Global Warming Not Caused By Humans...But Left Rejects Latest Science...Why?
Trace
Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
Conservatives, but from climatologists.
Why?
Does the left have a massive agenda that needs the guilt of global
warming to succeed?
The Director
Trace wrote:
Why are you such an ignorant anti-science cretin?
Did American culture make you this way?
Or were you just born fucking dumb.
Trace
You are still rejecting the latest science. Why?
The Director
That would be unlikely, as you have conveniently neglected to give us
any links to accept or reject, although I can say offhand, chances are
I would reject it even if you offered it, which you haven't. But if you
ever do have something you want us to look over, here is the
appropriate place to post it. So go ahead, make my day. Nothing from
the usual suspects, please, something new and interesting, that will
take us to new and ever higher levels of delusional crackpottery is
desirable. Go ahead, surprise us.
What, Me Worry?
the link?
"The Director" <p...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1156731921....@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
spar...@my-deja.com
> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates
> on a significant level,
Fascinating. Give us some links to this "much new science".
> and that the the earth goes through many
> temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average,
> the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> but Conservatives, but from climatologists.
Climatologists in the employ of oil companies, perhaps?
David Hartung
> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> Conservatives, but from climatologists.
I have a cousin involved in climate research, she disagrees with your statement.
singlew...@gmail.com
Well then, the debate MUST be over.
Why do people have to have a link? Can't you folks drag your sorry ass
to the library, to a college, do some research on you own, and come to
a conclusion based on FACTS, not agenda driven science.
This is a hell of a world we have here. Its not on a link, so it must
not be true? Get real, get off the damn computer, and use your freeking
brain for a change.
Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
that.
People who understand what is really happening are not obligated to
PROVE anything to clowns who believe something just because there is a
url that points to it. No matter what gets put forth, it will just be
termed 'crackpot' and ignored. How about YOU pinkos give up your
lifestyles, and tell you kids to go live in huts and caves. The rest of
us are going to enjoy the fruits of the labors of those who made all
this possible. Common sense on emissions controls and other methods to
respect the earth? You bet. Running scared, thinking the ocean will
rise 22 feet, and that hurricanes will destroy what is left? Sure, you
bet..... Idiots.....
What Me Worry?
<singlew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1156735725.2...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> David Hartung wrote:
>> Trace wrote:
>> > Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
>> > a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
>> > temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
>> > the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
>> > Conservatives, but from climatologists.
>>
>> I have a cousin involved in climate research, she disagrees with your
>> statement.
>
> Well then, the debate MUST be over.
>
> Why do people have to have a link? Can't you folks drag your sorry ass
> to the library, to a college, do some research on you own, and come to
> a conclusion based on FACTS, not agenda driven science.
LOL! What's this about "agenda driven science?" Methinks thou dost protest
too much.
> This is a hell of a world we have here. Its not on a link, so it must
> not be true? Get real, get off the damn computer, and use your freeking
> brain for a change.
Translation: "I live in a cave. So you should, too."
> Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> that.
Doesn't mean that man-made global warming is wrong, either.
> People who understand what is really happening are not obligated to
> PROVE anything to clowns who believe something just because there is a
> url that points to it.
URL's can point to compelling documents that prove your assertions
conclusively. Too bad that you're too lazy and/or technically retarded to
post relevant research to a website as the vast majority of thinking people
in the civilized world are doing.
> No matter what gets put forth, it will just be
> termed 'crackpot' and ignored.
Sure, if it's crackpot non-science, yeah.
> How about YOU pinkos give up your
> lifestyles, and tell you kids to go live in huts and caves. The rest of
> us are going to enjoy the fruits of the labors of those who made all
> this possible.
Translation: "I can't handle anything but my own fragile worldview."
> Common sense on emissions controls and other methods to
> respect the earth? You bet. Running scared, thinking the ocean will
> rise 22 feet, and that hurricanes will destroy what is left? Sure, you
> bet..... Idiots.....
Faith-based science has spoken!!
ROFLMAO!
Arbusto Harken
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> David Hartung wrote:
> > Trace wrote:
> > > Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> > > a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> > > temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> > > the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> > > Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >
> > I have a cousin involved in climate research, she disagrees with your statement.
>
> Well then, the debate MUST be over.
>
> Why do people have to have a link? Can't you folks drag your sorry ass
> to the library, to a college, do some research on you own, and come to
> a conclusion based on FACTS, not agenda driven science.
>
> This is a hell of a world we have here. Its not on a link, so it must
> not be true?
If you wish to participate in usenet forums, then perhaps you should
familiarize youself with usenet protocol. Say, aren't you supposed to
be in Iraq by now anyway? What's the hold-up? You're not going to
chicken out on us are you?
singlew...@gmail.com
What Me Worry? wrote:
> <singlew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> LOL! What's this about "agenda driven science?" Methinks thou dost protest
> too much.
>
Agenda driven science is when a schmuck scientist goes out to prove a
preconceived notion, like man cause global warming. Its probably
defined on a "link" somewhere
> Translation: "I live in a cave. So you should, too."]
The more you protest, the more you prove your ignorance
>
> Doesn't mean that man-made global warming is wrong, either.
You cannot put up the numbers to show that anything man is doing, is
overpowering or degrading the atmosphere/environment. All you can do
is follow with the rest of the lemmings.
>
> > People who understand what is really happening are not obligated to
> > PROVE anything to clowns who believe something just because there is a
> > url that points to it.
>
> URL's can point to compelling documents that prove your assertions
> conclusively. Too bad that you're too lazy and/or technically retarded to
> post relevant research to a website as the vast majority of thinking people
> in the civilized world are doing.
Too bad you are too young and ignorant to realize that the internet is
a library, not the conclusive proof of something. Every been to a real
library? Read an actual scientific publication? Had a thought on your
own?
>
> > No matter what gets put forth, it will just be
> > termed 'crackpot' and ignored.
>
> Sure, if it's crackpot non-science, yeah.
>
Thanks for proving my point exactly, you dolt.......
The Director
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> that.
Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of wholelottas and
reallittles?
Roedy Green
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
>a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
>temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
>the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
>Conservatives, but from climatologists.
That is a bald faced lie. You can't point to even one paper published
in a peer reviewed journal.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
kings...@hotmail.com
Your right, global warming is a hoax to scare the public into becoming
more enviromental friendly and reduce pollution.
Now you can go back to sniffing your car fumes since you have no
interest in taking care of the planet at all.
Billzz
news:1156751910.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well, I am an old guy, which is why I am posting in alt.military.retired,
and wondering why this is posted to all of these groups that I would not
have anything to do with, but anyway.....
Does anybody remember Malthus? Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
The Population Bomb? Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
Does anyone remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? Well, I'm old
enough to know that every generation has its wolf story. And maybe this
time it is true, but I've heard enough wolf stories to take this one with a
very large grain of salt.....
So....
Global Extortion
Our first television set. We were enthralled by "The 64,000 Dollar
Question." We knew there was a radio program called "The 64 Dollar
Question" and it seemed beyond belief that a human being could just answer
a question and get sixty-four thousand dollars.
Our father took on a new profession after our mother died. He saw us off to
school and picked us up after. Sometimes we would accompany him on his
rounds, and sometimes the police would look at us but, knowing our
circumstances, they never interfered. I saw the little slips and the
numbers but it took me years later to discover he was a bookie.
Well, back to the TV and the little Italian shoemaker was getting close and
we called our father to see. He looked for about five minutes and said that
it was fixed. We were aghast. We pointed out the soundproof booth, and the
envelopes, and the poor person sweating and stammering, and waiting, and the
suspense. He calmly said the words which I can repeat to this day, "You don't
understand. It has to be fixed. There is too much money involved for it
not to be fixed." My father died many years before it was proven that it
was indeed fixed. I can only hope that heaven gets the re-run of the movie.
This, of course brings us to Global Warming. Now there are always two parts
to a really big problem like this. The first part is convincing people that
there is a problem and the second part is convincing them of the solution.
It is even better if the solution is presented along with the problem and
that this is the only solution that can possibly be true. This is important
because as the old doctor maxim says, "there is no money to be made in the
diagnosis, only the offered pill." And what is this bitter pill?
It seems that we, in the United States, have to ship our manufacturing, and
our jobs, overseas. Now, on the surface this does not seem to make sense,
because we have at least some pollution controls, and the third-world
countries who would be the beneficiaries of our largesse do not. Also if
anyone remembers the billion or so backyard smelters in China or has
traveled in Asia and seen the billion or so charcoal-burners coating the
countryside with ash one might wonder, who exactly is the polluter? I'm not
a betting person but I'll bet plenty of people are inspecting our plants and
plenty of people are not inspecting the billion charcoal burners.
We don't have to wonder about where the warming is coming from. We are told
it is our manufacturing. Forget the burning of Brazil, or Mount Pinatubo,
or Mount. St. Helen's, the problem has got to be us and the solution has got
to be to ship our jobs to some other country. No other solution seems
possible for the people who are waiting for our jobs.
No one seems to notice that this solution only moves the problem. But that's
not the point is it? What is the point, boys and girls? Remember our
lesson? It's fixed. And how do we know it's fixed? There is too much
money involved for it not to be fixed.
Arbusto Harken
Billzz wrote:
> <kings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156751910.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Trace wrote:
> >> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> >> a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> >> temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> >> the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> >> Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Does the left have a massive agenda that needs the guilt of global
> >> warming to succeed?
> >
> >
> > Your right, global warming is a hoax to scare the public into becoming
> > more enviromental friendly and reduce pollution.
> >
> > Now you can go back to sniffing your car fumes since you have no
> > interest in taking care of the planet at all.
>
> Well, I am an old guy, which is why I am posting in alt.military.retired,
> and wondering why this is posted to all of these groups that I would not
> have anything to do with, but anyway.....
>
> Does anybody remember Malthus? Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
> The Population Bomb? Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
>
What do you mean REMEMBER acid rain??? I have trees right now that are
damaged by acid rain.
Trace
I just don't get it. Why has climatology become the new religion of
the left?
Why ?
Why does the left want so bad for there to be global warming caused by
man?
The facts are showing more and more that man is not capable of causing
warming or cooling.
But, that does not seem to matter to the left. Algore and his groupies
along with other radicals on the left side are turning the entire issue
of the climate into a new cult religion.
Why?
hob
"Billzz" <billzz...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:36760$44f2aadf$9440b19b$77...@STARBAND.NET...
> <kings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156751910.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Trace wrote:
> >> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> >> a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> >> temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> >> the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> >> Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Does the left have a massive agenda that needs the guilt of global
> >> warming to succeed?
> >
> >
> > Your right, global warming is a hoax to scare the public into becoming
> > more enviromental friendly and reduce pollution.
> >
> > Now you can go back to sniffing your car fumes since you have no
> > interest in taking care of the planet at all.
>
> Well, I am an old guy, which is why I am posting in alt.military.retired,
> and wondering why this is posted to all of these groups that I would not
> have anything to do with, but anyway.....
>
> Does anybody remember Malthus?
Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
> The Population Bomb?
Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
> Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
>
> Does anyone remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? Well, I'm
old
> enough to know that every generation has its wolf story.
So far you haven't cited a wolf story, just real situations corrected by man
Those were real problems, fixed by policies or reactions - and apparently
you were omitted from the solution memo.
It doesn't make short-term economic sense to ship jobs overseas where ther
are no company costs for polution control?
Also if
> anyone remembers the billion or so backyard smelters in China or has
> traveled in Asia and seen the billion or so charcoal-burners coating the
> countryside with ash one might wonder, who exactly is the polluter? I'm
not
> a betting person but I'll bet plenty of people are inspecting our plants
and
> plenty of people are not inspecting the billion charcoal burners.
>
> We don't have to wonder about where the warming is coming from. We are
told
> it is our manufacturing. Forget the burning of Brazil, or Mount Pinatubo,
> or Mount. St. Helen's, the problem has got to be us and the solution has
got
> to be to ship our jobs to some other country. No other solution seems
> possible for the people who are waiting for our jobs.
>
> No one seems to notice that this solution only moves the problem. But
that's
> not the point is it? What is the point, boys and girls? Remember our
> lesson? It's fixed. And how do we know it's fixed? There is too much
> money involved for it not to be fixed.
>
Aha - it comes to that old need for the precise God-thing.
Man can't be just a herd wandering around spazzing out, living and dying and
making mistakes-
Yes, for those having grown up in the era of James Bond and black ops, there
has to be precison God somewhere; somewhere, there is the gold standard of
humanity.
The reality isn't an option.
>
>
singlew...@gmail.com
Usenet protocol demands that you PAY ATTENTION to threading and
headers. You are bitching at the WRONG person.
singlew...@gmail.com
Roedy Green wrote:
> On 27 Aug 2006 19:21:08 -0700, "Trace" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote,
> quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> >a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> >temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> >the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> >Conservatives, but from climatologists.
>
> That is a bald faced lie. You can't point to even one paper published
> in a peer reviewed journal.
Peer reviewed journal? Who the hell cares about that? I have read most
all of the bullshit articles, journals, and scare tactics, and its all
a 'bald faced lie"
If you or anyone else cared about the topic, you would read ALL of the
data, and ALL of the information, and then form an opinion, rather than
globbing onto something that matches your agenda, and calling
everything else bogus. Science is about FACTS, and they the reader can
make the choice. The FACTS about globalony are that man is not causing
a significant amount of change, and in addition, man CANNOT cause
enough change to alter the climate of the planet.
I don't give a damn what you think, and I am not obligated to put forth
a thousand URLs to defend it. If you believe what you believe, fine
with me, but you are wrong, and if you cared enough to want to know
thet truth, you would look it up, and make the rational decision based
on FACTS, not someone's agenda.
singlew...@gmail.com
Its probably the only language you can understand. I defy you to do the
math yourself. Determine the size of the atmosphere, not the tonnage,
but the physical sizecubic miles if you will, then assign a number to
the average area/size of a tailpipe of those evil cars, figure how many
cars on the earth, figure how many hours a day they are running, and
conclude with one big tailpipe and deliver the square footage of that
tailpipe, and then compare it with the size/area of the atmosphere.
With those two numbers, try to convince someone, anyone, that uou can
push enough CO2 out of that tiny pipe, to cause even a ripple in the
atmosphere's ability to cope with it.
Use your own brain, and think about what it is you are so scared of,
and so sure is destroying the earth. There are other sources, of
course, but cars, as one portion, are so miniscule relative to the size
of the planet and the atmosphere, that its hilarious that so many of
you chicken littles are running around screaming doom and gloom for
everyone because of CO2 from automobiles.....
You got a brain, use it for something besides using Google, for pete's
sake.
Ivanna Pee
I cannot beleive that some humans think that we have such an impact on
the world. There are some who think that our one species could be soley
responsibly for changing the climate of the earth. The earth has been
here for a long time, far longer than the existence of humans. I wonder
whose fault it was all the other times the world went thru climate
changes including ice ages etc. Certainly the sun has nothing to do
with it. Nor does the molten mantle. Nor does our orbit, or the moon,
which affects our tides...
Yep its all our fault. Pffft. These people probably believe in the big
grey haired man in the sky who loves us all.
The Director
Ivanna Pee wrote:
> Yep its all our fault. Pffft. These people probably believe in the big
> grey haired man in the sky who loves us all.
No, but you've just provided us with just enough evidence to deduce
that you are dumber than fuck. Let me guess, you're an American, no?
Have a nice day!
The Director
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Director wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> > > because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> > > asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> > > that.
> >
> > Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of wholelottas and
> > reallittles?
> >
> > http://www.lifeform.org/index.htm#metric
> >
> > http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Its probably the only language you can understand. I defy you to do the
> math yourself. Determine the size of the atmosphere, not the tonnage,
> but the physical sizecubic miles if you will, then assign a number to
> the average area/size of a tailpipe of those evil cars, figure how many
> cars on the earth, figure how many hours a day they are running, and
> conclude with one big tailpipe and deliver the square footage of that
> tailpipe, and then compare it with the size/area of the atmosphere.
> With those two numbers, try to convince someone, anyone, that uou can
> push enough CO2 out of that tiny pipe, to cause even a ripple in the
> atmosphere's ability to cope with it.
Ah ... rippleons.
> Use your own brain, and think about what it is you are so scared of,
> and so sure is destroying the earth. There are other sources, of
> course, but cars, as one portion, are so miniscule relative to the size
> of the planet and the atmosphere, that its hilarious that so many of
> you chicken littles are running around screaming doom and gloom for
> everyone because of CO2 from automobiles.....
Ah ... the infamous minisculeons.
> You got a brain, use it for something besides using Google, for pete's
> sake.
I don't need to use google to duduce that you are dumber than fuck.
Arbusto Harken
I'm not "bitching" at you. Just wondering why you haven't left for
Iraq yet, that's all.
BC
> The Director wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> > > because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> > > asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> > > that.
> >
> > Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of wholelottas and
> > reallittles?
> >
> > http://www.lifeform.org/index.htm#metric
> >
> > http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Its probably the only language you can understand. I defy you to do the
> math yourself. Determine the size of the atmosphere, not the tonnage,
> but the physical sizecubic miles if you will,
Hmmm....
The volume of a sphere is 4/3 * pi * radius cubed
The earth isn't actually a true sphere, but it's
close enough to make the calculations simple.
The average radius of the Earth is 3963.19 miles
The height of the atmosphere is tricky since it
just gets thinner and thinner the higher you get
until you're in outer space, above even low
satellite orbits of 200 miles. But let's take 10 miles
as the height since that would be about the top
of the troposphere and include the bulk of the
atmosphere.
So if you plug in those numbers, I get
2.60749383 × 10^11 cu miles for the volume of
the earth
2.62728152 × 10^11 cu miles if you add 10 miles
to the radius to accommodate the atmosphere
Take the difference and you end up with
0.01978769 x 10^11 cu miles or
1,978,769,000 cu miles for the volume of the
atmosphere.
Which I'll round up to 2 billion cubic miles.
Now let's take, say a Ford Explorer:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorer/features
I'll stick with the standard 4 liter engine and use
3000 rpm as an average engine speed. Let's
see what that gives us for air volume
displacement per hour.
4L * 3000 rpm * 60 min = 720,000 liters/hr
In terms of cu miles per hour, this converts to
1.72737186 × 10^(-7) cu miles/hr
According to this Wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States#Total_number_of_vehicles
There are about 243 million registered motor
vehicles in the United States
Worldwide totals are less certain, but here:
http://www.anthonydowns.com/harvard.htm
has it at 753 million in 2000. Let's round that
off to 800 million as an estimate for 2006
Alrighty then, now for the fun part. Let's say all
800 million of those vehicles are Ford Explorers
and they are driven on average 2 hrs per day.
How much air would their combined engines
displace in a year?
8 * 10^8 * 2 hrs * 365 * 1.72737186 * 10^(-7) cu miles/hr
Equals 100,878.517 cu miles of air displacement
per year, which I'll round off to 101,000
What is this in terms of percentage of the total
volume of the atmosphere, which I estimated to
be 2 billion?
101,000 / 2,000,000,000 * 100 = 0.00505
So if my math isn't too loopy, roughly about 5
thousandths of 1 percent of the entire Earth
atmosphere gets circulated in and out of
passenger vehicle engines per year if they are
driven on average 2 hrs per day. These include
trucks, buses, and cars, so using a Ford
Explorer for an average vehicle isn't such a
stretch.
Let's say we double both the number of
vehicles and double the hours driven on
average to 4 hrs per day, which will be
somewhat the case in about 5 yrs or so:
2 * 2 * .00505 = 0.0202
Hmm....now we're at about 2 hundredths of
a percent of the entire atmosphere passing
through passenger vehicles per year.
And if this was done for 10 years:
10 * .0202 = .202
2 tenths of 1 percent of the entire atmosphere
of the Earth would pass through passenger vehicle
engines during that time.
Hmmm....is this a little or a lot? You guys can
decide that.
-BC
singlew...@gmail.com
hob wrote:
> >
> > Does anybody remember Malthus?
>
> Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
Huh?
>
> Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
> > The Population Bomb?
>
> Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
We seem to still have issues with population
>
> > Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
>
> Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
Check the other wierdo who says his trees are ruined by acid rain. Man
changed the outcome?
>
> Those were real problems, fixed by policies or reactions - and apparently
> you were omitted from the solution memo.
Sorry, man hasn't solved ANY of those things on the list. Please give
details of what man did about them.
>
> Aha - it comes to that old need for the precise God-thing.
Where do you come up with God in THIS thread??
>
> The reality isn't an option.
>
Your reality is whacked.
singlew...@gmail.com
The Director wrote:
> I don't need to use google to duduce that you are dumber than fuck.
>
No one is ever going to listen to an immature child kick and scream,
whine and moan, and swearing his head off. You have no case, and you
have no credibility. I enjoy reading and learning from intelligent
people. If you come across any, you probably aren't in usenet.
sbm...@shaw.ca
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> What Me Worry? wrote:
> > <singlew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > LOL! What's this about "agenda driven science?" Methinks thou dost protest
> > too much.
> >
>
> Agenda driven science is when a schmuck scientist goes out to prove a
> preconceived notion, like man cause global warming. Its probably
> defined on a "link" somewhere
>
Gee, you mean like where you quoted direct from the Cato Institute that
line about global warming not causing flooding because "ice floats". I
see hypocrisy is a major at Dipshit U.
>
> > Translation: "I live in a cave. So you should, too."]
>
> The more you protest, the more you prove your ignorance
Yah, you should talk about ignorance, Mr. "I don't read nothin' I don't
wanna".
>
> >
> > Doesn't mean that man-made global warming is wrong, either.
>
> You cannot put up the numbers to show that anything man is doing, is
> overpowering or degrading the atmosphere/environment. All you can do
> is follow with the rest of the lemmings.
Me and a half dozen other guys have posted the numbers again and again,
but you refuse to read them. Ignorance 101.
>
> >
> > > People who understand what is really happening are not obligated to
> > > PROVE anything to clowns who believe something just because there is a
> > > url that points to it.
> >
> > URL's can point to compelling documents that prove your assertions
> > conclusively. Too bad that you're too lazy and/or technically retarded to
> > post relevant research to a website as the vast majority of thinking people
> > in the civilized world are doing.
>
> Too bad you are too young and ignorant to realize that the internet is
> a library, not the conclusive proof of something. Every been to a real
> library?
Yeah right, like being on paper in any guarantee of authenticity.
>Read an actual scientific publication?
Have you?
> Had a thought on your
> own?
I see you took Hypocrisy 101 at Dipshit U. You're debating on the
internet, asshole. If you don't accept links, then get out of this
newsgroup and go argue in a library somewhere.
>
> >
> > > No matter what gets put forth, it will just be
> > > termed 'crackpot' and ignored.
> >
> > Sure, if it's crackpot non-science, yeah.
> >
> Thanks for proving my point exactly, you dolt.......
If it comes from the Cato Institute or OISM, it's crackpot science.
Unworthy of consideration anywhere but Dipshit U.
johnsmith
itself changes, but we can not deny that we do have an impact. All the
latest technological happenings affected our atmosphere for sure. To be
honest I can not believe that we do all the things we do. I am not an
ecologist, but I admire people trying to live with respect for all it
is around us. I think that if everybody would make a small step in this
direction, we would make a difference.
---------------------------------
Download free Christian templates and church templates,Christian news
and events on http://www.magictemplate.com
Arbusto Harken
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> hob wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Does anybody remember Malthus?
> >
> > Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
>
> Huh?
>
> >
> > Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
> > > The Population Bomb?
> >
> > Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
>
> We seem to still have issues with population
>
> >
> > > Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
> >
> > Yes - we recognized it and man changed the outcome
>
> Check the other wierdo who says his trees are ruined by acid rain. Man
> changed the outcome?
And thus begins the kindergarten style personal insults. He didn't say
man eliminated acid rain altogether, he said man changed the outcome.
A subtlety over the head of those who instantly revert to calling
others "wierdos" etc. when confronted with facts they disagree with.
Just because acid rain still causes a few problems in the higher
elevations in the eastern U.S, doesn't mean we haven't made
considerable progress towards its elimination. We can do the same with
global warming.
Arbusto Harken
Trace wrote:
> I just don't get it.
At least you're honest.
Arbusto Harken
These Ford explorers of yours, they'll only be on the earth for 10
years? Why not say 200? And don't forget to steadily increse the
number of them year after year. Also, are they the only polluters in
your equation? Sweet! If only it were true.
BC
I picked the Explorer since it is -- or was before the
Firestone tire fiasco -- the definitive SUV that people
were buying instead of more functionally appropriate
and efficient cars and station wagons. And while a 4
liter engine is large for for, say, a Camry which has
2.5 and 3.5 liter engine options, it's smaller than the
engine options of the very popular Ford F150 pickup
truck, which has engine options running from 4.2 to
5.4 liters. And considering that common commercial
trucks like tractor/trailers generally use much, MUCH
larger engines with 10+ liter displacements and are
typically working all day at least, picking a 4 liter
engine that's used 2 hrs/day would at least keep
things in the ball park.
The calculation ignores the myriad of small engines
used in things like lawn mowers, as well as the
jet engines used in commercial airlines (which are
estimated to contribute 2-3% to global manmade
CO2 emissions).
The idea was to just come up with actual numbers
for the anti-science, global-warming-doubting cretins
posting nonsense about how puny humans can't
possibly afffect something as big as the Earth. My
estimate of the atmosphere being about 2 billiion
cubic miles in volume makes that seem really,
huge. But my estimate of 101,000 cubic miles of
air passing through vehicle engines per year is
not that small by comparison. If you stick with the
atmosphere height being 10 miles then 101,000
cubic miles translates into 10,100 square miles of
displacement per year, which is larger than the
state of Maryland or Vermont.
The 10 year usage thing was to just give the idea
of the effects of all this over modest time period.
If anyone wants to estimate how much air human
by themselves displace by just breathing, use
.5 liters as the displacement (a good average for
lungs) at a rate of 20 breaths per minute for 24
hrs a day for 6 billion people. While the result
won't be nearly as much as the engine results,
it's nothing to sneeze at either, so to speak....
-BC
BC
Whoops, I used the land area data, not total area
for the state comparisons. 10,100 is still larger
than Vermont's total area but is smaller than
Maryland's total of 12,407. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_area
-BC
Baldin...@msn.com
Trace wrote:
> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> a significant level,
Wrong. You just made that up, or someone like Limbaugh made it up for
you. You don't read scientific studies.
Baldin Pramer
Baldin...@msn.com
> > > Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> > > temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> > > the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> > > Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >
>
> Well then, the debate MUST be over.
>
> Why do people have to have a link? Can't you folks drag your sorry ass
> to the library, to a college, do some research on you own, and come to
> a conclusion based on FACTS, not agenda driven science.
>
> This is a hell of a world we have here. Its not on a link, so it must
> brain for a change.
>
> Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> that.
>
> PROVE anything to clowns who believe something just because there is a
> url that points to it.
Privide a reference to a peer reviewed scientific paper that supports
your assertions or remain silent.
BP
Baldin...@msn.com
> > URL's can point to compelling documents that prove your assertions
> > conclusively. Too bad that you're too lazy and/or technically retarded to
> > post relevant research to a website as the vast majority of thinking people
> > in the civilized world are doing.
>
> Too bad you are too young and ignorant to realize that the internet is
> a library, not the conclusive proof of something. Every been to a real
> library? Read an actual scientific publication? Had a thought on your
> own?
This is why you should provide a link to a paper supporting your
position. A link is like directions in the library to the journal
stacks. If you cannot provide a citation for your assertions, you
should not be in this debate.
BP
Baldin...@msn.com
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
> > On 27 Aug 2006 19:21:08 -0700, "Trace" <trace...@yahoo.com> wrote,
> > quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
> >
> > >Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> > >a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
> > >temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> > >the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> > >Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >
> > That is a bald faced lie. You can't point to even one paper published
> > in a peer reviewed journal.
>
>
> Peer reviewed journal? Who the hell cares about that? I have read most
> all of the bullshit articles, journals,
No, you haven't. You are lying.
Baldin Pramer
Arbusto Harken
Well a tip of the hat to your math skills. But you took it so easy on
them that, for a second there, I thought you were one of them. Next
time you're working on it, how about making it 200 years and factoring
in coal burning power plants? I'd do it myself but I'm doing good to
balance my checkbook. Algebra is my kryptonite. Anyway, keep fighting
the good fight.
Ivanna Pee
dumber than fuck? a similie that I do not understand.
But then again you are as sharp as a bag of wet hair.(an analogy, that
makes some sense)
You've just provided us with just enough evidence to deduce
that you are most likely to be a member of
Ivanna Pee
johnsmith wrote:
> Maybe not only us have an impact on the global warming, maybe the earth
> itself changes, but we can not deny that we do have an impact.
I never did.
singlew...@gmail.com
Why would I go to Iraq?
You ought not call me a chicken, without understanding what I have
already done, in serving my country.
Arbusto Harken
Maybe there are two people who post to these forums under the name
"singlew...@gmail.com". One of them started a topic a couple of
weeks ago titled "Liberals don't want to fight. They will die". That
guy is a chickenhawk P.O.S. If it wasn't you, I apologize for the
misunderstanding.
Kadaltcha Man
well, most neocons are verifiably schizoid, just give them this test:
1. Is life precious?
__ Y
__ N
2. Should we kill people in wars?
__ Y
__ N
3. Should we "deter" crime by killing certain offenders?
__ Y
__ N
4. Is big government bad?
__ Y
__ N
5. Is it a good idea to let the government decide to abrogate the bill of
rights when it feels it "needs to" aka: "(un)patriot(ic) act"?
__ Y
__ N
6. Are state's rights a good thing?
__ Y
__ N
__ I have no clue what states rights are even though I claim to hate big
government.
HTH
--
Roberta "Foxymopjockeychickenwrist" Wolfe
"The talk of the sekret AUK
off-newsgroup listserves!"
<insert pied piper song here>
______
cujo: Just wait for the whine it's been going on about for over
cujo: four years: a s00p3r s3kr1t |\/|41|_`1|\|9 lits where
cujo: everyone talks about teh Jop Mockey all day long.
me: whaddayaknow... here's an archive of one:
me: http://unixd0rk.com/~rob/usenet/aar_skeptics/
me: DOOP!!!!42!
______
Abraham Lincoln was a bonehead
he shouldla turned around
and punched John Wilkes Booth
in the eye.
But I guess he preferred
to watcha stupid ass play
with some guy dressed up as a tree
in it.
How the hell did he win the civil war
and build a log cabin
with his bare hands
(as the legend says)?
He didn't even have the instinct
to know he was about to get shot from behind:
I hope the next president won't be enshrined
he's got two eyes in the back of his head instead of
two holes... [realer - by Feller Quentin and "the latter"]
______
Roberta Looks Better in a Skirt than you do:
http://tinyurl.com/lfklv
______
"That's all fine... but nobody is going to take anything seriously coming from
a twat who brags about how intimidating his Cannibal Corpse shirts are." -
CujoDesockpuppet Thread-Killer #453
______
"I get a summons to appear for jury duty.
I did this once before in Philly. Their policy was "One trial or one day" and
they wouldn't bother you after that.
I get my ass up on Friday (my day off) at 6am so I could be sure not to get
there late and have to go through this ordeal again. Turns out it's a capital
murder trial and is expected to last several weeks. This is not exactly an
appealing prospect, so at break, I hustle to a liquor store and snag one of
those sample whiskies and gargle it for about 30 seconds or so and use the
little bit on the bottom for aftershave. Got my ass out of there in record
time. " - Cujo shares a crafty scheme to get out of jury duty and present
yourself to the court as an irresponsible drunk all at the same time in
<778c47$pvd$1...@newshost.cyberramp.net>.
______
"AUK is a pellet gun" - K A Cannon on AUK's effectiveness
______
> Hi! I'm the .sig virus that will destroy Usenet. Please add me to your sig.
> - END USENET NOW http://www.bedoper.com/usenet
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
BC
Thanks, but I just squeeze these things in here and
there when I have a break and I often make a lot of
[sic] type typos in writing things up quickly, focusing
more on links and such. I did make much more of an
effort to not be overly sloppy with my math.
This was actually interesting in that global warming
data has typically used mass rather than volume, mostly
because that's far more useful for measureing stuff
like CO2 emissions. But that otherwise clueless
right-winger's post asking for data in terms of volume
made me curious about how would you represent that
in a way people can understand, and I had no idea
what the end result would be if I simply used vehicle
engine displacement, which acts pretty much like a
pump that sucks in clean air and pumps it out
polluted.
I occurs to me now, though, while writing this that I
might have been way, WAY too conservative in the
the volume amounts for engines. They are not just
simple air pumps with the same volume of air going
out as coming in, with the flow rate determined by
the displacement and rpm of the "pump". In an auto
engine, the incoming air is mixed with a mist of
fuel, then compressed, ignited, and then there is
an ensuing controlled explosion that provides the
power to drive the vehicle, with the net effect of there
being substantially more stuff coming out of the
exhaust than what comes in through the carburator.
Just Googling about looking for some volumetric
exhaust info, it looks as though I could 500 scfm
as an alternative to just using engine displacement
and rpm. The "scfm" bit stands for "standard cubic
feet per minute" and is related to using standardized
atmospheric pressure.
So 500 scfm translates to 30,000 cubic feet per
hr. And if I convert this to cubic miles per hour, I
get: 2.03807183 × 10^(-7) cu miles/hr
Compare that to my estimate from just using a
4 liter engine displacement and 3000 rpm:
1.72737186 × 10^(-7) cu miles/hr
Not too far apart but it does indicate my earlier
estimate was a bit on the conservative side.
The difference is:
0.31069997 × 10^(-7) cu miles/hr
If I take the ratios, I could modify my calculations
for engine displacement by a factor of 1.17986861
Which means I can take that 0.00505 percent
figure I came up before, multiply that by
1.17986861, and come up with 0.00595833648,
with I'll round off to .006.
Not an enormous difference from .00505, but it
does indicate that on a yearly basis with
approximately just the vehicles we currently have
in operation, 6 thousandths of 1 percent of the
roughly the entire atmosphere of the Earth gets
circulated through passenger vehicle engines per
year if they are driven on average just 2 hrs per
day.
Again if you double both the number of vehicles
and the number of hours driven in a day:
.006 * 2 * 2 = 0.024
Times 10 years: .24 percent
This time, let's do it for 50 years as well:
.024 * 50 = 1.2
That 1.2 mean that approximately 1.2 percent of
the entire friggin atmosphere would come out as
passenger engine exhaust if we had only about
twice as many vehicles as we have now operating
only for 4 hrs a day on average over a 50 yr period.
And this is all related to just *one* aspect of human
activity.
Maybe the world isn't quite as vast and/or humans
quite as puny as some people seem to believe...
-BC
sbm...@shaw.ca
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Director wrote:
> > singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Earth=HUGE Human population=tiny, relative to HUGE earth. Just
> > > because you live in a city that has destroyed itself with concrete,
> > > asphalt, and too many cars, doesn't mean the whole earth looks like
> > > that.
> >
> > Can you quantify that for us, in SI units of wholelottas and
> > reallittles?
> >
> > http://www.lifeform.org/index.htm#metric
> >
> > http://cosmic.lifeform.org
>
> Its probably the only language you can understand. I defy you to do the
> math yourself. Determine the size of the atmosphere, not the tonnage,
Why the hell would you do that? I don't know if they covered this
topic at Dipshit U., but mass is a way more reliable measure for
measuring just how much of a gas there is than volume. You see, for a
gas, mass is a constant but volume is widely variable and dependent on
a bunch of other factors. You can ask your Chemistry professor at
Dipshit U. and he'll clarify this for you.
In any case, who says you're the one who gets to set the parameters of
the debate? I'm getting a kick out of your restrictions - can't use
internet links, can't use tonnage? What next? You're going to insist
we do the math on abacuses? LOL! I realize this is beyond the scope
of your Dipshit U. degree, but we are under no obligation to go by your
"rules". We can prove you wrong any way we can. Readers of your post
aren't going to be impressed by your idiotic excuses.
BTW, the real reason you don't want people using "tonnage" is that I
kicked your ass a while back when I showed that our CO2 emissions are
adding on about 1% per year to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Bet you aren't bragging about that one at the Dipshit U. campus.
sbm...@shaw.ca
Go away. We don't want you. You stopped being an asset to our side
long ago. You want to help us liberals? Go join the other side.
singlew...@gmail.com
>
> Maybe there are two people who post to these forums under the name
> "singlew...@gmail.com". One of them started a topic a couple of
> weeks ago titled "Liberals don't want to fight. They will die". That
> guy is a chickenhawk P.O.S.
What does that have to do with you expecting me to go to Iraq? I
already served, and paid the price. I reckon you think people who
sacrifice several years of their life, get shot at, and watch friends
get blow to pieces, are chicken hawk pieces of shit? That's
indefensible. Are you an American, and have you served in the military?
David Hartung
I'm willing to bet that you don't either.
webbit
big/large enough to affect the global climate.
Download free Christian templates,church site templates,Christian news,
events and annoucements on http://www.magictemplate.com
Arbusto Harken
So it was you. Thought so. You fought an enemy army in uniform.
That's not what you're demanding our soldiers do now. You did your
duty and then got to come home to your family. That's not how it works
anymore. You did your hitch and got to hang up your uniform. That's
not possible anymore with Rumsfeld's backdoor draft. No sir, what
you're sitting at home asking our men and women in uniform to do is
something you would never do in a million years. Otherwise, you would
be over there right now. And don't give me any of that horseshit about
being too old. They'll take you. If not, you can go on your own.
David Hartung
You appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Please educate yourself.
Mitchell Holman
news:1CgJg.83054$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Pot.
Kettle.
Black.
singlew...@gmail.com
Arbusto Harken wrote:
>
> So it was you. Thought so. You fought an enemy army in uniform.
> That's not what you're demanding our soldiers do now. You did your
> duty and then got to come home to your family. That's not how it works
> anymore. You did your hitch and got to hang up your uniform. That's
> not possible anymore with Rumsfeld's backdoor draft. No sir, what
> you're sitting at home asking our men and women in uniform to do is
> something you would never do in a million years. Otherwise, you would
> be over there right now. And don't give me any of that horseshit about
> being too old. They'll take you. If not, you can go on your own.
You don't seem to understand that the people in the military are there
of their own free will. They wanted the free education, the free
training, to learn a skill for their career, to be housed and fed for
nothing, and to eventually end up with quite a number of useful,
lifelong benefits such as retirement, health, and further education.
Then, when its time to actually go to war, they go, and some whine,
cry, and moan about how "we didn't think we would actually have to
fight and risk anything. We thought this was the gravy train" They come
home, and get asked to go back, and again we hear the wimpy cry of a
generation of babies "I didn't join the military to fight a war, I just
wanted the free stuff" Makes me proud to be an American........
The fact that you don't agree with the war as presently configured,
doesn't change anything. Pigs like you were all over America during
Vietnam, whining, and moaning, but doing little else, and in fact,
eventually causing us to losethe war, caused millions to be put to
death, and then you they went about raising a generation of assholes
and wimps who have no concept of 'country' or what it takes to actuall
be free. Mike Stivic WAS a meathead, dead from the neck up, and you are
just like him, a meathead for the same reasons.
If chickens and facists like you weren't out biting at the ankles of
the military, and the government, this 'war' would have been over two
years ago, but the biggest enemy to the United States is the liberal
left, who side with the terrorists, and actively seek the destruction
of the Republic itself.
I guess the biggest question is why YOU are not in Iraq, if you think I
should have to go. I can promise you this, the military doesn't want
me at my age, and I am disabled and of no value to them anyway. What is
your excuse?
Baldin...@msn.com
Go ahead and bet. I have read some, but not all (there are hundreds of
them) of the papers in Nature and Science, as well as in a few other
journals, and heard talks by some of the climate modelers describing
how they make and validate their models. One of my good friends is an
expert on numerical modeling of fluid dynamics and code validation. I
have read his most well known book on fluid modeling, so I really do
know a thing or two about the subject of fluid modeling, although I am
far from an expert. Just to be clear, in the scientific literature, air
is also considered to be a fluid by definition.
The point is this: it is fine to argue about whether or not we are
doomed because of this or that, but when someone makes claims couched
in scientific terminology, and claims there is a lot of new science to
support his claims, he had damned well be able to back up his claim.
Tracy is lying. He neither knows nor reads scientific research, and is
just regurgitating something another ignoramus said.
By the way, my fluids expert friend thinks that there definitely is man
made global warming. I know that there is a contribution, but I think
the models are too fragile at the moment to tell whether or not man's
input is causing a disasterous change.
Baldin Pramer
David Hartung
> David Hartung wrote:
>> Baldin...@msn.com wrote:
>>> Trace wrote:
>>>> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
>>>> a significant level,
>>> Wrong. You just made that up, or someone like Limbaugh made it up for
>>> you. You don't read scientific studies.
>> I'm willing to bet that you don't either.
>
> Go ahead and bet. I have read some, but not all (there are hundreds of
> them) of the papers in Nature and Science, as well as in a few other
> journals, and heard talks by some of the climate modelers describing
> how they make and validate their models. One of my good friends is an
> expert on numerical modeling of fluid dynamics and code validation. I
> have read his most well known book on fluid modeling, so I really do
> know a thing or two about the subject of fluid modeling, although I am
> far from an expert. Just to be clear, in the scientific literature, air
> is also considered to be a fluid by definition.
Okay, then I am wrong.
> The point is this: it is fine to argue about whether or not we are
> doomed because of this or that, but when someone makes claims couched
> in scientific terminology, and claims there is a lot of new science to
> support his claims, he had damned well be able to back up his claim.
I agree.
> Tracy is lying. He neither knows nor reads scientific research, and is
> just regurgitating something another ignoramus said.
Perhaps.
> By the way, my fluids expert friend thinks that there definitely is man
> made global warming. I know that there is a contribution, but I think
> the models are too fragile at the moment to tell whether or not man's
> input is causing a disasterous change.
I have a cousin who is a NASA scientist and who is involved in global climate
research. She personally believes that not only is the world warming, but that
man is at least partly responsible. When we discuss research, she tells me that
the consensus is that warming is happening, and that the research is close to
showing human responsibility. In other words, she is an honest scientist, she
differentiates between what she believes, and what she knows.
Adam Albright
wrote:
The Hartung fool is your typical right wing chickenhawk. His view is
simple. He sits at home on his easychair clapping his hands everytime
the idiot Bush threatens to invade another country. Don't ever expect
asswipes like David to show he truly believes in the bullshit he says
but actually participating. Its all talk. He not only expects, he
demands others, typically the poor, go fight and die in Bush's wars so
David can continue to run his mouth.
Arbusto Harken
Thanks for your little interjection. Please get back to us if you ever
come up with anything of substance you would like to contribute.
Roedy Green
or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Peer reviewed journal? Who the hell cares about that? I have read most
>all of the bullshit articles, journals, and scare tactics, and its all
>a 'bald faced lie"
>
>If you or anyone else cared about the topic, you would read ALL of the
>data, and ALL of the information, and then form an opinion, rather than
>globbing onto something that matches your agenda, and calling
>everything else bogus. Science is about FACTS, and they the reader can
>make the choice. The FACTS about globalony are that man is not causing
>a significant amount of change, and in addition, man CANNOT cause
>enough change to alter the climate of the planet.
Don't be silly. You can of course find trash in the pop press, in the
National Enquirer. But if you want science not speculation as you
offer, you need to read magazines with the data and experiments to
back up the claims.
Your problem is you likely have only a grade 3 science education and
are thus incapable of reading anything above the National Enquirer
level.
The other possibility is you are a paid shill.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green, http://mindprod.com
See links to the Lebanon photos that Google censored at
http://mindprod.com/politics/israel.html
Cron Daemon
> On 28 Aug 2006 09:26:55 -0700, singlew...@gmail.com wrote, quoted
> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
>>Peer reviewed journal? Who the hell cares about that? I have read most
>>all of the bullshit articles, journals, and scare tactics, and its all
>>a 'bald faced lie"
>>
>>If you or anyone else cared about the topic, you would read ALL of the
>>data, and ALL of the information, and then form an opinion, rather than
>>globbing onto something that matches your agenda, and calling
>>everything else bogus. Science is about FACTS, and they the reader can
>>make the choice. The FACTS about globalony are that man is not causing
>>a significant amount of change, and in addition, man CANNOT cause
>>enough change to alter the climate of the planet.
>
> Don't be silly. You can of course find trash in the pop press, in the
> National Enquirer. But if you want science not speculation as you
> offer, you need to read magazines with the data and experiments to
> back up the claims.
>
> Your problem is you likely have only a grade 3 science education and
> are thus incapable of reading anything above the National Enquirer
> level.
>
> The other possibility is you are a paid shill.
there is also the third possibility:
"C. All of the above".
:]
--
if you have a complaint about off-topic, chickenshit, skinhead, nazi-wannabes
in your newsgroup, please call our hotline: 281-821-5534
Roberta "Foxymopjockeychickenwrist" Wolfe
"The talk of the sekret AUK
off-newsgroup listserves!"
<insert pied piper song here>
http://unixd0rk.com
http://unixd0rk.livejournal.com
singlew...@gmail.com
Roedy Green wrote:
>
> Don't be silly. You can of course find trash in the pop press, in the
> National Enquirer. But if you want science not speculation as you
> offer, you need to read magazines with the data and experiments to
> back up the claims.
>
> Your problem is you likely have only a grade 3 science education and
> are thus incapable of reading anything above the National Enquirer
> level.
>
> The other possibility is you are a paid shill.
Yea, I get paid to post in usenet..... right..... You seem able to
type, so you cannot be that stupid.
Your problem is, you only read the science reports that support the
conclusion you want to attain. When you grow up a bit, and learn to
read the science that is available, from all sides then you will gain
a better understanding of the earth, and its naturally cyclical
behavior, as well as that of the sun. You will learn of the warming of
the oceans from the sea bed, which generates CO2 on an enormous scale,
given the size of the surface of the oceans. You will learn for real,
of how much CO2 and other gases are generated by man, and discover
that, yes, there is a lot, but compared to the natural emissions of
the oceans, and other sources, it not of any great consequence.
Of course, since your best argument to support your chosen position is
that everyone else has a grade 3 science education, you pretty much
reveal that you are far to ignorant and closed minded for intelligent
people to bother with.
Keep trying tho. One day, ..... one day......
sbm...@shaw.ca
Roedy Green wrote:
> On 28 Aug 2006 09:26:55 -0700, singlew...@gmail.com wrote, quoted
> or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>
> >Peer reviewed journal? Who the hell cares about that? I have read most
> >all of the bullshit articles, journals, and scare tactics, and its all
> >a 'bald faced lie"
> >
> >If you or anyone else cared about the topic, you would read ALL of the
> >data, and ALL of the information, and then form an opinion, rather than
> >globbing onto something that matches your agenda, and calling
> >everything else bogus. Science is about FACTS, and they the reader can
> >make the choice. The FACTS about globalony are that man is not causing
> >a significant amount of change, and in addition, man CANNOT cause
> >enough change to alter the climate of the planet.
>
> Don't be silly. You can of course find trash in the pop press, in the
> National Enquirer. But if you want science not speculation as you
> offer, you need to read magazines with the data and experiments to
> back up the claims.
>
> Your problem is you likely have only a grade 3 science education and
> are thus incapable of reading anything above the National Enquirer
> level.
>
> The other possibility is you are a paid shill.
> --
You're wrong, Roedy. He is a honored graduate of Dipshit U.. THe paid
shills were his instructors.
sbm...@shaw.ca
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Roedy Green wrote:
> >
> > Don't be silly. You can of course find trash in the pop press, in the
> > National Enquirer. But if you want science not speculation as you
> > offer, you need to read magazines with the data and experiments to
> > back up the claims.
> >
> > Your problem is you likely have only a grade 3 science education and
> > are thus incapable of reading anything above the National Enquirer
> > level.
> >
> > The other possibility is you are a paid shill.
>
> Yea, I get paid to post in usenet..... right..... You seem able to
> type, so you cannot be that stupid.
>
> Your problem is, you only read the science reports that support the
> conclusion you want to attain.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> When you grow up a bit, and learn to
> read the science that is available, from all sides then you will gain
> a better understanding of the earth, and its naturally cyclical
> behavior, as well as that of the sun. You will learn of the warming of
> the oceans from the sea bed, which generates CO2 on an enormous scale,
> given the size of the surface of the oceans.
Bullshit. You've yet to post a source for this besides your owned
fevered imaginings from your days at Dipshit U.
>? You will learn for real,
> of how much CO2 and other gases are generated by man, and discover
> that, yes, there is a lot, but compared to the natural emissions of
> the oceans, and other sources, it not of any great consequence.
Actually, we emit 100 times more than volcanoes do. And oceans take
CO2 OUT of the atmosphere, not in (by organisms turning it into calcium
carbonate).
Oh, but since Earth's coral reefs are starting to die off from global
warming, there are fewer to take the CO2 out, so in other words, the
more we take out, the worse it gets. Didn't teach you that at Dipshit
U., did they?
>
> Of course, since your best argument to support your chosen position is
> that everyone else has a grade 3 science education,
Well, not everyone was fortunate to go to Dipshit U.
>you pretty much
> reveal that you are far to ignorant and closed minded for intelligent
> people to bother with.
Hypocrite.
sbm...@shaw.ca
Billzz wrote:
> <kings...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1156751910.0...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Trace wrote:
> >> Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
> >> temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
> >> the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
> >> Conservatives, but from climatologists.
> >>
> >> Why?
> >>
> >> Does the left have a massive agenda that needs the guilt of global
> >> warming to succeed?
> >
> >
> > more enviromental friendly and reduce pollution.
> >
> > Now you can go back to sniffing your car fumes since you have no
> > interest in taking care of the planet at all.
>
> Well, I am an old guy, which is why I am posting in alt.military.retired,
> and wondering why this is posted to all of these groups that I would not
> have anything to do with, but anyway.....
>
> Does anybody remember Malthus? Does anybody remember Dr. Paul Erlich and
> The Population Bomb?
Malthus and Erlich weren't wrong. They were just early.
Overpopulation isn't just A environmental problem; it's the root of ALL
environmental problems.
I recently posted a calculation that Earth has 0.6 acres of land for
every person alive. That 0.6 acres has to supply EVERYTHING you need.
Food, water, and shelter. If you want to live better than a 16th
century peasant, it also has to supply fuel, power, raw materials. Not
to mention an education, military, and health care infrastructure.
Sounds pretty small now, don't it. And by 2050, earth's will have
twice as many people and half as much food. Chew on that for awhile.
ANd yet the Cato Institute and the religous right idiots think we need
MORE people.
> Does anybody remember Acid Rain?
Yes. We still have plenty of dead lakes up here to remind us.
>
> Does anyone remember the story about the boy who cried wolf? Well, I'm old
> enough to know that every generation has its wolf story. And maybe this
> time it is true, but I've heard enough wolf stories to take this one with a
> very large grain of salt.....
Sounds like a good way to end up as wolf food.
>
> So....
>
> Global Extortion
>
> Our first television set. We were enthralled by "The 64,000 Dollar
> Question." We knew there was a radio program called "The 64 Dollar
> Question" and it seemed beyond belief that a human being could just answer
> a question and get sixty-four thousand dollars.
>
> Our father took on a new profession after our mother died. He saw us off to
> school and picked us up after. Sometimes we would accompany him on his
> rounds, and sometimes the police would look at us but, knowing our
> circumstances, they never interfered. I saw the little slips and the
> numbers but it took me years later to discover he was a bookie.
Wah wah boo hoo.
>
> Well, back to the TV and the little Italian shoemaker was getting close and
> we called our father to see. He looked for about five minutes and said that
> it was fixed. We were aghast. We pointed out the soundproof booth, and the
> envelopes, and the poor person sweating and stammering, and waiting, and the
> suspense. He calmly said the words which I can repeat to this day, "You don't
> understand. It has to be fixed. There is too much money involved for it
> not to be fixed." My father died many years before it was proven that it
> was indeed fixed. I can only hope that heaven gets the re-run of the movie.
Wah wah boo hoo.
>
> This, of course brings us to Global Warming. Now there are always two parts
> to a really big problem like this. The first part is convincing people that
> there is a problem and the second part is convincing them of the solution.
> It is even better if the solution is presented along with the problem and
> that this is the only solution that can possibly be true. This is important
> because as the old doctor maxim says, "there is no money to be made in the
> diagnosis, only the offered pill." And what is this bitter pill?
Oh, goody. Comparing a major environmental problem to a crooked game
show. Real convincing analogy.
>
> It seems that we, in the United States, have to ship our manufacturing, and
> our jobs, overseas.
No, you don't have to. You just keep putting that idiot in office who
refuses to do anything about it. Laissez-faire, don't ya know. Unless
you're a Republican supporter.
> Now, on the surface this does not seem to make sense,
> because we have at least some pollution controls, and the third-world
> countries who would be the beneficiaries of our largesse do not. Also if
> anyone remembers the billion or so backyard smelters in China or has
> traveled in Asia and seen the billion or so charcoal-burners coating the
> countryside with ash one might wonder, who exactly is the polluter? I'm not
> a betting person but I'll bet plenty of people are inspecting our plants and
> plenty of people are not inspecting the billion charcoal burners.
Yeah, an somehow you're still producing several times more CO2 than
either the Chinese or the Indians. Fancy that.
>
> We don't have to wonder about where the warming is coming from. We are told
> it is our manufacturing. Forget the burning of Brazil, or Mount Pinatubo,
> or Mount. St. Helen's,
Which put out about 1% of what we do.
>the problem has got to be us and the solution has got
> to be to ship our jobs to some other country. No other solution seems
> possible for the people who are waiting for our jobs.
>
No solution is possible, because they decided like rightoids like you
do, to ignore their population problem until it was too late. So now
they're fucked. They've doomed themselves to perpetual poverty.
> No one seems to notice that this solution only moves the problem. But that's
> not the point is it? What is the point, boys and girls? Remember our
> lesson? It's fixed. And how do we know it's fixed? There is too much
> money involved for it not to be fixed.
Riiiiiigggghhhht.
Billzz
news:1156997487.1...@74g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Just a smidgen of a real statistic (although I am hard pressed to believe
0.6 acres per person, especially since you are posting from Canada) and then
the obligatory politicized swipe about "Mr.Cato and The Religious Right
Idiots" - some kind of rightous rock group, I guess. Gee, that's
statistically neutral isn't it? So you lost me there. I did not even Google
up people per acre.
Anyway, I was riding the subway in NYC when I spotted a poster saying that
the greatest number of deaths from heart attacks took place in the borough
of Queens, but fortunately the greatest heart treatment center was the
Queens Medical Facility. My statistical urban legend meter went off and I
found out that people do not actually die where they fall, but have to be
taken to a treatment center where a doctor prounounces them dead. So if I
fall over in Manhatten, and the EMT thinks "heart attack" they are likely to
transport me to Queens, where the death certificate will not say Manhattan,
but Queens. So that is why they have such numbers.
Statistics is funny like that.
The people in Tokyo or Amsterdam live on less than whatever acres (it's in
Google) because someone else (in Alberta?) is providing their genetic
grains.
The point was that Malthus, and Paul Erlich (anybody remember him?) was a
big thing, at one time, but I haven't heard any politico talk about him,
since Hoover (and he didn't) and other than Planned Parenthood, no one
cares. Acid rain was a biggie when I was looking at lots in Lake Arrowhead,
but the words have probably not been seen in the Congressional Record for
years. This year it's Global Warming. Next year it will be the meteor.
You haven't heard about the meteor? It's coming to get us and we have to
raise more taxes so that NASA can build a space ship to intercept the
meteor. If we don't do that then we won't be able to convert America to a
totally green non-productive place with all manufacturing being done in
China.
Oh, I've been to the far east and seen the millions of charcoal burners lay
ash waste to the entire countryside. No smoke stack filters there. They
have a billion people to filter the air through their lungs.
I'm apolitical. So are most politicos. Global Warming? Yah, that's the
ticket! Next year, The Meteor! Send us your money.
Roedy Green
quoted or indirectly quoted someone who said :
>Much new science is now out that shows people cannot alter climates on
>a significant level, and that the the earth goes through many
>temperature cycles both higher and lower than the normal average, but
>the left is rejecting the lastest facts that come not from
>Conservatives, but from climatologists.
Give it up. ABC's documentary accuses you of being a paid shill, just
like those cunts who claimed tobacco was not addictive.
David Hartung
> I recently posted a calculation that Earth has 0.6 acres of land for
> every person alive. That 0.6 acres has to supply EVERYTHING you need.
> Food, water, and shelter. If you want to live better than a 16th
> century peasant, it also has to supply fuel, power, raw materials. Not
> to mention an education, military, and health care infrastructure.
> Sounds pretty small now, don't it. And by 2050, earth's will have
> twice as many people and half as much food. Chew on that for awhile.
Interesting, I must have missed that post, would you mind reposting? Thanks.
Morton Davis
"David Hartung" <dhar...@quixnet.net> wrote in message
news:dqzJg.86690$Eh1....@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
I find that very INTERESTING. It assumes that we won't have advances in food
production. Anyone ever look at an ear of real old time corn and wonder how
you could make a living off growing that? Or wheat? Many of us have pretty
nice pieces of farmable land we're not using - our yards. There's enough
useable land in the average American lawn to not only grow enough food to
feed the owner and family but also to have enough to sell or trade to
others. Also, converting blacktop rooves to green rooves on apartmement
buildings, with garden plots for grown vegetables, is proving an effective
way to cool down cityscapes as well as provide food.
THe gloom and doom faction always discounts anything that does not promote
their pet fear.
sbm...@shaw.ca
Trace wrote:
> I just don't get it. Why has climatology become the new religion of
> the left?
>
> Why ?
>
> Why does the left want so bad for there to be global warming caused by
> man?
>
We don't. It just is.
> The facts are showing more and more that man is not capable of causing
> warming or cooling.
>
Yeah right. What "facts" would those be? Link, please.
> But, that does not seem to matter to the left. Algore and his groupies
> along with other radicals on the left side are turning the entire issue
> of the climate into a new cult religion.
>
> Why?
Because we don't go around with our heads in the sand.
sbm...@shaw.ca
It's not statistics. It's math. Do it yourself. Figure out the
surface area of Earth, then multiply by 0.3 to take into account what's
covered by water, and divide by 6 billion. See what you get.
>(although I am hard pressed to believe
> 0.6 acres per person, especially since you are posting from Canada
Oh yeah, the math completely changes if you do it in Canada. Moron.
>and then
> the obligatory politicized swipe about "Mr.Cato and The Religious Right
> Idiots" - some kind of rightous rock group, I guess. Gee, that's
> statistically neutral isn't it?
No statistics. Math.
> So you lost me there. I did not even Google
> up people per acre.
Don't have to google it. Do the math yourself. You can do math, can't
you?
>
> Anyway, I was riding the subway in NYC when I spotted a poster saying that
> the greatest number of deaths from heart attacks took place in the borough
> of Queens, but fortunately the greatest heart treatment center was the
> Queens Medical Facility. My statistical urban legend meter went off and I
> found out that people do not actually die where they fall, but have to be
> taken to a treatment center where a doctor prounounces them dead. So if I
> fall over in Manhatten, and the EMT thinks "heart attack" they are likely to
> transport me to Queens, where the death certificate will not say Manhattan,
> but Queens. So that is why they have such numbers.
>
> Statistics is funny like that.
WTF does that have to do with anything? Like I've said, there's no
statistics involved. Just math.
>
> The people in Tokyo or Amsterdam live on less than whatever acres (it's in
> Google) because someone else (in Alberta?) is providing their genetic
> grains.
Yes, so they're USING land even though they're not LIVING on it.
Remember what I said about that land having to provide EVERYTHING they
use? You can read, right?
>
> The point was that Malthus, and Paul Erlich (anybody remember him?) was a
> big thing, at one time, but I haven't heard any politico talk about him,
> since Hoover (and he didn't) and other than Planned Parenthood, no one
> cares.
Tell it to India or China.
> Acid rain was a biggie when I was looking at lots in Lake Arrowhead,
> but the words have probably not been seen in the Congressional Record for
> years.
Because steps have been taken to reduce it's impact. Do try to keep
up.
> This year it's Global Warming.
Actually, it's been more like, this last couple of decades. And if you
think we're making noise now, wait till the effects become too profound
to ignore.
And when our children scream "why didn't you do anything", I'll refer
the question to you.
> Next year it will be the meteor.
> You haven't heard about the meteor? It's coming to get us and we have to
> raise more taxes so that NASA can build a space ship to intercept the
> meteor.
Ok, complete trip into fantasy land.
> If we don't do that then we won't be able to convert America to a
> totally green non-productive place with all manufacturing being done in
> China.
>
> Oh, I've been to the far east and seen the millions of charcoal burners lay
> ash waste to the entire countryside. No smoke stack filters there. They
> have a billion people to filter the air through their lungs.
>
> I'm apolitical. So are most politicos. Global Warming? Yah, that's the
> ticket! Next year, The Meteor! Send us your money.
>
>
Or we could do like you, and just bury our heads in the sand. It
doesn't cost a thing, and everyone knows if you just ignore it, it'll
go away.
Michael Ejercito
Earth has a land area of about 3.187 E 10 acres. That amounts to a
little over five acres of land per person.
Michael
Michael Ejercito
two hundred twenty-one miles, which is short of reality.
Michael
sbm...@shaw.ca
You are right. My apologies, I misplaced a decimal point when I did
the calculation, the right answer is 6.3 acres, not 0.6.
sbm...@shaw.ca
6.3 acres actually. Thanks for pointing out my error.
David Hartung
That would mean that for my family of 18(wife, kids, kids-in-law, and grandkids)
we would have 113.4 acres. Granted there are a lot of places in the world in
which 113 acres would not support 1 person, let alone 18, but where I live, 113
acres would feed us very well, and would produce enough surplus to feed many
others.
Adam Albright
wrote:
>sbm...@shaw.ca wrote:
You couldn't grow weeds.
gpa...@bayou.com
existed. Therefore, by rightwing "logic" that proves that humans did
not cause the Aswan Dam nor other dams, nor cause the recent global
warming.
Tough Tonto
Do you believe that the Aswan Dam is heating the earth? That's
just silly. You ought to maybe read the posts more carefully.
Arbusto Harken
singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
> Arbusto Harken wrote:
>
> >
> > So it was you. Thought so. You fought an enemy army in uniform.
> > That's not what you're demanding our soldiers do now. You did your
> > duty and then got to come home to your family. That's not how it works
> > anymore. You did your hitch and got to hang up your uniform. That's
> > not possible anymore with Rumsfeld's backdoor draft. No sir, what
> > you're sitting at home asking our men and women in uniform to do is
> > something you would never do in a million years. Otherwise, you would
> > be over there right now. And don't give me any of that horseshit about
> > being too old. They'll take you. If not, you can go on your own.
>
> You don't seem to understand that the people in the military are there
> of their own free will. They wanted the free education, the free
> training, to learn a skill for their career, to be housed and fed for
> nothing, and to eventually end up with quite a number of useful,
> lifelong benefits such as retirement, health, and further education.
You're talking about the National Guard you fucking prick. They're not
supposed to be deployed for endless hazardous duty on foreign soil.
They should have been here helping out with Katrina.
> Then, when its time to actually go to war, they go, and some whine,
> cry, and moan about how "we didn't think we would actually have to
> fight and risk anything. We thought this was the gravy train" They come
> home, and get asked to go back, and again we hear the wimpy cry of a
> generation of babies "I didn't join the military to fight a war, I just
> wanted the free stuff" Makes me proud to be an American........
You shouldn't bash our brave men and women in uniform. I hope they
read this.
>
> The fact that you don't agree with the war as presently configured,
> doesn't change anything.
Configured? Are you sure you're a military man?
> Pigs like you were all over America during
> Vietnam, whining, and moaning, but doing little else, and in fact,
> eventually causing us to losethe war, caused millions to be put to
> death, and then you they went about raising a generation of assholes
> and wimps who have no concept of 'country' or what it takes to actuall
> be free.
> Mike Stivic WAS a meathead, dead from the neck up, and you are
> just like him, a meathead for the same reasons.
Who?
>
> If chickens and facists like you weren't out biting at the ankles of
> the military, and the government, this 'war' would have been over two
> years ago
How? How did I postpone the end of the war?? And why the quotation
marks around the word war? Do you not believe this is war? Why don't
you go over and find out for yourself?
> but the biggest enemy to the United States is the liberal
> left,
The *American* liberal left? The biggest enemy of the the United
States are the 60 something percent of us who think this war is a
catastrophe? Are you crazy?? What do you propose, killing us on the
street? Jailing us? The majority of your own countrymen? Come and
get us tough guy. No...you'll just sit there and type.
> who side with the terrorists, and actively seek the destruction
> of the Republic itself.
Cuckoo. Cuckoo. You watch too much Fox.
>
> I guess the biggest question is why YOU are not in Iraq, if you think I
> should have to go.
Because YOU are sitting on your fat ass demanding that our sons and
daughters and wives and husbands and brothers and sisters go. I'm
demanding they come home. I'm willing to do what I ask of them...are
you??
> I can promise you this, the military doesn't want me at my age, and I am disabled and of no value to them anyway.
Again, our military are over there being shot at while trying to paint
schools and dig wells and move oil around and shit. You can do it just
as well as they can. If the military won't take you, find another way
to get over there. Hell, I'LL buy you a one way ticket and personally
drive you to the airport and carry your bags to the baggage desk. Just
say the word big shot. Put your money where your big mouth is or STFU.
>What is
> your excuse?
Ummm, I'm 100% opposed to the war?
David Hartung
> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Arbusto Harken wrote:
>>
>>> So it was you. Thought so. You fought an enemy army in uniform.
>>> That's not what you're demanding our soldiers do now. You did your
>>> duty and then got to come home to your family. That's not how it works
>>> anymore. You did your hitch and got to hang up your uniform. That's
>>> not possible anymore with Rumsfeld's backdoor draft. No sir, what
>>> you're sitting at home asking our men and women in uniform to do is
>>> something you would never do in a million years. Otherwise, you would
>>> be over there right now. And don't give me any of that horseshit about
>>> being too old. They'll take you. If not, you can go on your own.
>> You don't seem to understand that the people in the military are there
>> of their own free will. They wanted the free education, the free
>> training, to learn a skill for their career, to be housed and fed for
>> nothing, and to eventually end up with quite a number of useful,
>> lifelong benefits such as retirement, health, and further education.
>
> You're talking about the National Guard you fucking prick. They're not
> supposed to be deployed for endless hazardous duty on foreign soil.
Tell that to the Guardsmen who were called up during The Spanish-American war,
the First World War, The second World war, Korea, Vietnam, and the First Gulf War.
> They should have been here helping out with Katrina.
As I understand it, the Guard figured prominently in the Katrina recovery.
Adam Albright
wrote:
>Arbusto Harken wrote:
Right David fool, only problem it is took them days to show up.
Meanwhile people died.
David Hartung
When did the first Guardsman arrive for duty in New Orleans?
David Hartung
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_Hurricane_Katrina_on_New_Orleans
From the above article:
By the time Hurricane Katrina came ashore early the next morning, approximately
one million people had fled the city and its surrounding suburbs by the evening
of August 28, while about 20,000 to 25,000 people remained in the city, taking
shelter at the Louisiana Superdome, along with 550 National Guard troops.
Also from the article:
By September 1, 6,500 National Guard troops had arrived in New Orleans,
Tell me again how many days it took the Guard to show up.
Arbusto Harken
August 28, August 29, August 30, August 31. They should have been
there BEFORE Katrina made landfall.
Arbusto Harken
Being called up and open-ended deployment are two different things.
>
> > They should have been here helping out with Katrina.
>
> As I understand it, the Guard figured prominently in the Katrina recovery.
Not like they could have if they weren't being abused by Don Rumsfeld.
David Hartung
Are you being deliberately stupid?
David Hartung
> David Hartung wrote:
>> Arbusto Harken wrote:
>>> singlew...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Arbusto Harken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So it was you. Thought so. You fought an enemy army in uniform.
>>>>> That's not what you're demanding our soldiers do now. You did your
>>>>> duty and then got to come home to your family. That's not how it works
>>>>> anymore. You did your hitch and got to hang up your uniform. That's
>>>>> not possible anymore with Rumsfeld's backdoor draft. No sir, what
>>>>> you're sitting at home asking our men and women in uniform to do is
>>>>> something you would never do in a million years. Otherwise, you would
>>>>> be over there right now. And don't give me any of that horseshit about
>>>>> being too old. They'll take you. If not, you can go on your own.
>>>> You don't seem to understand that the people in the military are there
>>>> of their own free will. They wanted the free education, the free
>>>> training, to learn a skill for their career, to be housed and fed for
>>>> nothing, and to eventually end up with quite a number of useful,
>>>> lifelong benefits such as retirement, health, and further education.
>>> You're talking about the National Guard you fucking prick. They're not
>>> supposed to be deployed for endless hazardous duty on foreign soil.
>> Tell that to the Guardsmen who were called up during The Spanish-American war,
>> the First World War, The second World war, Korea, Vietnam, and the First Gulf War.
>
> Being called up and open-ended deployment are two different things.
There has been no open ended deployment if the Guard. Our local unit was gone
about 18 months, and a local Republican politician, who is also a Marine
Reservist has had two seven month deployments to Iraq.
By the way, did you notice that it is a *Republican* who is the reservist going
to Iraq?
>>> They should have been here helping out with Katrina.
>> As I understand it, the Guard figured prominently in the Katrina recovery.
>
> Not like they could have if they weren't being abused by Don Rumsfeld.
Think about this, the Guard might not have been needed had Bush I and Clinton
not downsized the military so much. Your hero Clinton shares some of the
responsibility for the role of our National Guard in out national defense.
The Guard is doing the mission that they have been given. The use of Guard
troops for disaster response is a secondary mission and is subordinate to that
of national defense.
Arbusto Harken
Thank you for that well thought out, insightful, and very eloquent
reply. Your contributions enrich these forums and we are all grateful
for your wisdom.
Arbusto Harken
The party affiliations of your imaginary friends is of no interest to
me whatsoever. Are you saying it's all Republicans over there? We
should be so lucky.
> >>> They should have been here helping out with Katrina.
> >> As I understand it, the Guard figured prominently in the Katrina recovery.
> >
> > Not like they could have if they weren't being abused by Don Rumsfeld.
>
> Think about this, the Guard might not have been needed had Bush I and Clinton
> not downsized the military so much.
Or had Paul Bremer not disbanded the Iraqi Army.
> Your hero Clinton shares some of the
> responsibility for the role of our National Guard in out national defense.
I'll make a $1000 contribution to the Republican party if you can
produce one single cite of me saying Bill Clinton is my hero. The
responsibility for our National Guard being in IRAQ rests soley with
G.W. Bush and his cronies.
>
> The Guard is doing the mission that they have been given. The use of Guard
> troops for disaster response is a secondary mission and is subordinate to that
> of national defense.
The national defense of Iraq?
Julian D.
<arbusto...@usa.com> wrote:
Yep...Daddy and Mommy government should have been there to hold the
hands of people who have known for over 30 years that they should not
live below sea level. Is it the goverment's job to ensure the people
have common-sense? And FEMA is not a first-response organization.
Some would expect the local leaders to have that common-sense and
evacuate all the people.
Nope, the local fools supposedly in charge were inept. They should
have spent the federal money where it was supposed to be spent,
shoring up the levies instead of using it to promote tourism.
JD
Kerry: Iraq Is Part Of The War On Terror
CNN
Wolf Blitzer Reports
http://snipurl.com/8x9e
KERRY: "Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq. More
than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their
lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom in the
war on terror. I think that the first thing that every American
wants to say today is how deeply we each feel the loss."
"Critics of the war on terrorism don?t seem to understand: someone
is trying to kill them."
-Jonathan Alter
NEWSWEEK
"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness,
of being together,"
-Cindy Sheehan Describing Her Meeting With President Bush
"I now know he?s sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting.
"I know he?s sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he?s a man of faith."
-Cindy Sheehan Describing Her Meeting With President Bush
"I say we create a new airline, called the ACLA, the American Civil Liberties Airline where
you don?t check anybody, you don?t ask any questions, and let those morons fly on that one."
-Dennis Miller
"It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House --
that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson
-- is untrue.
-The Washington Post
Friday, September 1, 2006; A20
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2E613DAD
David Hartung
Read the cite, the Guard was in New Orleans *before* Katrina! I suspect that if
you will take a little time to search, you will find that additional guardsmen
began arriving almost immediately after Katrina left. One more thing, the
decision to call up the Guard for disaster recovery comes from the governor's
office, so if you are attempting to fix blame, it belongs squarely in the lap of
Louisiana's *Democratic* governor.
David Hartung
> David Hartung wrote:
>> There has been no open ended deployment if the Guard. Our local unit was gone
>> about 18 months, and a local Republican politician, who is also a Marine
>> Reservist has had two seven month deployments to Iraq.
>>
>> By the way, did you notice that it is a *Republican* who is the reservist going
>> to Iraq?
>>
>
> The party affiliations of your imaginary friends is of no interest to
> me whatsoever. Are you saying it's all Republicans over there? We
> should be so lucky.
Your refusal to accept the truth changes nothing.
Morton Davis
These folk have no idea what the federal government does in a case such as
Katrina. They believe it's the Feds responsibility to go in and evavuate
people before a storm hits.
Arbusto Harken
ball. Of course your contention that they had the capacity to evacuate
the entire population with only local resources is beyond ludicrous.
But not as ludicrous as trying to say it was handled well at a state
and federal level.
David Hartung
> You're preaching to the choir about local officials dropping their
> ball. Of course your contention that they had the capacity to evacuate
> the entire population with only local resources is beyond ludicrous.
> But not as ludicrous as trying to say it was handled well at a state
> and federal level.
I have been among those who have been critical of the New Orleans government,
but one thing that we must consider. They managed to evacuate 80% of their
population safely. That was no small feat.
Arbusto Harken
*sigh* The poor horse is DEAD man. You can stop beating it now. I've
never said the Governor OR the Mayor handled Katrina properly. Not
once. But if you're saying the federal government's response was
anything but sorrowful, your partisanship has gotten the better of you.
David Hartung
> *sigh* The poor horse is DEAD man. You can stop beating it now. I've
> never said the Governor OR the Mayor handled Katrina properly. Not
> once. But if you're saying the federal government's response was
> anything but sorrowful, your partisanship has gotten the better of you.
I have never said otherwise.
gpa...@bayou.com
Trace wrote:
> I just don't get it. Why has climatology become the new religion of
> the left?
>
> Why ?
>
> Why does the left want so bad for there to be global warming caused by
> man?
Yes! You are right! Why does the left want so bad for there to be
automobile wrecks, climate change and wars caused by man?
It has been shown that some automobile wrecks have been cause by
tornadoes and falling tree limbs. Ants had wars before there any men
on earth.
Damn stupid left wants to blame everything on men. Even some religions
are said to be man's fault. (The left even blames the "great Waco shake
and bake" on men.)
>
> The facts are showing more and more that man is not capable of causing
> warming or cooling.
>
> But, that does not seem to matter to the left. Algore and his groupies
> along with other radicals on the left side are turning the entire issue
> of the climate into a new cult religion.
>
> Why?
sbm...@shaw.ca
Perhaps you missed what I said. That 113 acres doesn't just have to
FEED you. It has to provide you with EVERYTHING you need. Metals.
Power. Fresh water. Fuel. Infrastructure. Think you can get all
that off of your 113.4 acres for your family of 18?
If not, you're going to get some more acres from someone.