Re: this should be good
What me worry?
whilst ridin inna park then wrote:
>
>
>http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.09/warnning.html
>
>
>now keep in mind it has been extended, but has anyone read this
>treaty?
Yup!
Should;d scare the shit outa anyone that reads it!
danl
Jinks
<and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>If the TOTUS tells the POTUS to sign it, we're fucked.
>
>Andy aka Big Stinkie BS#252 SLOB#3
C grade British acting with an over done theatrical tone.
Nice stress on the "doomsday" theme though, because we all know that
"THEY" want us all inslaved, impoverished, & ultimately dead. "THEY"
want us that way because it serves "THEM" so well. "THEY" don't need
a middle or working class, "THEY" just need *ALL* our money &
property.
Paranoia is really such a sad illness.............
Jinks ('86FXRS, '07FLTR)
#64
Remember, "No good deed goes unpunished"
Steve Paul
> so you have read that treaty, and it is all just more paranoia......
Section 38 , paragraph (a) indicates that the people who sign the treaty,
will rule over it, with a bunch of peons running around reporting on it's
implementation.
Stop feeding your fear.
--
Steve Paul
EKIII, BS284
'93 FXRS-C "Mule"
No salt, No plans
kickstart
> nos...@home.com wrote:
> > I'm neither paranoid or a racist, but because I disagree with some of
> > the left wing idea's I have to be either racist or a fear mongering
> > Bible thumper
>
> >> <shrug>
>
> > <shrug> is right, your side is nuts
>
> > --
>
> I'm not paranoid or racist either. I disagree with nearly all of the
> current right-wing positions and ideology. I'm very sorry that
> reasonable conservatives like my dad, Sec. Powell, and many of the
> Netscum here, no longer have a viable political party. Fear mongering
> fools like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, tea-baggers, Fox
> News, etc. have hijacked the Republican party and made it a running
> joke.
>
> Not all Republicans are racists or bible thumpers. But all racists
> and most bible thumpers are self-identified Republicans.
>
> The thinking conservatives have all but been abandoned, and America is
> the worse for it.
>
> --
> BigPiper
> BS#246
I dunno much, as most would agree butt........................
I did learn that if you listen from both sides you will learn, and the
truth usually lies some where between he said - she said.
So if you hear something that you don't agree with , and ALL the
people at Fox are actors........... Maybe, just maybe
Since Dog gave you 2 ears and one mouth - you should listen twice as
much as you talk -.
There is some truth to BOTH sides.
Remember .... It ain't paranoia if they really are out to get ya.
I would rather beware of this treaty than ignore it, because if it is
true and it does get past us(US) then it could be too late.
Please govern yourselves accordingly.
Shirley set up some CubanLibre's all around
*127
FreakyDaddyO
"big_piper" <j...@mcneel.com> wrote in message news:4ae8...@127.0.0.1...
> nos...@home.com wrote:
>
>> I'm neither paranoid or a racist, but because I disagree with some of
>> the left wing idea's I have to be either racist or a fear mongering
>> Bible thumper
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> <shrug> is right, your side is nuts
>>
>> --
>
> I'm not paranoid or racist either. I disagree with nearly all of the
> current right-wing positions and ideology. I'm very sorry that reasonable
> conservatives like my dad, Sec. Powell, and many of the Netscum here, no
> longer have a viable political party. Fear mongering fools like Glenn
> Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, tea-baggers, Fox News, etc. have
> hijacked the Republican party and made it a running joke.
>
> Not all Republicans are racists or bible thumpers. But all racists and
> most bible thumpers are self-identified Republicans.
>
> The thinking conservatives have all but been abandoned, and America is the
> worse for it.
>
> --
> BigPiper
> BS#246
MSN, NBC, CNN, Change, Yes We Can.........You Fooled fool..
Arie Bresser
>>
>> Not all Republicans are racists or bible thumpers. But all racists and
>> most bible thumpers are self-identified Republicans.
Wow. You are actually a bigger idiot than I gave you credit for. Congrats.
DM
> I'm not paranoid or racist either. I disagree with nearly all of the
> current right-wing positions and ideology. I'm very sorry that
> reasonable conservatives like my dad, Sec. Powell, and many of the
> Netscum here, no longer have a viable political party. Fear mongering
> fools like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, tea-baggers, Fox
> News, etc. have hijacked the Republican party and made it a running joke.
>
> Not all Republicans are racists or bible thumpers. But all racists and
> most bible thumpers are self-identified Republicans.
>
> The thinking conservatives have all but been abandoned, and America is
> the worse for it.
>
I had to go back and read this after Arie's comment.
John, this isn't one of your better moments. What you've stated here is
the biggest crock of bullshit.
Racists? Check this out:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893
You'll undoubtedly poo-pooh it but it states many FACTS.
Bible thumpers AND racists? How about Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al
Sharpton?
--
Fins BS#221 AH#135
2007 FLHTCU
I like cats. I just can't eat a whole one by myself.
What me worry?
into a tree whilst ridin inna park then wrote:
>nos...@home.com wrote:
>
>> I'm neither paranoid or a racist, but because I disagree with some of
>> the left wing idea's I have to be either racist or a fear mongering
>> Bible thumper
>>
>>> <shrug>
>>
>> <shrug> is right, your side is nuts
>>
>> --
>
>I'm not paranoid or racist either. I disagree with nearly all of the
>current right-wing positions and ideology. I'm very sorry that
>reasonable conservatives like my dad, Sec. Powell, and many of the
>Netscum here, no longer have a viable political party. Fear mongering
>fools like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, tea-baggers, Fox
>News, etc. have hijacked the Republican party and made it a running
>joke.
>
>Not all Republicans are racists or bible thumpers. But all racists
>and most bible thumpers are self-identified Republicans.
>
>The thinking conservatives have all but been abandoned, and America is
>the worse for it.
All I can say is I am so disappointed by that remark.
danl BS#280
Schmoe
> I'm neither paranoid or a racist, but because I disagree with some of
> the left wing idea's I have to be either racist or a fear mongering
> Bible thumper
Aweeee, ya ole softy. You said disagree. <sfsf>
--
Numbero #128
Schmoe
news:hcarar$b18$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Reminds me of the old days. This place needs fresh blood. Maybe I'll open a
Facebook account and write on Fins chalkboard or whatever ya call it.
--
Numbero #128
Schmoe
news:4ae90ccd$1...@127.0.0.1...
> DM wrote:
>> big_piper wrote:
>
> I'd rather talk about bikes though........
>
> Stopped in at the dealer the other day to talk to them about my oil
> consumption
> problem, got told that on a Harley twin cam.....burning a quart of oil
> every
> 1500 miles is "normal".
Oh great, an oil thread.
dp
> DM wrote:
>
>> I had to go back and read this after Arie's comment.
>>
>> John, this isn't one of your better moments. What you've stated here is
>> the biggest crock of bullshit.
>>
>> Racists? Check this out:
>> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893
>> You'll undoubtedly poo-pooh it but it states many FACTS.
>>
>> Bible thumpers AND racists? How about Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al
>> Sharpton?
>>
>
>
> Bill Maher said "Not all Republicans are racists, but all racists are Republicans".
>
> Bill is a comedian........
>
> I get John's point though.....the Republican party has been hijacked by
> conspiracy theorist neo-con right wingers, religious extremists and media
> infotainers who cry on the air, spout hate, and when they do get caught
> perpetuating a hoax......they admit they made a mistake, but then say it doesn't
> matter 'cause it was true (WTF??)........<sfsf>
Reminds me of how the democrat party of my yoot (John Kennedy's party) was
hijacked by the liberals and neocomms and became the party of John's brother
Teddy. It's been like watching a butterfly turn into a grub.
Conservatives have never had a party. We've tried over the years to help guide
the Republican party but it's mostly a failure. We could not do to the
Republicans what the neocomms and liberals did to the Democrats. So there's a
movement on to light off a new party and to give up on the GOP. And just so you
know, the whacko religious extremists are not particularly welcome around the
conservative campfire.
And about those infotainers: Bill Maher, Olberman, Maddow, the breakfast babes,
Matthews, Oprah, Stewart, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not hold office, are
not office holders in any organizations, and speak only to people who are
willing to tune them in. They do not guide, do not lead, do not shepherd us
through life. They are in the political entertainment industry. Why take them
serious?
dp
tom koehler
(in message <hekge598lsbh3kaqk...@4ax.com>):
>
>
> http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.09/warnning.html
>
>
> now keep in mind it has been extended, but has anyone read this
> treaty?
>
>
> --
well, I'm thinking that a treaty is just a piece of paper, and our government
is good at ignoring signed treaties. Does the treaty take away our armed
forces and our weapons? I do not think it likely at all that some force or
agency or organization outside our own nation is going to try to govern us.
This Brit is mostly famous for not supporting the concept of global warming,
much like many people in authority here. He has a degree in classics and a
diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications, according to one of
his opponents. So, he is no stirling expert, and maybe his goal is just to
stir up some crap.
tom k.
--
I will find a way or make one.
dp
> dp wrote:
>
>> And about those infotainers: Bill Maher, Olberman, Maddow, the breakfast
>> babes, Matthews, Oprah, Stewart, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not hold
>> office, are not office holders in any organizations, and speak only to
>> people who are willing to tune them in. They do not guide, do not lead,
>> do not shepherd us through life. They are in the political entertainment
>> industry. Why take them serious?
>>
>> dp
>
> don't. Some come right out and lie, others don't......
>
> Problem is that some folks can't tell the difference, and THAT's what makes some
> of them so damn dangerous.
>
To whom? They don't fool you or I - where are the victims? I think there are
none. What there is is a bunch of superpositioning of faux concern above what is
perceived as the unwashed masses but when you look around there are none such.
We're not so stupid as some might think.
dp
Invisible68
"dp" <denn...@inetnw.com> wrote in message
news:4ae9303b$0$89389$815e...@news.qwest.net...
ok have to chime in on this.... the problem is and a perfect example is
saturday night live liked the show when it first was on now can not stand
it. The last straw was what they did to Palin. More people believed what
they saw on there about her than anywhere else. For example the "I can see
russia from my porch"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6460143
It was Tina fey that said it but most people that Palin said it....
I think Saturday Night live had more effect on the outcome of the election
than anything else.
Invisible68
Invisible68
> wrong, top
> it off and let me ride it, bring it back in to check how much oil is
> actually
> being used.
>
> Sure seemed like I went through oil on our trip, and you guys didn't.
>
> I wanna go for a ride..........
ok.... can you pick up my fuel pump I bought in Ca and bring it out to
Iowa... been with out a bike all freaken summer...
Invisible68
JMark
>
>
> http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.09/warnning.html
>
>
> now keep in mind it has been extended, but has anyone read this
> treaty?
It is odd that the site that produced the link above did not reference
any access to the treaty. News now seems to be that the UN won't meet
the December goals in Denmark.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0
Over the years, treaties established by the UN have had difficulty
setting mandatory limits on emissions and pollutants as there are no
real enforcement mechanisms. That is to say that treaties are many times
legally non-binding. The Kyoto Protocol, which is, I believe, a provided
for update to a prior treaty seems an appropriate example of the overall
ineffectiveness of UN environmental treaties.
--
JMark
Invisible68
"Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
> tom koehler wrote:
>
>> maybe his goal is just to stir up some crap.
>
>
yeah.... like Global warming...
if we did not have it I would not beable to ride much with the glaziers
covering much of the midwest.....
Invisible68
without global warming we would still be in the Ice age.... but I do like
the sid the sloth guy...
JMark
<snip>
> Conservatives have never had a party. We've tried over the years to help
> guide the Republican party but it's mostly a failure. We could not do to
> the Republicans what the neocomms and liberals did to the Democrats. So
> there's a movement on to light off a new party and to give up on the
> GOP. And just so you know, the whacko religious extremists are not
> particularly welcome around the conservative campfire.
<snip>
Here's a conservative for you. Certainly not "unwashed". If you dig
deep enough, he's not a big fan of corporate influence ultimately
enforced by a mindless bureaucratic quagmire.
http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm
The question for conservatives is, are they willing to curtail
corprorate influence in favor of the individual?
--
JMark
dp
The question is badly formed. It should be "Are public officials willing to
provide for the public demand or are they going to press their agenda?"
The problem with this is it requires an educated public, but the party of the
impressed agenda runs the education system.
dp
dp
> Invisible68 wrote:
>> "Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
>> news:4ae9...@127.0.0.1...
>>> tom koehler wrote:
>>>
>>>> maybe his goal is just to stir up some crap.
>>> Some folks just make that their mission in life.......
>>>
>> yeah.... like Global warming...
>>
>> if we did not have it I would not beable to ride much with the glaziers
>> covering much of the midwest.....
>
>
>> Invisible68
>> without global warming we would still be in the Ice age.... but I do
>> like the sid the sloth guy...
>
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html
>
You're citing an article that has been wrong for two years. As of today the
global climate has been cooling for 10 years, and the arctic ice is in the third
straight year of expansion. The current rate of winter arctic ice development is
inconveniently normal.
dp
kickstart
I guess it sepends on what time of year they are written
*127
JMark
> JMark wrote:
>> dp wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Conservatives have never had a party. We've tried over the years to
>>> help guide the Republican party but it's mostly a failure. We could
>>> not do to the Republicans what the neocomms and liberals did to the
>>> Democrats. So there's a movement on to light off a new party and to
>>> give up on the GOP. And just so you know, the whacko religious
>>> extremists are not particularly welcome around the conservative
>>> campfire.
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Here's a conservative for you. Certainly not "unwashed". If you dig
>> deep enough, he's not a big fan of corporate influence ultimately
>> enforced by a mindless bureaucratic quagmire.
>>
>> http://www.mindfully.org/Farm/2003/Everything-Is-Illegal1esp03.htm
>>
>> The question for conservatives is, are they willing to curtail
>> corprorate influence in favor of the individual?
>
> The question is badly formed.
The question, if you understand it, is right on "the money".
> It should be "Are public officials willing
> to provide for the public demand or are they going to press their agenda?"
Where does the agenda of public officials come from? It comes from
influence. Who has the most influence? Corporations do, without regard
to party.
> The problem with this is it requires an educated public, but the party
> of the impressed agenda runs the education system.
A convenient excuse. The accomplishments of the educational system has
faltered in myriad ways under several watches - one that actually
supported teaching "intelligent design" and thinks we can (generally)
produce highly educated world leaders by home schooling. What is needed
is an unbiased educated public that knows enough to steer from the
notion of either/or, understand problems and can recognize the most
expedient solutions. This same educated public will also have to
understand sacrifices inherent in any solution and be willing to endure
such sacrifice. Prime example - energy. The record will show that
either party avoids disrupting the finances of the status quo under the
many times mistaken guise of protecting economic growth. It is not
dissimilar to protecting the bridge and the first class accommodations
of a sinking ship.
--
JMark
JMark
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 09:21:51 -0400, JMark <wo...@noaddy.rom> wrote:
>
>> nos...@home.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.09/warnning.html
>>>
>>>
>>> now keep in mind it has been extended, but has anyone read this
>>> treaty?
>> It is odd that the site that produced the link above did not reference
>> any access to the treaty. News now seems to be that the UN won't meet
>> the December goals in Denmark.
>
> so, there is still work to be done on it.
>
>
>> http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/2185-un-may-not-get-final-climate-change-treaty-in-copenhagen
>>
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jqJmnNVzfiUOeSlVG4f8nQMbwQYQD9BJF6NG0
>>
>> Over the years, treaties established by the UN have had difficulty
>> setting mandatory limits on emissions and pollutants as there are no
>> real enforcement mechanisms. That is to say that treaties are many times
>> legally non-binding. The Kyoto Protocol, which is, I believe, a provided
>> for update to a prior treaty seems an appropriate example of the overall
>> ineffectiveness of UN environmental treaties.
>
> U.S. would be held more financially accountable to other powers? ?
> perhaps because we have far more money than those?, do you feel
> comfortable with this level and the money the U.S. taxpayers would be
> sending out of country for any reason? let alone for polluting the
> planet?
> it seems the U.S. has done a pretty damn good job of cleanup, why
> should we commit to others?, I'm just askin.....
I don't really see where taxpayers are having to ante up or that any
attempt to require compensatory damages and the like from the US or any
other developed nation would ever prevail in the actual extraction of
funds, although there is little doubt that all developed and
industrialized nations will suffer to some degree when any attempt is
made to level the playing field between developing and developed
nations. I have not read the extent of the latest treaty language, but
some of the language you quoted appears parallel to protections some far
eastern nations need from other more powerful far eastern nations who
may, if we believe in ethics, indeed owe compensatory support. Any
attempt to try and reduce emission, sustain forestry, reduce reliance on
energy in the production of myriad products and food, ect. on an
international level will not suit everyone and the most powerful nations
will, no matter what is written, draw the line when the price is too
high or the rulings appear (to the most powerful party) unjust.
> "18. Developing country Parties over riding priority remains
> sustainable economic growth and poverty eradication, an effort which
> has been complicated by the effects of climate change. Special
> attention should be given to the [[urgent and immediate adaptation
> needs of [all] developing countries, [especially those] [that are]
> [particularly] [vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change
> [as stated in preambular 19 of UNFCCC and the adverse effects of
> response measures,] ....
>
> 38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the
> Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government;
> facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic
> organization of which will include the following:
>
> (a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new
> subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible
> for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative
> processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will
> operate as such, as appropriate.
> FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2
>
> (b) The Convention�s financial mechanism will include a multilateral
> climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window,
> (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate
> change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory
> components, (c) a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e)
> a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest
> incentives relating to REDD actions.
>
> (c) The Convention�s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work
> programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD
> process; (c) a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group
> on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and
> expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting
> and verification; and (e) an international registry for the
> monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission
> reduction commitments, and the transfer of
> technical and financial resources from developed countries to
> developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and
> administrative support, including a new centre for
> information exchange.
--
JMark
Invisible68
"Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
> Invisible68 wrote:
>
>>
>> ok.... can you pick up my fuel pump I bought in Ca and bring it out to
>> Iowa... been with out a bike all freaken summer...
>>
>
>
> Did they have to mine the metals, make the castings, etc.????
>
> If I was waiting THAT long I'd be looking somewhere else......
>
> I haven't been in Iowa since about 1988.......one of my ex's tends to hang
> out
> there........
>
discontinued item.... it is out of an 85 intercepter... getting a used one
from junk yard... hoping it is better than the one I have. still costing
more than it should but if it works great. I have tried other options with
the bike gravity feed with metal mesh was told it would work but not on
mine...
it should be here soon called them up on tuesday... last week...
Invisible68
Invisible68
"kickstart" <kickst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02387b5c-7cd5-4679...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>l these conflicting reports, global warming, global cooling.
> I guess it sepends on what time of year they are written
and if you are on the top of bottom of the earth...
Invisible68
Steve Paul
>> setting mandatory limits on emissions and pollutants as there are no
>> real enforcement mechanisms. That is to say that treaties are many
>> times legally non-binding. The Kyoto Protocol, which is, I believe,
>> a provided for update to a prior treaty seems an appropriate example
>> of the overall ineffectiveness of UN environmental treaties.
>
I agree with JMark about the effectiveness of a UN treaty, and that's one of
the reasons I sucscribed to the idea that there's paranoia in the air, and
that people should not respond out of fear.
> but you see nothing wrong in ths treaty?
There is always something bad for everyone in a treaty. The question is, how
bad? Treaties are afterall, documents of compromise that attempt to mitigate
the inequties for all parties involved.
> why is it we the
> U.S. would be held more financially accountable to other powers? ?
Playing the devils advocate here....
I find it interesting that you choose the term "powers" instead of
countries, or nations.
Be that as it may, I don't have an answer, but one possbile motivating
factor for putting that into the text that comes to mind, is the idea that
we consume the lion's share of the world's total energy output, and energy
production is the main human component in climate change. If that's all
true, then it makes sense, even if we don't like it.
> it seems the U.S. has done a pretty damn good job of cleanup, why
> should we commit to others?, I'm just askin.....
Still playing devil's advocate...
Just because we cleaned up our act in the late '70's, and undid a lot of
damage to our air and water systems over the past 30+ years, doesn't mean we
didn't contribute hugely to the global problem of AGW before that (if such a
thing exists), or continue to contribute to the polluting of other countries
by moving our manufacturing to unregulated areas around the globe. I'm not
taking a side here, just offering some possible reasons for the logic. If
you think about it, forcing our corporations to pay for the pollution they
add to foreign soil by moving operations over there, is one way to level the
playing field for American workers. Just saying... not that it's a good or
bad idea. I don't really know.
Finally...
I wonder if we'd care so much, if we weren't already in the shitter
financially. I'd bet a bottle of Patron to the bar that all this treaty
stuff went into draft before the banking debacle of '08. I'd bet a less
expensive brew that the US will hemm and haww over any detailed committment
of financial compensation for the same reason.
I'm thinking Obama wants healthcare reform more than he wants a treaty, and
he still has the majority in favor on that issue. When the numbers come out
over the cost of the treaty in taxpayer dollars, I'll bet it drops on the
floor. There are fiscally responsible Democrats who understand that we are
heading to a bad enough place financially as it is. No matter how much Obama
"supports" it, he really seems to me to be the kind of guy who takes a long
time to listen to his advisors, and work through his decisions
intelligently, even if we personally believe they are misguided.
--
Steve Paul
EKIII, BS284
'93 FXRS-C "Mule"
No salt, No plans
Prescott Niles
>
>> And about those infotainers: Bill Maher, Olberman, Maddow, the
>> breakfast babes, Matthews, Oprah, Stewart, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh
>> do not hold office, are not office holders in any organizations, and
>> speak only to people who are willing to tune them in. They do not
>> guide, do not lead, do not shepherd us through life. They are in the
>> political entertainment industry. Why take them serious?
>>
>> dp
>
>
> I don't, but far too many people do, and therein lies the clear and
> present danger to our society. The really scary ones are elected
> representatives like Michelle Bachman and Chuck Grassley (there are
> elected crazies on both sides of the aisle), when they feed the crazies
> with crap I don't think they believe. Then when these fired-up, KoolAid
> drinkin', non-thinking idiots show up to Astro turf 'public' events
> packin'! It's way, way over the top.
I only use the ion bombardment tube to watch and gather TRUE
entertainment and education about the real world by watching:
Rocky and Bullwinkle, South Park, certain episodes of Bonanza and Star
Trek, Letterman's top ten lists, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
dp
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/10/talk-of-global-cooling-based-on-bogus-statistics.ars
>
> http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1501ap_us_sci_global_cooling.html
>
> These are from the last two days.........ya really need to get up to speed.
>
They're both sourced to the AP. As it turns out it's a bogus analysis. Global
warming is the amount of energy in the environment at any given time. Heat
arrives from the sun. Some is bounced immediately back into space. Some is
collected in the oceans or other storage media. Warming happens when more
arrives than leaves. Cooling happens when more leaves than arrives. At this time
more is leaving and has for 10 years. It's a trend. Your first link didn't even
refute that. The oceans have been cooling for some time at all measured depths.
Now this warming/cooling has involved very small temperature changes - somewhat
like a sine wave. As you know, the rate of change of a sine wave at the peaks is
quite slow over time. The rate of change is currently slow but steady. What is
less obvious is that the rate of warming began slowing long before it began
cooling, so while 1998 was the warmest year, the cooling actually began well
before that. In other words, the cooling trend is actually older than 10 years.
The IPCC has offered the current cooling trend could last another 20 to 30
years. No reason to believe them on this as they've been wrong on warming all
along, but still, if they know it's been cooling and admit it who am I to argue?
dp
dp
>
> I personally would like to see anything from a credible source that refutes
> global warming/climate change that's not debunked by credible scientists
> worldwide........
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the
apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really
represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?"
for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
dp
dp
> dp wrote:
>
> Oh wait.........that was just a cherry that got picked from one of the leading
> guys in the field.
>
> Here's some more of his stuff:
>
> http://www.rkpachauri.org/speech.php
>
> For a guy who spent a great deal of his career in the oil and energy industries,
> he sure seems to have his head screwed on straight about this.
>
Except that he agrees that the warming has plateaued out even as CO2 has
continued to go up. He disagrees with your AP links and agrees with my statement
that warming stopped long ago.
You asked for somebody from the top - he's the IPCC. I'm just trying to help out
here :). He agrees warming ended. He had no idea it was coming because the
models they use didn't predict it. The models ignore water vapor, as it happens,
and most of the green house gases in the air is water vapor.
If a person cites an article from the head the the IPCC that supports that
person's claim, is that still cherry picking? How can such important supporting
evidence be presented that it is not seen as cherry picking? I have way lots
more, btw. There's the oceanic record, the sat ice cover record for both poles,
land and space bases thermal tracking. The other side has bumpkins.
Then there's my favorite graphic:
Boyz and girlz, study this picture carefully and guess what is going to happen
next.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/8/8f/Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev.png
dp
Invisible68
"dp" <denn...@inetnw.com> wrote in message
news:4aea3813$0$89396$815e...@news.qwest.net...
the other thing I wonder about all this is.... are the instraments they use
today as acurate as the ones they used in say 1900... and also when they say
they have taken temperatures or readings from all over the globe so the
whole globe is heating... or cooling... again the instraments they use today
are not the same as they used in 1900...
Invisible68
Invisible68
"Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
>
> Or is it only bogus because it points out that the cooling camp seems to
> be
> cherry picking data which skews the outcome.......
>
>> Global warming is the amount of energy in the environment at any given
>> time. Heat arrives from the sun. Some is bounced immediately back into
>> space. Some is collected in the oceans or other storage media. Warming
>> happens when more arrives than leaves. Cooling happens when more leaves
>> than arrives. At this time more is leaving and has for 10 years. It's a
>> trend. Your first link didn't even refute that. The oceans have been
>> cooling for some time at all measured depths.
>>
>> Now this warming/cooling has involved very small temperature changes -
>> somewhat like a sine wave. As you know, the rate of change of a sine
>> wave at the peaks is quite slow over time. The rate of change is
>> currently slow but steady. What is less obvious is that the rate of
>> warming began slowing long before it began cooling, so while 1998 was
>> the warmest year, the cooling actually began well before that. In other
>> words, the cooling trend is actually older than 10 years.
>
>
>>
>> The IPCC has offered the current cooling trend could last another 20 to
>> 30 years. No reason to believe them on this as they've been wrong on
>> warming all along, but still, if they know it's been cooling and admit
>> it who am I to argue?
>>
>> dp
>
>
> I personally would like to see anything from a credible source that
> refutes
> global warming/climate change that's not debunked by credible scientists
> worldwide........
>
> Larry
> will call in the new gay bouncer and we may get dumped on the curb.......
>
I saw him in the shiney mens bathroom and he was crying on EZ shoulder about
how he could not get one of the stains off one of the lids in the woman
castle... er I mean bathroom....
invisible68
Invisible68
"Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
>
> Oh wait.........that was just a cherry that got picked from one of the
> leading
> guys in the field.
>
> Here's some more of his stuff:
>
> http://www.rkpachauri.org/speech.php
>
> For a guy who spent a great deal of his career in the oil and energy
> industries,
> he sure seems to have his head screwed on straight about this.
>
> Steve Irving BS#237 - Goat Head
yeah but all we need is a big ol valcano to errupt and it will change
everything.... or even a super valcano....
Invisible68
Invisible68
I want to be here for that... planes are going to fall out of the sky....
Invisible68
Invisible68
"Steve Irving" <sd...@NOSPAMq.com> wrote in message
>>> Steve Irving wrote:
>>>> dp wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> breakfast
>>>>> babes, Matthews, Oprah, Stewart, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh do not
>>>>> hold
>>>>> office, are not office holders in any organizations, and speak only to
>>>>> people who are willing to tune them in. They do not guide, do not
>>>>> lead,
>>>>> do not shepherd us through life. They are in the political
>>>>> entertainment
>>>>> industry. Why take them serious?
>>>>>
>>>>> dp
>>>>
>>>> comics, some
>>>> don't. Some come right out and lie, others don't......
>>>>
>>>> Problem is that some folks can't tell the difference, and THAT's what
>>>> makes some
>>>> of them so damn dangerous.
>>>>
>>>
>>> To whom? They don't fool you or I - where are the victims? I think
>>> there are none. What there is is a bunch of superpositioning of faux
>>> concern above what is perceived as the unwashed masses but when you
>>> look around there are none such. We're not so stupid as some might
>>> think.
>>
>> ok have to chime in on this.... the problem is and a perfect example is
>> saturday night live liked the show when it first was on now can not
>> stand it. The last straw was what they did to Palin. More people
>> believed what they saw on there about her than anywhere else. For
>> example the "I can see russia from my porch"
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=6460143
>>
>> It was Tina fey that said it but most people that Palin said it....
>>
>> I think Saturday Night live had more effect on the outcome of the
>> election than anything else.
>>
>> Invisible68
>
> So this stuff didn't count at all??
>
> http://a11news.com/645/palin-russia-war-quotes/
>
> and
>
> http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palin-top-10.htm
>
> The point of the SNL skit was to poke fun at Palin, not to inflame and
> incite
>
> You don't see Beck and Limbaugh and being the same as SNL do you????
I did not see cbs, abc, cnn, nbc repeating what rush or beck was saying
every night like saturday night live was repeated on those new stations...
the problem I see was that the news covered it like tina was palin and it
worked for the media to get help their guy elected but having a skit that
made palin look dum... did they do this to Obama.... the just did
resently... but they the tv show was all but castrated for doing that to
their savior....
dp
>
>> To whom? They don't fool you or I - where are the victims? I think
>> there are none. What there is is a bunch of superpositioning of faux
>> concern above what is perceived as the unwashed masses but when you
>> look around there are none such. We're not so stupid as some might think.
>>
>
> I'd agree that most are not fooled, but an increasingly vocal, enraged
> group are, and good people are going to be killed because of this
> irresponsible incitement to violence. It's not a question of most, it's
> the danger imposed by a radicalized few.
>
Are you ready to go pre-emptive? :)
dp
dp
That is a very naive view of politics. We have activist judges, we have
politicians who know what's best and assert it into the public trough, we have a
stimulus plan that is blatantly a fund to promote the Obama agenda - hell, most
of the money is being spent is an election year, and it is far from bi-partisan.
Public officials don't hold their finger to the air and wait for an agenda to
blow across it - Pelosi, Reid, et al have had plans for years to implement when
the moment presented itself. The perfect storm hit last November when they won
the house, the senate, and the POTUS. And what came with the POSTUS? Judges,
treasury sec, etc. No more of those nuisance checks and balances.
Barry said it best - I won, they lost. Love the hand across the aisle in that
statement - how about you?
>
>> The problem with this is it requires an educated public, but the party
>> of the impressed agenda runs the education system.
>
> A convenient excuse. The accomplishments of the educational system has
> faltered in myriad ways under several watches - one that actually
> supported teaching "intelligent design" and thinks we can (generally)
> produce highly educated world leaders by home schooling.
Nice you agree it's been going on a long long time. We should never have dropped
the trades training in high schools, for example. Ever notice how the drop-out
rate went up when students with vocational interests and talent had no courses
of study?
> What is needed
> is an unbiased educated public that knows enough to steer from the
> notion of either/or, understand problems and can recognize the most
> expedient solutions. This same educated public will also have to
> understand sacrifices inherent in any solution and be willing to endure
> such sacrifice.
So how do you get that when the education of the nation is managed from k-12 and
well beyond by one party? This has been going on for so long we're in a next
generation situation. The parents of today's students came up under this flawed
system and think it's normal.
dp
dp
>
>> And about those infotainers: Bill Maher, Olberman, Maddow, the
>> breakfast babes, Matthews, Oprah, Stewart, Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh
>> do not hold office, are not office holders in any organizations, and
>> speak only to people who are willing to tune them in. They do not
>> guide, do not lead, do not shepherd us through life. They are in the
>> political entertainment industry. Why take them serious?
>>
>> dp
>
> present danger to our society. The really scary ones are elected
> representatives like Michelle Bachman and Chuck Grassley (there are
> elected crazies on both sides of the aisle), when they feed the crazies
> with crap I don't think they believe. Then when these fired-up, KoolAid
> drinkin', non-thinking idiots show up to Astro turf 'public' events
> packin'! It's way, way over the top.
>
So long as there are people in the world that will do this to a family we're
fooked as a world: http://images.google.com/images?q=trig photoshop
Of all the heinous things that came out of the last election this crap is what I
found most bothersome.
Now as for crazies - the left has Maddow (sound like mad cow), Matthews,
Olberman, Maher, Letterman the misogynist, I've mentioned the breakfast babes,
Alan Colmes, Bawney Fwank, Jerrold Nadler, Maxine Waters, and my personal
favorite, Joe Biden. And the Chappaquiddick kid, Teddy boy Kennedy! I've always
wondered what might have happened if John and Bobby had lived to guide the
democrat party instead of Bill Clinton.
dp
dp
I think he missed the point that it didn't inflame and incite so much as fill in
where high school failed. There's a buttload of lefties out there that actually
think Palin, not Tina, said that she could see Russia from her house.
But then there's still a bunch of people who still think the US government could
have landed jets at NOLA airport during a hurricane and evacuated people.
dp
dp
>
> Haven't seen any evidence yet that he's done that.....
This is his quote:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the
apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
"One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really
represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?"
for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
See where he says "temperature plateau" ? Except it's real, not apparent. The
IPCC was caught completely by surprise by the falling temperatures of the last
decade. Others were less so.
>
>> You asked for somebody from the top - he's the IPCC. I'm just trying to
>> help out here :). He agrees warming ended. He had no idea it was coming
>> because the models they use didn't predict it. The models ignore water
>> vapor, as it happens, and most of the green house gases in the air is
>> water vapor.
>
> I'm still scratching my head. Other than you telling me that he thinks something
> should be looked into, and that he agrees with you........
>
> Well, wait.......there isn't any "other"........just you telling me.
>
>> If a person cites an article from the head the the IPCC that supports
>> that person's claim, is that still cherry picking? How can such
>> important supporting evidence be presented that it is not seen as cherry
>> picking? I have way lots more, btw. There's the oceanic record, the sat
>> ice cover record for both poles, land and space bases thermal tracking.
>> The other side has bumpkins.
>
> So....cite the article........
>
> I watched some of the vid clips of his speeches, some as recent as last month.
> Doesn't seem to me that he thinks global warming has been cured, or "plateaued".
>
> You are baiting me again, and you're Shirley a master of your craft.......
>
Oh well. If the head of the IPCC isn't compelling it can't be done.
dp
dp
>
The ship involved had indeed completed her mission. There was fanfare and the
sailors and airmen who got the job done were recognized for the work they did.
Except the the leftist bastards in the press, politics, and elsewhere who still
deny them that recognition.
dp
dp
> dp wrote:
>
>>> <movie double take>
>>>
>>> Haven't seen any evidence yet that he's done that.....
>> This is his quote:
>>
>> Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel
>> Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look
>> into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
>>
>> "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this
>> really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors
>> compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
>>
>>
>> See where he says "temperature plateau" ? Except it's real, not
>> apparent. The IPCC was caught completely by surprise by the falling
>> temperatures of the last decade. Others were less so.
>>
>
>
>
>>> You are baiting me again, and you're Shirley a master of your
>>> craft.......
>>>
>> Oh well. If the head of the IPCC isn't compelling it can't be done.
>
> provided a quote, attributed it to him without citing the source. Without the
> source I am unable to ascertain context, or the validity of the remark.
It was an interview he did with Reuters. If you google most of that quote you'll
find it.
>
> Unless of course YOU are the source, ran into the guy at a cocktail party and he
> made the comments to you?????
You know better. I don't make this stuff up and despite your quip, I don't bait
you. I don't need to - the science is solid.
>
> Without a source, as far as I know the quote you provided came from Glen Beck in
> an on air rant about Rajendra Pachauri, which would later have been refuted.
>
> Here, I'll help ya out........
>
> Here's the part of the article you left out:
>
> "He added that sceptics about a human role in climate change delighted in hints
> that temperatures might not be rising. "There are some people who would want to
> find every single excuse to say that this is all hogwash," he said."
So you did find it. That quote does not undo that he admitted the temperature
has plateaued in this century (that's going on 10 years, and I have already
described the nature of cycles and rates of change) and so is not important to
the claim. That the temperature, according to the head of the IPCC, has
plateaued is on the record. He said it I presume because he believes it as I do,
and because it is provided in the scientific record.
>
> from:
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080111
>
>
> See how it's done......
That is exactly how I found it, too. My initial reference was a quote in
nutjob's blog and there's no way I was going to present that. So I found the
source and shared it. Now what? He said what I said he said which is the
temperature in this century has plateaued. I'd hardly expect him to say it has
reversed, but it's done that, too and he knows it.
dp
JMark
> JMark wrote:
>> dp wrote:
>>> JMark wrote:
>>>> dp wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>> The question for conservatives is, are they willing to curtail
>>>> corprorate influence in favor of the individual?
>>>
>>> The question is badly formed.
>>
>> The question, if you understand it, is right on "the money".
>>
>>> It should be "Are public officials willing to provide for the public
>>> demand or are they going to press their agenda?"
>>
>> Where does the agenda of public officials come from? It comes from
>> influence. Who has the most influence? Corporations do, without
>> regard to party.
>
> That is a very naive view of politics. We have activist judges, we have
> politicians who know what's best and assert it into the public trough,
> we have a stimulus plan that is blatantly a fund to promote the Obama
> agenda - hell, most of the money is being spent is an election year, and
> it is far from bi-partisan.
>
> Public officials don't hold their finger to the air and wait for an
> agenda to blow across it - Pelosi, Reid, et al have had plans for years
> to implement when the moment presented itself. The perfect storm hit
> last November when they won the house, the senate, and the POTUS. And
> what came with the POSTUS? Judges, treasury sec, etc. No more of those
> nuisance checks and balances.
You're the one being naive. The ability to assert - or to alternately
feed - at the public trough still requires support. The support
solidifies with a track record of performance on behalf of and in the
interests of that support. Big money facilitates. And party loyalty
facilitates. Get involved with your local politician and see for yourself.
> Barry said it best - I won, they lost. Love the hand across the aisle in
> that statement - how about you?
You seem to have a short memory or are being purposefully obtuse (and I
realize "obtuse" got Tim Robbins some time in the hole in Shawshank).
Boy George in 2004, "President Bush proclaimed his election as evidence
that Americans embrace his plans to reform Social Security, simplify the
tax code, curb lawsuits and fight the war on terror, pledging Thursday
to work in a bipartisan manner with "everyone who shares our goals." "I
earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to
spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."
Sounds like sour grapes.
>>> The problem with this is it requires an educated public, but the
>>> party of the impressed agenda runs the education system.
>>
>> A convenient excuse. The accomplishments of the educational system has
>> faltered in myriad ways under several watches - one that actually
>> supported teaching "intelligent design" and thinks we can (generally)
>> produce highly educated world leaders by home schooling.
>
> Nice you agree it's been going on a long long time. We should never have
> dropped the trades training in high schools, for example. Ever notice
> how the drop-out rate went up when students with vocational interests
> and talent had no courses of study?
>
>> What is needed is an unbiased educated public that knows enough to
>> steer from the notion of either/or, understand problems and can
>> recognize the most expedient solutions. This same educated public
>> will also have to understand sacrifices inherent in any solution and
>> be willing to endure such sacrifice.
>
> So how do you get that when the education of the nation is managed from
> k-12 and well beyond by one party? This has been going on for so long
> we're in a next generation situation. The parents of today's students
> came up under this flawed system and think it's normal.
Your argument is built on your contention that one party controls
education in all 50 states. It is a common talking points cry with no
sustenance.
Assuming you actually meant what you said when you stated (elsewhere)
you believed the "unwashed" as not a majority in our society, how can so
many accomplished parents be so blind? To be so easily duped is surely
a sign of laziness or lack of intelligence?
It must be awkward to admit that either the GOP was/is unable - due to
disinterest - to accomplish any educational reform during their watch
over the past generation or incompetent at such a process even at state
level. Otherwise, why the influence you imagine? K-12 education is
administered by the state and by school boards filled with local
politicians of every stripe. Is this some area whereby we remove state
control in favor of federal? Or is this a matter we should blame on
individual citizens and parents who have allowed themselves to become -
as you say - "non-competitive"? It's not like the educational
performance data has been positive over the last 15-20 years.
--
JMark
Steve Paul
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 15:59:40 -0400, "Steve Paul"
> <smarsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Playing the devils advocate here....
>
> I can't seem to take anything you say with even a remote grain of
> respect at all, after your comment in another post....
Which comment would that be?
Just curious.
--
Steve Paul
EKIII, BS#284
'93 FXRS-C "Mule"
JMark
<snip>
> If it's so solid, why are there so few credible sources on your "side"??
<snip>
I had to take a few required courses in environmental engineering to
graduate. Not being a big fan of chemistry, organic or otherwise, I
found it initially tedious. We were pushed as well to courses in
oceanography where climatic sciences were emphasized. I can only tell
you that my reluctance to debate "global warming" (as much as I enjoy
whizzing at dp) involves an understanding of the complexity of the
actual science. I don't really focus on the talking points of global
warming because they are not necessarily relevant to my concerns which
are marginally related.
I think a good case in point for the debate can be gleaned from a look
at the work of a critic. Once you read the link, then take a look at
how he is portrayed by his opponents. Maybe take a look at his
publications.
Start here:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0809.3762v3
Then just peruse how the author is depicted by googling his name.
His publications are here:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/PublicationsRSL.html
I haven't read anywhere near all the posts between yourself and dp - so
if he already pointed to Lindzen my apologies for the repetition.
--
JMark
Dean
>nos...@home.com wrote:
>> so you have read that treaty, and it is all just more paranoia......
>
>Section 38 , paragraph (a) indicates that the people who sign the treaty,
>will rule over it, with a bunch of peons running around reporting on it's
>implementation.
>
>Stop feeding your fear.
All I have left is fear, the government's taken everything else. Now
you want me to lose that. Fuck, maybe it's time to take the pipe.
<sfsf>
Dean
EKIII
'06FLHR
"My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
- Harry Truman
AH#104
> JMark wrote:
>dp sed:
<snip>
Time to shut this down with:
186 billion tons of CO2 hit the atmosphere each year.
180 billion tons naturally, rotting shit, etc...
6 billion tons from 'man'.
Roughly (from whatever sources you want to find)...
20% from US
22% from China
- these two (US/China) might be visa-versa, this is from memory.
13% from India...
The three majors only put 3.3 Billion Tons totally... ALL together.
China and India are going to do nothing about it.
IF the US stopped COMPLETELY (roughly 1.2 billion tons)..
there'd still be 184.8 billion tons of CO2 released each year.
I haven't seen anything to change those numbers.
ASSHOLE#104 Len
JMark
> much see that he was being painted in a negative light by his opponents, but
> rather that some of his work was being cited by folks like "Tea Party" groups as
> proof that their claims were "right".
>
> Even though in the paper you posted he seemed to be warning of the
> politicization of scientific work done by anyone.
Yes. Both sides politicize science to their own ends adding to the
impurity of the respective discipline.
>
> Also found it "interesting" to say the least that his funding seems to be coming
> from major energy interests, including Exxon/Mobile.
His research funding or speaking revenue? When? How does he respond to
that? I don't find it odd that an energy company would solicit a
spokesman whose evidence on an issue was contrary to evidence used to
demonize their concern. I do find it odd though that energy companies
with enormous profits couldn't long ago convince their stockholders and
board to place themselves HEAVILY into alternate energy source markets.
>
> It's troubling to me that some people try to pick and choose which
> information/data to use in support of their positions/opinions on the subject.
More troubling that seemingly every position does so. The important
thing is to be aware of the efforts of all concerned and the weakness in
the position you (or I) might wish to cuddle. You might find that
Lindzen is not the only critic of the names mentioned in the "global
warming" movement.
> Case in point would be DP's use of a two paragraph quote from a Reuter's article
> in which a reporter asked about an apparent decade long "plateau", the scientist
> said he'd look into it.
>
> His response to the reporter that he'd look into something the reporter was
> telling him didn't prove/disprove anything, meant only that he'd look into it.
> Nothing further was said about whether or not he did, and if he did, what his
> findings were.......
>
> What got left out was the third paragraph of the quote, in which the scientist
> indicated that use/politicization of the "apparent plateau" to try to disprove
> global warning was hogwash........
I think that scientist was discussed in the first pdf. In any event,
the difficulty of understanding the science by the average
citizen/activist is also the segue into misdirection due to the lack of
understanding. It is not unlike my experience with political approvals.
Many times have I prepared a detailed plan for a particular project -
had it vetted by bureaucrats - decided the tact in order to get the
bureaucrats consent - and wade into a commission approval governed by a
bunch of people with no real understanding of what they are approving or
why their uninformed opinions aren't remotely even relevant. When I was
young, I wanted to grab the podium and explain the misconceptions, but
the older and wiser client just shook his head awaiting the outcome,
which in some cases might have already been determined. The show of
irrelevance being topped by the irrelevance of making a public show at all.
--
JMark
Prescott Niles
Who cares?
Without CO2, how would we fire our cheap BB/Pellot guns, or make the
alcohol that we all love and adore?
Steve Paul
> "Steve Paul" wrote:
>
>> nos...@home.com wrote:
>>> so you have read that treaty, and it is all just more paranoia......
>>
>> Section 38 , paragraph (a) indicates that the people who sign the
>> treaty, will rule over it, with a bunch of peons running around
>> reporting on it's implementation.
>>
>> Stop feeding your fear.
>
> All I have left is fear, the government's taken everything else. Now
> you want me to lose that. Fuck, maybe it's time to take the pipe.
> <sfsf>
>
Okay, maybe I should have said, stop "growing" your fear.
Fear is good, as long as it's controlled. I've grown weary of the constant
barrage. I've got a brother who won't let it alone. After he's had his
dosage of wing-nutter media-blast, no matter how much I ask him not too, he
just can't shut the fuck up about it. Reminds me of the friend who got into
Amway, and another that got religion. It's all they ever talk about.
He always sides with the right. Always. And oddly enough, it's always and
only bad news on the left. There's clearly a mental block going on there
that refuses to even consider compromise.
I listen to Beck, Limbaugh, Ed, Maddow and all the rest from time to time
for as long as I can stand them, but it's not what my life is all about. I'm
not on either end of the polspec. I want to hear what both sides are saying,
and see some compromise legislation that makes everyone miserably agreeable.
Too bad that rarely happens. AFIAK, Bush was no better than Obama when it
comes to doing whatever the hell they want when the balance of power is in
their favor.
The only reason I favored Obama, was his rhetoric about moving out of Iraq
and into Afghanistan. I've got a son in the military, and if he's gonna make
the ultimate sacrifice, I want to see OBL on trial for his crimes against US
soil.
Too bad Obama's all fucked up now because of the Wall Street debacle and the
imbalance of power in Congress. Fucking Republicans better get that shit
straightened out next year, or soon. The sooner the nutters shut the fuck
up, and the RNC gets some moderate rhetoric going, the better.
--
Steve Paul
EKIII, BS284
'93 FXRS-C "Mule"
No salt, No plans
EZ
<and...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Speaking of MC related stuff, I finally got Ripley out yesterday. She
>hadn't been started in almost a month.
I managed to ride Duracell to work a few days this month, but since
it's now the rainiest October on record, those days were few and far
between. Suddenly the weather is sunny and a balmy 55 degrees, so I
thought instead of actually riding today I'd stay home and fix the
fact that our main file server's backups have crapped out two nights
inna row. Yeah, that sucks in lotsa ways. Five hours working on a
Saturday, and still counting. At least I should be able to ride to
work nearly every day next week. The sun came back, finally.
><clink> To Dickie Peterson and Blue Cheer, cuz they're both gone now.
To them <clink> and all other musicians who've passed on. By The Way,
if you haven't tried it yet, go ahead and log onto Last.FM - it's a
hoot. Free, too. And they have iPhone or Android phone versions, too.
You don't get to pick exactly what you listen to, you just type in an
artist you like, and they play stuff that's like that. Lotsa fun, and
doesn't take a lotta sorting through your mp3's and albums for stuff
you wanna listen to.
--
_____ _____
| ____| |__ / Larry from St. Louis, MO
| _| / / SENS, MAMBM, MISFIT, TOMKAT, EKIII
| |___ / /_ BS #269 DOF #(I forget)
|_____| /____| 105th Anniversary Edition Ultra
Invisible68
"Andy aka Big Stinkie" <and...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:4aec4e9b$1...@127.0.0.1...
> al b wrote:
>> big_piper wrote:
>>
>>> Why then are the solutions based only on reduction of
>>> emissions?
>>
>> because the exspurts are concentrating on soylent green right now.
>>
>>> Scratchin' ma wee heid...
>>>
>>
>> that's a big job... so i'm gonna air up my tires and go for a ride in
>> the foothills today, you?
>>
>
> I wonder how much it would help if we all put pure CO2 in our tires? About
> 40 pounds per tire X2 tires per bike equals 80 pounds. That'd take 25
> bikes for a ton. We make about 5 billion tons of it a year, so to halt our
> emissions all we need to do is get a mere 200 million of us to fill our
> motorcycle tires with CO2. Let's *all* do it! Save the planet!
>
that is 40 lbs... per square inch... so it is a lot more in each tire
because I have more that one square inch of tire....
Invisible68
Jinks
wrote:
Interesting! What *is* the volume of an MU90-16 E3? I worked
hard today & am on the way to far too drunk to do the math. Who's
feelin' smart?
Jinks ('86FXRS, '07FLTR)
#64
Remember, "No good deed goes unpunished"
Dean
One facetious remark out of me and I get six paragraphs back. Christ
Steve, I ain't never writing you a letter. <g>
Give your brother a break, it's not his fault he's right.