they can save money? That by shifting away from fossil fuels
> they can reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce pollution, create a
> new economy, and make America a leader in the products and services
> that come from that? One of the fundamental things that gets lost in
> the issue of global warming is this: Even if the concern over climate
> change is taken completely off the table, the actions proposed save
> money, make the environment better, create new industries, and make
> America both more secure and independent. I don't see a downside, but
> then again, I don't own stock in corporations that make their profits
> off fossil fuels.
No, the proposed actions do not save money. Solar and wind are still
more expensive and less reliable than coal. Ethanol is a huge fraud.
The downside is the government is taking tax dollars from productive
industries and giving them to less productive ones, namely so-called
"alternitive" energy. If wind power and solar power are so profitable
and efficient then companies would be racing to produce them without
subsidies. They are not. Breakthrus need to come from private
industry for profitable reasons. No one told Drake "drill, we are
running out of whale oil!" No, he heard there was this black stuff
that burned really good and if he drilled near a place called
Titusville he might find some. This unleashed a great industry that
still provides hundreds of thousands of jobs. Solar can at best be
used 50% of the time (there is this thing called dark) and wind power
is irregular. Now, I would be all for a streamlining of building new
nuke plants so we can ge tons of pollution-free energy.
> The first reason gets back to my prior point-- the public understands
> that the changes proposed for addressing global warming are good
> actions to take *regardless* of what your stance on climate change
> is. It's awfully hard to counter the benefits of making those
> changes, because doing so exposes corporate bias towards maintaining
> the status quo.
I don't think they see that at all. If you ask someone if they want
to pay $4/gal for gas and $3,000 extra on their next new car to "stop
global warming" I'd expect you would not get a favorable opinion over
30%. What the public does seem to lap up in this "profit is evil age
of Obama" is that "we need to make the utilities and oil companies
pay" as if it does not affect them.
> You're pulling numbers out of your ass and playing games with words.
> Where exactly did you get one to two million years as being
> "meaningful," when there have been climatological events that led to
> severe changes in the planet's environment over much smaller
> timescales-- centuries and even decades?
Earth is 4.5 Billion years old. 4.5 million years is 1% of that. So
I'd like at least .5% of a series of events before I reach a valid
conclusion. To try to reach a valid conclusion on just decades or
even a century would be like standing alongside the Thruway for one
munite, seeing 4 yellow cars drive by and saying, "People are buying
more yellow cars!"
But on a shorter scale, temps are down since 2001. I guess we can
credit Bush since he is made responsible for everything if you listen
to the left.
> As a software engineer, one of the things I'm responsible for is
> evaluating methodologies related to software development. One very
> common issue that comes up often is that it is a rare company that can
> afford to run methodologies in parallel. That is, find two equally
> matched teams, give them the same problem, have them work using
> different methodologies, and then pick the one that gave the best
> results. That's expensive and impractical and nobody (at least nobody
> facing deadlines and budgets) is able to do it.
>
> So since comparing development methodologies by running them in
> parallel is virtually impossible, what do you do? Well one approach
> is to throw your hands up in the air, say that you can't do a perfect
> comparison, and then quit your job. Or, you can take what information
> is available, develop models, run simulations, make predictions, run
> experiments, and come up with conclusions that while not perfect are
> "good enough."
OK, I see where you are coming from on that. But instead consider a
pharmaceutical company. They make a product that has the potential to
be very effective, not effective, have side effects, or even kill.
They don't just run a few models and say, "good enough!" They have
years long studies, control groups, and very accurate records. They
are dealing in things with big effects. Before we destroy our
economy, I want far more than "good enough."
> Likewise, you appear to be saying that because we don't have two
> identical planet Earths to test, the best we have is a 50/50 chance of
> choosing the best path forward. Ummm, no. We don't have extra
> planets lying around, but we do have historical information, we do
> have models, we do have simulations, and we can make predictions and
> run experiments based on that. And even better, we have the
> scientific process which is driving better models, better simulations,
> and predictions that have more and more accuracy.
So we have more accuracy than the 70s when they said there was global
cooling. Say we increase all these taxes and run the oil and
industries into the ground without suitable replacements. In 10 years
when it is more accurate yet and someone notices todays science was
wrong is Algore going to say, "About that 2 trillion we wasted, uh,
sorry about that!"?
> Incorrect. You *are* gambling on "maybes". You're presenting global
> warming as a "maybe" in this very message and in other replies from
> you in this thread. And that certainly seems at odds with an
> intelligent gambler's approach. The intelligent gambler doesn't just
> consider the costs, but also the expected payoff. Your message is
> entirely about the costs, but ignores the payoff. My argument is that
> the "maybe" doesn't matter in this game.
My argument is about the costs because I don't see ANY payoffs.
> The cost of maintaining the status quo is zero. The payoff however is
> negative-- money being wasted, the environment (you know, where you
> live) continues to be polluted, a continued dependency on foreign oil
> (and all that goes with that). In terms of payoff, the only positive
> is for those who make their money off fossil fuels. Now I know your
> Conservative wet dream is that money magically trickles down, but not
> everyone can operate post office boxes in the Bahamas for corporations
> to hide behind.
The envrionment is in good shape right now. And if we were serious
about eliminating dependence on foreign oil we would be drilling in
ANWR and offshore. We are not and are not.
> Amusing. So Rush (and by extension, you) believe that when the point
> of irreversible damage comes, suddenly a giant neon sign appears in
> the sky that says "game over?" Rush should just expire the clock now,
> since if and when we do reach that point, it's something we'll only
> know in retrospect. Then you and your friends can slap your flippers
> together in unison, wonder why your air conditioning bill is larger,
> wonder why you're paying more for food, wonder why your insurance
> rates go up because others in the risk pool live near the coastline
> and are flooded more often, wonder why we're sending in troops to
> defend allies who are being attacked by those who want their
> resources, etc.
What I pay in AC I'll save in heat. Food grows better when it is warm
if you noticed. There is no proof sea levels have risen. Part of
this is the simple reason the North Pole is already displacing the
water like an ice cube in a glass of water. Glacial melting has been
going on for 100s of years and we are not flooded yet.
> Wow. That's impressively low standards you're willing to accept for
> humans. So, as long as humans manage to survive, you're happy with
> the result. Doesn't matter how many people die-- directly or
> indirectly-- from the effects of global warming. Doesn't matter how
> low their standards of living drop as goods and services get more
> expensive. Doesn't matter what conflicts America is brought into as a
> result of competition for resources. None of that matters-- as long
> as some humans somewhere survive, then all is fine with you. Wow.
> Traditionally Conservatives were all about increasing the standard of
> living. You're venturing into a whole new standard with your "if
> they're still breathing, all is good" model. Good luck with that.
Good luck with it doesn't matter--we cannot control the weather if we
tried. I'm not looking for a disaster but they do happen. And my
mind is not warped enough to worry about so-called global warming.
I'll worry about something real, like the planned destruction of a
great (though not cheap) health care system.
> > Warmer has always been better, anyways.
>
> Unless you're on a coastline. Unless your land is adjacent to an arid
> area. Unless that warmth drives species out of their normal
> environments and into new ones where they cause problems. Unless
> warmer on one part of the planet makes it colder or wetter or just
> more chaotic than it was before. You do understand that "global
> warming" is about a general trend, right? The actual climate changes
> are non-linear and will affect different areas of the planet in
> different ways.
Weather happens. Severe weather happens. They can't predict the
weather more than a week or so out beyond a guess, I'm not going to
buy all that nonsense until they can.
AZDuffman
looks like the White House doesn't like the science when it doesn't
fit their agenda.
What did I say about not risking the economy on an "ooops"
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:39:02 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > economics is a science
>
> Now i know you're off your nut.
>
> SL
you never heard the term "the dismal science?"
AZDuffman
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:28:07 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Solar and wind are still more expensive and less reliable than coal.
>
> the capital in about a decade. With coal, you have to keep
> paying for fuel because people have to keep digging more
> and more out of the ground. In tomorrow's dollars, solar and
> wind get more attractive as efficiency grows better, as mass
> production lowers costs, all as petrofuels get more expensive.
If they are that good, lets stop subsidizing them as the market will
movde to wind/solar on their own. Remember a few years back when RGE
said you coul buy your electricity from wind power--but it would cost
more?!
> As for "reliability", we know that the Earth's supplies of coal
> have a limit, and more is not being generated at the speed with
> which humans are burning through it. Coal is reliable for 150
> years and merely available for another 100 years. The Sun
> and wind are reliable for the next several billion years.
>
> Conservatism doesn't have to mean ignorance, dingbat.
>
> SL
Bob Kester
don't know much about it, so that makes me as much of an expert as the
next guy.
I do worry about the changes in temperature. That will have a lasting
effect on what goes on around us, and how we will live in the future. I
am not so sure as to what the causes are.
My house sits near the top of a hill. That hill is a deposit of glacial
till (I think that is the correct term). Anyhow, it is rubble left
behind when the glaciers retreated north. And, they still are
retreating northward. That worries some people.
I worry that if we reverse the movement, I will have to buy glacier
insurance for my house. Well, knowing the insurance companies, they are
in business to make a buck, and I'll be gambling with them I will have a
bigger loss than what they think I will. You never win with an
insurance company!
I keep suspecting many of those that want to reverse trends in the
changing environment may have some hidden ax to grind. And, when they
shout loud and long enough, then everybody knows what they are hearing
must be the truth.
<rant/off>
...Bob
--
The FROM: email address has been set up for receiving SPAM.
Don't bother using it -- email to it won't be read.
Right now, you can use: posts02 [at-sign] kesters [DOT] org
(Until the scumbags figure that one out.)
AZDuffman
> No, let's increase subsidies to get our economy off of the
> oil as soon as possible. It's not just a good thing for cleaner
> air/water/soil. It's a matter of national security, first and
> foremost.
The economy can't "get off the oil." Even if you replaced oil's use
as a motor fuel it is still needed as a lubricant and in hundreds of
other uses. Drilling is the answer as we musgt increase supply over
time. "Conservation" is nice, but if all we do is "conserve" without
finding new supply, consider my Kodak analogy. Kodak has been in cost-
cutting "conservation" mode since 1996-8 or so. Markets for film and
associated chemicals have dried up. So they "conserve" the markets
they have, but they keep falling. Having not developed enough new
markets they are in constant deep, deep trouble. Same is happening to
the USA as we refuse to allow more drilling yet have an expanding
population and want an expanding economy. Something gotta give.
> I'm not talking about foreign governments controlling our
> energy supply, although that is also a valid national security
> concern. I am talking about our vulnerability to terrorist
> disruption of our economy by attacking an already-recognized
> weak point: the monolithic energy grid.
>
> Generating power as locally as possible, which means each
> dwelling generating their own power, makes our energy
> supply infinitely more secure, and a total waste of time for
> any terrorist to attack.
>
> Right now, one well-placed attack could blackout millions
> of people. If we generate our own electricity, the same result
> would only be possible if terrorists had 1000's of operatives
> blowing up millions of windmills in backyards.
We saw how easy a blackout can cascade 7 years ago. However,
"millions of windmills in backyards" would still need to be on a grid
and be subject to the same cascading problem. Windmills are not
stable, winds gust and die. So if you are realaxing and watching
FOXNews and the wind dies, your picture of Sean Hannity interviewing
the lovely Ann Coulter dies. Even industrial wind farms must have
traditional power plants hooked on the grid to account for this,
though on a larger scale than I justg described.
But we and do generate electricity "locally." Oil is rarely used to
generate electricity. Coal, nukes, natural gas, hydro, even
geothermal. Oil is needed as a gtransportation fuel and for that it
will not be replaced for decades. Why I say we need to drill. Also
send someone to India and learn how they make gasoline from coal.
AZDuffman
Jerry Cooney:
Coldest June in Central Park since 1958!
000
NOUS41 KOKX 012057
PNSOKX
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
455 PM EDT WED JUL 1 2009
...UNUSUALLY WET AND COOL JUNE FOR CENTRAL PARK...
FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE...HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST AND WETTEST
JUNES ON RECORD SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK NY:
COOLEST WETTEST
AVG. TEMP. YEAR INCHES PRECIP. YEAR
64.2 1903 10.27 2003
65.2 1881 10.06 2009
65.7 1916 9.78 1903
66.8 1926/1902 9.30 1972
67.2 1958 8.79 1989
67.3 1927 8.55 2006
67.4 1928 7.76 1887
67.5 2009/1897 7.58 1975
67.7 1878 7.13 1938
67.8 1924 7.05 1871
DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...HERE ARE SOME
INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:
THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR THE 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD. THE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...WHICH ALSO
OCCURRED IN 1897.
THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
WAS 67.2 DEGREES.
BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OCCURRED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE...OR 75 PERCENT OF THE MONTH.
CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 90 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1996.
CENTRAL PARK HAS NOT HIT 85 DEGREES IN THE MONTH OF JUNE THIS YEAR.
THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 1916. THIS HAS ONLY OCCURRED
2 OTHER TIMES...1903 AND 1886.
THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
APRIL. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 90 IN APRIL...BUT NOT IN
JUNE WAS BACK IN 1990.
THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 OR GREATER THIS YEAR WAS IN
MAY. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN MAY...BUT NOT IN JUNE
WAS BACK IN 1903. THE LAST TIME THAT CENTRAL PARK HIT 85 IN
APRIL...BUT NOT IN JUNE WAS ALSO BACK IN 1903.
THE LOWEST TEMPERATURE REACHED IN CENTRAL PARK IN THE MONTH OF JUNE
WAS 50 DEGREES. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS BACK IN 2003.
THE LOW TEMPERATURE DIPPED BELOW 60 DEGREES 11 TIMES IN THE MONTH OF
JUNE. THE LAST TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS IN 2003 WHEN IT OCCURRED 17
TIMES.
IT WAS THE SECOND WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD WITH 10.06 INCHES OF RAIN.
THE WETTEST JUNE ON RECORD IS 2003 WITH 10.27 INCHES.
THERE WERE 19 DAYS THIS JUNE WHERE THERE WAS AT LEAST 0.01 INCHES OF
RAINFALL. THIS HAS NEVER OCCURRED IN CENTRAL PARK.
AT LEAST A TRACE OF RAINFALL WAS REPORTED ON 23 OUT OF 30 DAYS THIS
JUNE.
John Passaniti
> More proof global warming is a hoax and the biggest sucker bet since
> Jerry Cooney:
>
> Coldest June in Central Park since 1958!
Wow, that's some powerful stupid. Global warming is about global
averages over time, not about the highs and lows of any particular
month in a particular region. So if we lived in a different city
(such as Austin, which had the hottest June since they started taking
records), you would now be championing global warming?
AZDuffman
Please tell the mainstream media this. Because anything happens
anywhere they cry, "GLOBAL WARMING!" So if we are going to say there
is global warming just because we get a few warm days in March I
figiured I'd make the info a little more fair and balanced.
BTW: Global Averages are down since 1998 as well. So since I care for
the next generation I figure I'll do all I can to avoid them living in
poverty that tax-and-trade willo bring.
Greg Pratt
AZDuffman <srduf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html
>
>Looks like more and more people are starting to question the so-called
>science behind "global warming." The first hint should have been that
>any solution involves tax increases. Sadly, Congress is working on
>Obama's cap-and-tax plan and you will soon be paying more for
>everything for no real reason.
>
>www.azduffman.com
Thank you to all of the humans who responded to this troll. You've
provided immense amounts of data, anecdotal warnings, and dare I say it,
entertainment.
You may now consume your cheese.
--
Gregory Pratt g...@panix.com
East Rutherford, NJ, USA http://www.panix.com/~gp/
"You're only given one little spark of madness. You mustn't lose it."
PGP Key Fingerprint: DC60 FCDE 91E2 3D41 91A3 45DB B474 3D3A 3621 AAFE
John Passaniti
> Please tell the mainstream media this. Because anything happens
> anywhere they cry, "GLOBAL WARMING!" So if we are going to say there
> is global warming just because we get a few warm days in March I
> figiured I'd make the info a little more fair and balanced.
I don't have to tell the mainstream media anything since I don't base
my information on what they say. When claims of climate change are
linked to global warming, I seek out the science and make judgments
from that. You might try that too.
> BTW: Global Averages are down since 1998 as well. So since I care for
> the next generation I figure I'll do all I can to avoid them living in
> poverty that tax-and-trade willo bring.
Wow, so you pick an arbitrary point in time (why exactly is 1998
special?) that has a local minimum. So what? How exactly does that
invalidate the claims of global warming?
Bob Kester
> The economy can't "get off the oil." Even if you replaced oil's use
> as a motor fuel it is still needed as a lubricant and in hundreds of
> other uses.
Let's see -- Mobil 1 has been around for 30 years -- and it is a premium
grade lubricant. There are many other silicone based lubes around, also.
AZDuffman
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:56:04 -0700 (PDT), John Passaniti
> imbecile who just happens to find the right wing is full of enough
> fellow whackjobs to be an echo chamber for him.
>
> He is an embarrassment to conservativism.
Which you should be happy of since you seem to be one of those types
who say, "I was conservative until Reagan came along."
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > The economy can't "get off the oil." Even if you replaced oil's use
> > as a motor fuel it is still needed as a lubricant and in hundreds of
> > other uses.
>
> Let's see -- Mobil 1 has been around for 30 years -- and it is a premium
> grade lubricant. There are many other silicone based lubes around, also.
And Mobil1 costs about three times as much and tends to leak easier
than regular oil. Plus it doesn't address the need for oil in making
plastics, synthetic rubber, as well as other products.
AZDuffman
I don't know--what is so special about the other "arbitrary" points in
time of 100 or so years ago that we keep reading about from the global
warming crowd?
How it invalidates it is in the fact that we are told, "the world is
warming, look at the trends!" And when you do look at a tgrend, the
warming trend is no longer there. So since I care about the next
generation and don't want them living in high-tax poverty for no
reason I figure we should look at some science. Oh, wait, you only
like the science the whacko left puts out.
Bob Kester
The point being -- oil is not needed as a lubricant. Convenient? Yes.
Needed? No.
Mobil 1 sells for 3 times the other oils. That has no relation to it's
cost. It sells for what the market will bear.
As far as other uses of oil -- when Nylon was first introduced, it was
touted as being made from coal, water, and air. So, there are
alternatives to using oil for some products anyhow.
John Passaniti
> I don't know--what is so special about the other "arbitrary" points in
> time of 100 or so years ago that we keep reading about from the global
> warming crowd?
You didn't answer my question regarding why 1998 is special. Because
it represents a local minimum and helps your agenda?
I can tell you why the past 100 or so years are significant, because
it corresponds to the Industrial Revolution; the period of time when
mankind has had the most direct and dramatic effect on the planet.
That's true regardless of your views on global warming.
> How it invalidates it is in the fact that we are told, "the world is
> warming, look at the trends!" And when you do look at a tgrend, the
> warming trend is no longer there.
But you haven't shown that 1998 is anything more than a local
minimum. I could take any number of arbitrary time periods over the
past 100 years and find within them periods where it was even colder
than the average and even hotter than the average. That's the point
of averages-- to find the trend, not to focus on individual peaks and
valleys.
> So since I care about the next generation [...]
False.
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > On Jul 5, 10:58 pm, Bob Kester <SPAM...@Frontiernet.net> wrote:
> >> AZDuffman wrote:
> >>> The economy can't "get off the oil." Even if you replaced oil's use
> >>> as a motor fuel it is still needed as a lubricant and in hundreds of
> >>> other uses.
> >> Let's see -- Mobil 1 has been around for 30 years -- and it is a premium
> >> grade lubricant. There are many other silicone based lubes around, also.
>
> > And Mobil1 costs about three times as much and tends to leak easier
> > than regular oil. Plus it doesn't address the need for oil in making
> > plastics, synthetic rubber, as well as other products.
>
> The point being -- oil is not needed as a lubricant. Convenient? Yes.
> Needed? No.
>
> Mobil 1 sells for 3 times the other oils. That has no relation to it's
> cost. It sells for what the market will bear.
>
> As far as other uses of oil -- when Nylon was first introduced, it was
> touted as being made from coal, water, and air. So, there are
> alternatives to using oil for some products anyhow.
For some, sure. But there are still literally thousands of prducts
made from oil with no real substitute yet.
AZDuffman
I'll re-state it. We were told there is a warming trend. The warming
peaked and since 1998 the trend has been cooler. During this time
there has been no decline in CO2 emssions. Thus one should look at
the liklehood that *if* there is warming is is some other factor and
we should not destroy our economy now that we have more doubt.
But maybe you liked paying $4/gal?
> > So since I care about the next generation [...]
>
> False.
Not false at all. I care about them and I care enough not to buy into
some global-warming nonsense that will limit their economic
opportunity.
Bob Kester
> For some, sure. But there are still literally thousands of prducts
> made from oil with no real substitute yet.
Glad you said "yet".
AZDuffman
> AZDuffman wrote:
> > For some, sure. But there are still literally thousands of prducts
> > made from oil with no real substitute yet.
>
> Glad you said "yet".
I'm not crazy enough to think we can't find a substitute, but I am
sane enough to say we should not try to "get off oil" before we find
it.
My dream is one day we find a way to pump CO2 or some other form of
carbon down old wells along with hydrogen and force the long-chain
compound that is what we know as oil. We figured out synthetic
diamonds for many uses so why not?
John Passaniti
> And Mobil1 costs about three times as much and tends to leak easier
> than regular oil. Plus it doesn't address the need for oil in making
> plastics, synthetic rubber, as well as other products.
If you break down the percentage of crude oil by the products it is
used in, you find that roughly 80% is used for fuel applications
(gasoline, diesel, jet, heating) and the other 20% makes up various
other non-fuel uses (lubricants, plastics, fertilizers, etc.). The
majority of that 80% is gasoline and diesel. Based on the numbers I
see online, if America "got off the oil" for cars and trucks, our own
domestic oil production would easily cover the non-fuel applications.
The only people who say that "getting off the oil" means *zero* oil is
consumed are those who aren't rational or who (like you) are
constructing straw-man arguments.
I find it funny that you claim to be concerned about next generation.
The fact is that oil is a finite resource that will grow steadily in
cost (both direct and indirect) over time. So your fake concern about
the next generation is the typical Conservative mantra of pretending
the problem doesn't exist and pass it off to the next generation. You
say you're concerned about raising costs now, but don't seem to have
any problem with future generations having to deal with huge costs.
If you were actually concerned about the next generation, you would be
thinking in terms of payoff. Investing now in sustainable alternative
energy means research, means jobs, means entire new markets, and means
energy that isn't dependent on the whims of OPEC, a finite diminishing
resource, and how many troops we want to send to war over oil.
AZDuffman
> If you break down the percentage of crude oil by the products it is
> used in, you find that roughly 80% is used for fuel applications
> (gasoline, diesel, jet, heating) and the other 20% makes up various
> other non-fuel uses (lubricants, plastics, fertilizers, etc.). The
> majority of that 80% is gasoline and diesel. Based on the numbers I
> see online, if America "got off the oil" for cars and trucks, our own
> domestic oil production would easily cover the non-fuel applications.
It might or might not. You can refine oil for more diesel or more
gasoline or more "other" products. But you cannot get just one of the
products out of it. Furthermore, oil has different "grades" like
light, heavy, sour, Pennsylvania, etc. Not all products can be
efficiently made from all grades. So no matter what, expect to need
imports.
> The only people who say that "getting off the oil" means *zero* oil is
> consumed are those who aren't rational or who (like you) are
> constructing straw-man arguments.
I could make a similar argument that those who expect me to cahrge an
electric car for 8 hours to drive 200 miles are irrational people.
> I find it funny that you claim to be concerned about next generation.
> The fact is that oil is a finite resource that will grow steadily in
> cost (both direct and indirect) over time. So your fake concern about
> the next generation is the typical Conservative mantra of pretending
> the problem doesn't exist and pass it off to the next generation. You
> say you're concerned about raising costs now, but don't seem to have
> any problem with future generations having to deal with huge costs.
The next generation can solve it the way it has always been solved--by
innovation and free markets. It the 1850s people didn't cry, "We're
running out of whale oil! Government please tax whale oil and fund a
solution!" Nope, a guy named Drake found oil in 1858 and found a new
source of energy!
Around 1900 people didn't cry, "Oh, my, living in cities we can't keep
horses to get around and cars are so expensive! Government please
help!" Nope, a guy named Ford made cars affordable to the masses.
Yet somehow in 2009 people want government funding to solve
everything. Well, if solar and wind are so darn good and electric
cars are so darn good then let someone start a company and develop
them. Quit expecting me to pay a big tax on oil and coal power, which
are more reliable anyways, and quit mandating where I buy my power
from. And it is all for some unproven science.
I'll state it again, if it is about "oil independence" then drill,
baby, drill in ANWR and offshore!
> If you were actually concerned about the next generation, you would be
> thinking in terms of payoff. Investing now in sustainable alternative
> energy means research, means jobs, means entire new markets, and means
> energy that isn't dependent on the whims of OPEC, a finite diminishing
> resource, and how many troops we want to send to war over oil.
If there was a "payoff" then investors would be putting money into
companies. "Green Jobs" are just another false marketing ploy. The
next generation is better served if we have a more private economy
than a more socialized one.
AZDuffman
> >And Mobil1 costs about three times as much and tends to leak easier
> >than regular oil. Plus it doesn't address the need for oil in making
> >plastics, synthetic rubber, as well as other products.
>
> You incompetent idiot. The US is one of the leading oil producers.
> Remove the need to burn it for fuel, and our supply will last for
> many centuries of lubrication and chemical synthesis. Dolt.
And my paycheck will last longet if I don't buy food. No need to call
names when you are backe into a corner of logic. But we can keep
burning it as a liquid fuel as long as we find new sources like ANWR,
offshore, oil sands, oil shale, gas from coal, etc. And if we find
new sources we don't have to lower our standard of living.
AZDuffman
> Suspicion of science is not a core conservative value. It has
> been clumsily grafted on by AM radio loudmouths who look
> at the Palin Phenomenon and conclude "my audience doesn't
> want to be bothered with facts."
Suspicion of junk-science is just a good value, which is why I am
happy to call myself a global-warming skeptic. I'll take my lectures
on what is a "conservative" value from a conservative instead of you.
Not sure what you are complaining about with the "Palin Phenomenon"
unless you mean Conservatives like a qualified, self-made, attractive
woman who talks conservative values. I feel bad for her being the
target of a search-and-destroy campaign my the lefty media.
John Passaniti
> Not sure what you are complaining about with the "Palin Phenomenon"
> unless you mean Conservatives like a qualified, self-made, attractive
> woman who talks conservative values. I feel bad for her being the
> target of a search-and-destroy campaign my the lefty media.
Indeed! Palin is an inspiration!
For example, take where I work. Things are getting more stressful
these days. It's a big project with scary deadlines and the pressure
isn't just on me, but everyone. I was thinking of just toughing it
out and sticking with the company until the end, but then I saw
Palin's resignation as governor. Like she says, she's no quitter, and
to prove it, she's quitting her job-- a job with a lot of
responsibility and expectations from those who voted for her. I don't
claim my job has the same responsibility as a governor, but like her,
I don't want to be called a quitter. So I'm thinking of quitting too.
Yeah, and you're right about the lefty media. The nerve of them
asking questions of a vice-presidential candidate! It's not as if
being a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world
requires actually knowing stuff. George Bush didn't know stuff, and
look what a success he turned out to be. George used his gut and not
his mind to know what was right, and Palin would have done the same
thing. So she screwed up a few dozen times on details like government
structure, Constitutional law, international relations and other
boring wonky nonsense that nobody cares about. None of that matters
because she looked really pretty in front of a LED video screen of the
flag.
AZDuffman
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
As you show minimal conservative bneliefs at best I don't see why you
care.
AZDuffman
> On Jul 7, 11:17 am, AZDuffman <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not sure what you are complaining about with the "Palin Phenomenon"
> > unless you mean Conservatives like a qualified, self-made, attractive
> > woman who talks conservative values. I feel bad for her being the
> > target of a search-and-destroy campaign my the lefty media.
>
> Indeed! Palin is an inspiration!
>
> For example, take where I work. Things are getting more stressful
> these days. It's a big project with scary deadlines and the pressure
> isn't just on me, but everyone. I was thinking of just toughing it
> out and sticking with the company until the end, but then I saw
> Palin's resignation as governor. Like she says, she's no quitter, and
> to prove it, she's quitting her job-- a job with a lot of
> responsibility and expectations from those who voted for her. I don't
> claim my job has the same responsibility as a governor, but like her,
> I don't want to be called a quitter. So I'm thinking of quitting too.
Well, if you were constantly being sued, having to prove your
innocence, then getting sued again all over baseless claims because
people just didn't like you then you might finally decide to quit.
Heck, if she wants to do something else or better I'm glad she quit.
If I lived in AK I'd rather that than spend 18 months as a Senator but
doing nothing but running for POTUS. GO SARAH!
> Yeah, and you're right about the lefty media. The nerve of them
> asking questions of a vice-presidential candidate! It's not as if
> being a heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world
> requires actually knowing stuff. George Bush didn't know stuff, and
> look what a success he turned out to be. George used his gut and not
> his mind to know what was right, and Palin would have done the same
> thing. So she screwed up a few dozen times on details like government
> structure, Constitutional law, international relations and other
> boring wonky nonsense that nobody cares about. None of that matters
> because she looked really pretty in front of a LED video screen of the
> flag.
The media is left-biased and barely concealing that fact anymore.
No rational person can say Joe Biden was questioned as hard as Sarah
was. Obama wasn't questioned as hard as Sarah was. Obama just took
softball interviews. Heck, he was afraid to even go to a debate
hosted by FoxNews. He only went on FNC when the polls were getting
too close to call. As to knowing stuff, in 2000 some reporter made
himself the news by asking W a question on who 4 world leaders were as
if it were an episode of Joepardy. Gore never got pressed and he was
the one looking like an idiot saying he created the internet, found
Love Canal, etc.
Now, if Obama were questioned anything like Sarah was, we might have
heard:
"Why do you think you are qualified to run for POTUS after just 145
days in the Senate?"
"Why did you vote "present" so often as a state senator?"
"Can you explain your ties to a radical group like ACORN?"
"Why are you playing the race card by saying "oh, by the way he is
black?'"
Instead the media sends a surveing crew to check a figure-of-speech
comment abotu seeing Russia from Sarah's porch.
But we are seeing the disaster Obama is becomming. By 2012 the nation
should have had enough of his incompetence and failure to acheive any
results.
AZDuffman
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:17:35 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
>
> <srduffy1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Instead the media sends a surveing crew to check a figure-of-speech
> >comment abotu seeing Russia from Sarah's porch.
>
> about why she quit... and Sarah came up with a convoluted
> answer about how she doesn't have a "Department Of Law"
> like the White House does.
>
> I didn't know they had a Department Of Law either. Maybe
> it was one of the original cabinet posts, established by Adam
> in 4004 BC alongside the Department Of Dinosaur Relations?
>
> SL
Perhaps you would prefer she make fun of people in the Special
Olympics, like Obama?
AZDuffman
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:06:36 -0700 (PDT), AZDuffman
> bad, make all conservatives look like whackos who are only
> too eager to swallow the oil industry's penis.
>
> What liberals say about us is not true, but they use people
> like you and Palin as roadside freakshows to convince the
> political middle that the right is totally and entirely ignorant.
>
> You make us look bad.
So you are saying it is better to swallow the envrionmentalist whack's
privates like you are doing?
I know your type of "conservtism" and it is:
"I was a conservtive until Reagan came along"
"I'm a conservative but I don't like Newt"
"I'm a conservative but how can people like Sarah Oalin?"
"I'm a conservative but we should just give up on (so called) gay
marrige"
"I'm a conservative but Limbaugh and Hannity are and have been bad for
the movement"
Keep your "brand of conservatism" and have fun paying $5/gal in a year
or two. I'd rather live in a world of reality. My answer to global-
warming alarmists is that if they want to keep worrrying about the end
of the world they should becoms Seventh-Day Adventists. Meanwhile
I'll keep saying "Drill, baby, drill" as supply is the key to reducing
energy dependence.