HSU Research Forum (HRF)  

Go Back   HSU Research Forum (HRF) > Hsu Central > Off-topic Discussion
Forum Help Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 214 votes, 4.97 average. Display Modes
  #201  
Old April 1st, 2007, 8:57 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
How many years ago was that were you in Brazil? I don't know know if you were asleep in the last 50 years, but the Monroe Doctrine was carried out throughout the western hemisphere country by country, starting with Guatemala, where each country's government was toppled and turned into a banana republic, neo-liberal policies installed, massive amount of bribes via given out via loans so that the countries becomes forever indentured servants for the empire. You go to Brazil today and you wouldn't seem people better off. The richest 20 people in the country has more wealth than the bottom 80 million people.

That film has been discussed to death here. Its not libertarian. I've never seen Badnarick ever talk about that kind of issues during his campaign.

Plus, why does newcomers keep referring to the same URLs as what's been posted before (like the CFP's one). It is as if they all get it from the same talking point sites like WND.
1) I was in Brazil between Jan., 1991 to Oct., 1992. Yes, I agree that the US government did extend its might throughout Latin America during the cold war. It was a big chess game. Unfortunately to win it a blind eye was turned towards corrupt government officials who exploited its own people; and all in the name of gaining an alley. I admired Reagan's arms build up and his no compromised stance against Russia but I'm of the mindset that you do not have to condone evil in order to usher in good. Now, I do not blame the US for the economic disasters found in Latin America. Their economic system has always been autocratic and aristocratic. A few families have always controlled the wealth. Middle class is virtually non-existant. It's completely corrupt as well, you cannot even expect the plice to help you unless you have a payoff.

I tell people they have never seen poverty until they have lived outside the US. I've seen US slums in Chicago's suburbs and Houston (I currently teach in one of the poorest areas in Houston: gags, drugs, pedophiles rule the day there ) and despite the economic desparity, they still do not compare to the poverty I saw in Brazil. "Favelas" is the word used to describe a slum. In the favelas you have open sewers, kids swimming in them, people looking inside trash cans for food, other children running up to me saying, "'Oh americano, dinheiro americano, dinheiro americano..." ("Hey, American, American money, American money"). unfortunately giving them money could very well make their situation worse. Pharmacists don't exactly follow the law prohibiting selling drugs to minors or to those without a perscription, neither do alcohol vendors. minmum wage was a whomping $150/month and people were lucky to get even that. A simple solution would be for workers to work an hoset day (workers very commonly skimp out on their part) and for employers to pay an honest wage.

But enough wth the negative. Brazilians are a very warm people. They would readily open their homes to complete strangers when they are in need. Their music and dance are captivating. They are a lively people and I truely miss being them.

2) No, that film is not necessarily a Libertarian one but it does embrace the Libertarian disgust with govenrnment taxing its people. I completely agree with that Libertarian view. It was a Libertarian author that wrote a recent book explaining how we can fully fund all current government programs (and by no means does that mean we should not oppose them) while eliminating all taxes and replacing them with one national sales tax exempting food (not fast food, but groceries). I absolutely love that idea. The film talks about the not so honest ratification of the 16th amendment (I think it was that one) and most compelling, how you and I are being forced to obey a non-existing law. That is to file a W-2 form to pay our federal taxes. The reason it is not law is because the constitution says we have a right not to self incriminate ourselves. That's what W-2s do and in the tax world we subjects (sorry, I meant citizens) are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Again, that's not constitutional. Why aren't the courts protecting us? They're in on the game. It's all about the money, yo. I do not agree that "governments will benefit" from new carbon taxes. That money will only be exploited by either the Dems. or Republican Rhinos.

3) Yes, the URLs are being cited again and again. I do try to give fresh articles to avoid repetiton and many do come from WND. World Net Daily is probably the worlds biggest online-only news source and I like their conservative points of view. But I'll send anything that seems relevant. What I see, though, is that a huge portion of the scientific findings linked in this forum by pro-global warming alarmists go right back to the IPCC which is governed by the United Nincompoops. They seem to see these scientists as honorable and incorruptable. They are human like you and me and therefore fallible. They are also financed by a huge beaurocratic governing body. Being so we the people ought to be weary about their findings and ask how did they come to their conclusions and why? It's your money and my money they are using. We therefore have every right to question them and not accept statements like, "the debate is over."
  #202  
Old April 1st, 2007, 9:15 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdekany View Post
Sorry I speak no portuques except for 2 words maybe.
As promised my friend: Hope you enjoy. And LONG LIVE THE AUTO SHOP!!!! You have a very cool profession.

“Thus I speak Portuguese with more or less good fluency. Even though most people in South America speak in the Portuguese language there are not very many in the United States that speak in the same language. For this I decided to learn Spanish. These two [greatly] beautiful languages are so similar that it was easy for me to learn my third language . In fact, the most difficult thing for me is to not confuse the two languages. Thank you for conversing with me.”

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 1st, 2007 at 9:26 AM.
  #203  
Old April 1st, 2007, 10:20 AM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
You know what, my hobbies are politics and home theater. I do plan to upgrade my HT system when I have the dough and a HSU subwoofer would be nice. It'll actually be a tossup between HSu and SVSound. Both are outstanding quality and an enormous bang-for-the-buck. Right now I am looking closely to HSU's new speakers. The could fit the bill as my HT space is somewhat limited and so tower seakers are not an option.

Thanks for asking. I enjoyed replying.
Hsu and SVS...uh oh. You think people got a little worked up on this topic? Just start a thread on AVS or somewhere else like it...the flame wars will contribute to global warming more than a coal fired power generation plant, right up until the time the mod's make it extinct!

Glad to hear that the really important sub stuff is just waiting for the right moment.
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #204  
Old April 1st, 2007, 10:51 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
...the flame wars will contribute to global warming more than a coal fired power generation plant, right up until the time the mod's make it extinct!
LOL!!!
  #205  
Old April 1st, 2007, 9:17 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
[quote=Lwang;23203]...Because from experiment, CO2 is shown to trap heat and thus the increase of it causes more of sun's heat to not radiate back into space.quote]

Hey Lwang, I'd actually be interested in any information on such an experimentation. you might have read that I "challenged" people in this forum to show me a controlled experiement where the conclusions are that CO2 emissions create global warming. Sounds like this might be a start!!!
  #206  
Old April 1st, 2007, 9:42 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
1) I was in Brazil between Jan., 1991 to Oct., 1992. Yes, I agree that the US government did extend its might throughout Latin America during the cold war. It was a big chess game. Unfortunately to win it a blind eye was turned towards corrupt government officials who exploited its own people; and all in the name of gaining an alley. I admired Reagan's arms build up and his no compromised stance against Russia but I'm of the mindset that you do not have to condone evil in order to usher in good. Now, I do not blame the US for the economic disasters found in Latin America. Their economic system has always been autocratic and aristocratic. A few families have always controlled the wealth. Middle class is virtually non-existant. It's completely corrupt as well, you cannot even expect the plice to help you unless you have a payoff.
I guess you were there before Brazil's post 1994 neo-liberal decade, where they might have done away with the waits for telephones, but then nobody could afford telephone services by then anyway.

There were no soviet threat after their fall, but the loan shark scheme by the IMF still goes on. Look at Argentina's recent mayhem from their "subprime loan" experience from the IMF. The whole Africa is at the mercy of the IMF, with practically all their GDP going just to pay off the interests on their loan.

Gaining allies for the cold war was not the purpose of bribing foreign governments. Why would we oversell their country's potential and loan them vast amount of money that they could never pay back? Why did the loan sharks go in after loan defaults and liberalized those countries resources from their people as part of the loan reform package? It is more to gain an indentured servant country.
  #207  
Old April 1st, 2007, 10:03 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
There were no soviet threat after their fall, but the loan shark scheme by the IMF still goes on. Look at Argentina's recent mayhem from their "subprime loan" experience from the IMF. The whole Africa is at the mercy of the IMF, with practically all their GDP going just to pay off the interests on their loan.
You're going to have to explain what IMF is for me. Perhaps even send me somewhere through a link. Even if there were no loans made to Latin American countries, their economies would still be in a mess. Middle class is virtually non-existant and the government heavily regulates industry. Perhas Brazil has been more so than others but it is still common. The only way to communitcate with some of the few people I've stayed in contact with in Brazil would be through snail mail; and I'd have to dig out their contact info and assume it's still valid. Essentially, Latin american economies indenture themselves. The best economy is not necessarily completely free of government regulation (I do believe in fundamental regulation) but by and large that is waht the governmet does, leaves its people alone to prosper.
  #208  
Old April 1st, 2007, 11:35 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
IMF, International Monetary Fund, which is the sister institution to the World Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna..._Monetary_Fund

Countries don't just go to them and apply for a loan. Economic forecasters goes to the developing countries and predict potential economic growth and loans are given based on that. The forecasting are wildly optimistic and grows with no point of leveling off, so loans for infrastructure buildup on a incredible magnitude are given where there is never a possibility of payback by the borrower, thereby indenturing those countries to the western world's demands.
  #209  
Old April 2nd, 2007, 8:23 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
IMF, International Monetary Fund, which is the sister institution to the World Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna..._Monetary_Fund

Countries don't just go to them and apply for a loan. Economic forecasters goes to the developing countries and predict potential economic growth and loans are given based on that. The forecasting are wildly optimistic and grows with no point of leveling off, so loans for infrastructure buildup on a incredible magnitude are given where there is never a possibility of payback by the borrower, thereby indenturing those countries to the western world's demands.
Now why didn't I think of Wikipedia? Oh, yeah, because it was after 1:00 am when I aksed for info on IMF. Thanks for the help. I can see how that organization can easily control other countries' finances. I can't help to think, though, that it's no different than taxing ourselves. This is my train of thought: If all taxes were eliminated and replaced by one national sales tax, that would give me aproximately $200 extra per month, even after paying more for my goods. I could put that money into paying off my car within a year instead of the standar five and then my house in probably ten instead of 30. That would save me tens of thousands of dollars over the next 30 years or so. That's money which would then be either invested or spent of cool stuff like HSU subwoofers (ooooohhhhh, three of them hooked to a Denon 5805CI, and having Ascend Acoustics speakers biamplified through an Emotive amplifier...I drool at the thought ). But instead my money is being taken from me so I can, "pay my fare share." And I have no choice in the matter.

A sales tax would also render tremendous power back to you and me. If we think taxes are too high, we simply slow down our spending or investing. How can sales pick up, simple, lower the taxes. That would be a huge incentive to the government to keep taxes as low as possible. Just imagine the tremendous boost to our economy!!! And the IRS, which treats us as guilty until proven innocent, would be whiped out!!! Ah, Utopia.

The longer we stay complacent to our existing tax laws, however, the longer we are self-afflicted indentured servants.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 PM.
  #210  
Old April 2nd, 2007, 9:13 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Sales tax are regressive taxes, where people that need to buy for their basic needs are taxed the most. High income people (even the ones who don't derive their income from investement, but from super fat bonuses) don't come even close to spending in terms of percentage compared to the average person (even taking into the account the spur of the moment purchases of yachts and Bentlys on bonus payday). Even with the federal income tax, there are enough loopholes large enough that all the high wealth people are creating a traffic jam in trying to drive their Lambos through. LILOs and its constant permutations, netsted partnerships in which money becomes untracable, etc. Don't forget the corporations that report ever increasing profit to their shareholders in one book and another book with barely any proft to the IRS, using all the latest schemes like structured finance and anything offshore. Their tax receipt has actually gone from 17% in the 50's to 7%. Shifting all of the burden to citizen taxpayers. All while they are announcing record breaking profit, while real income for people stagnates. Some even argue that a true flat tax would be more fairer than what we have right not because all the massive loopholes would be closed.
  #211  
Old April 4th, 2007, 4:31 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Sales tax are regressive taxes, where people that need to buy for their basic needs are taxed the most. High income people (even the ones who don't derive their income from investement, but from super fat bonuses) don't come even close to spending in terms of percentage compared to the average person (even taking into the account the spur of the moment purchases of yachts and Bentlys on bonus payday). Even with the federal income tax, there are enough loopholes large enough that all the high wealth people are creating a traffic jam in trying to drive their Lambos through. LILOs and its constant permutations, netsted partnerships in which money becomes untracable, etc. Don't forget the corporations that report ever increasing profit to their shareholders in one book and another book with barely any proft to the IRS, using all the latest schemes like structured finance and anything offshore. Their tax receipt has actually gone from 17% in the 50's to 7%. Shifting all of the burden to citizen taxpayers. All while they are announcing record breaking profit, while real income for people stagnates. Some even argue that a true flat tax would be more fairer than what we have right not because all the massive loopholes would be closed.
As long as thewir actions are legal, I've no problem with people using tax exemptions. If they are dishonest in the books like Enron, I say jail time. Overall I say erase all taxes and replace them with one national sales tax. that'll boom the economy like no there's no tomorrow; especially if you were to privitize social security as well.
  #212  
Old April 4th, 2007, 7:58 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Of course those loopholes are legal, the laws are written with industry's help, and only when it gets so bad that the next round of closing those loopholes up. And they have a sleuth of tax lawyers to go discover the next hole to drive their Brink truck through, which the J6P across the country don't have.

All the market manipulation by Enron were perfectally legal. Just like what the IMF and World Bank are doing.
  #213  
Old April 5th, 2007, 7:50 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
All the market manipulation by Enron were perfectally legal. Just like what the IMF and World Bank are doing.
Didn't Enron, fix the books? Isn't that illegal?
  #214  
Old April 5th, 2007, 8:51 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
...it's not illegal if you don't get caught...Hola Chiquita, que tal?...then you get to rely on sovereignty...

Illegal is very different from right or wrong, which rely absolutely on your values. Morality is in the eye of the beholder.

While I do not like regressive taxes, I'm not taking a side. If the "poor and disenfranchised" can't tip the ballot box, they shall remain just that. If the top tiers don't get off their thrones, they will tip over. I'm somewhere in the middle class, no matter what, I feel like...well...
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #215  
Old April 6th, 2007, 9:31 AM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Didn't Enron, fix the books? Isn't that illegal?
That is illegal, but not the siphoning of electricity to cause a shortage. That's common stuff in the equity market also.
  #216  
Old April 7th, 2007, 10:57 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
[quote=jmprader;25043...Hola Chiquita, que tal?...

While I do not like regressive taxes, I'm not taking a side. If the "poor and disenfranchised" can't tip the ballot box, they shall remain just that. If the top tiers don't get off their thrones, they will tip over. I'm somewhere in the middle class, no matter what, I feel like...well...[/quote]

Hola jmprader. ¿Qué tal usted señor?

Regressive taxes bite big time. I say take awya all taxes and replace them with one national sales tax that can fund all current governmet programs, including wellfare. Then we can see about reducing gov't. spending through cutting programs.
  #217  
Old April 7th, 2007, 4:28 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Global Warming

Here's the latest on Global Warming


http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif

http://headlines.accuweather.com/new...her&traveler=0

Enjoy!!!
  #218  
Old April 7th, 2007, 4:41 PM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Hola jmprader. ¿Qué tal usted señor?

Regressive taxes bite big time. I say take awya all taxes and replace them with one national sales tax that can fund all current governmet programs, including wellfare. Then we can see about reducing gov't. spending through cutting programs.
Exactly ... The system supported by www.fairtax.org would be a true revolution. They make the tax progressive - for example, the "family of four" making $30,000 per year would pay zero taxes under this plan.

The drug dealer buying a $10 million dollar boat will be paying $2.3 million in taxes.

Individuals would no longer pay Federal, Fica, or Medicare taxes. Multimillionaires could no longer hide behind the myriad of loopholes that exist today.

We are having the coldest April in history in our area, thanks to Global warming, too.
__________________
,,
  #219  
Old April 7th, 2007, 9:25 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub View Post
Exactly ... The system supported by www.fairtax.org would be a true revolution. They make the tax progressive - for example, the "family of four" making $30,000 per year would pay zero taxes under this plan.

The drug dealer buying a $10 million dollar boat will be paying $2.3 million in taxes.

Individuals would no longer pay Federal, Fica, or Medicare taxes. Multimillionaires could no longer hide behind the myriad of loopholes that exist today.

We are having the coldest April in history in our area, thanks to Global warming, too.
I always have enjoyed your comments craigsub. The fair tax is a step in the right direction but the "ultimate" tax approach would be to get rid of all taxes except for one sales tax. Compliment that with privatized Social Security and you'll see economic growth like never before imagined!!!

And, yes, the Earth is doing its "normal" routine and cooling off after it warmed up. Nothing our of the ordinary.
  #220  
Old April 7th, 2007, 9:29 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
OOps, I confused the fairtax with the flat tax. Fairtax is what I support 3,000,000 percent.
  #221  
Old April 7th, 2007, 10:10 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Here's the latest on Global Warming
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
And, yes, the Earth is doing its "normal" routine and cooling off after it warmed up. Nothing our of the ordinary.

Just to clarify here about this comment and other comments about how cold it is and how Global Warming is BS... The term best applied is not Global Warming but Global Climate Change. This is because the ultimate result is not necessarily a change in global temperatures (which is happening) but is really a change in global climate. Areas that were previously cold might not be so cold and areas that are warm might not be so warm. This same holds true for rainfall and other climate factors. None of this can be PROVEN at this point since true proof can only occur after the event when we can look back and say, "Oh that global climate change was a load of BS!" or "Geez I wish we had paid attention to the IPCC when they forecasted that our climate is going to change."

My conclusion is that you should please stop with the snide remarks and lets not go for the low shots at issues. If in fact you were genuinely ignorant of this issues involved then you can ignore my plea and just take this as a general education on the terminology.
  #222  
Old April 8th, 2007, 9:40 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir View Post
Just to clarify here about this comment and other comments about how cold it is and how Global Warming is BS... The term best applied is not Global Warming but Global Climate Change. This is because the ultimate result is not necessarily a change in global temperatures (which is happening) but is really a change in global climate. Areas that were previously cold might not be so cold and areas that are warm might not be so warm. This same holds true for rainfall and other climate factors. None of this can be PROVEN at this point since true proof can only occur after the event when we can look back and say, "Oh that global climate change was a load of BS!" or "Geez I wish we had paid attention to the IPCC when they forecasted that our climate is going to change."

My conclusion is that you should please stop with the snide remarks and lets not go for the low shots at issues. If in fact you were genuinely ignorant of this issues involved then you can ignore my plea and just take this as a general education on the terminology.
The IPCC is a poitical organization governed by the United Nincompoops, financed by you money and my money and whose goal is to prove that man is responsible to change the weather. That's why people like to say, "Global Climate Change", instead of "Global Warming or Global Cooling". By saying, "Global Climate Change", these peole can say, "see, a change, we are responsible. We need to stop it now..." (Of course that means imposing taxes t get the funds "needed" to "stop" it). It's all about the money, yo. The IPCC is not a science-based organization. If they were, they would not say, "the debate is over". The debate is never over in science. It is a continual process of learning and discovering.

No one in this forum has yet to explain to me how they comply their lives according to their dire warning that life as we know it is going to end unless we reduce CO2 production. If it is so dire than I want ot hear calls to ban subwoofers, SUVs, pet ownership, quotas on baby-making, etc. all these things produce CO2s. More than "nature intended". Calls for these things would reveal the true nature of this debate.

Inevitable disaster due to climate change has been propogandized in the media for over 100 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/a...ow/1034077.cms
  #223  
Old April 8th, 2007, 1:37 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
The terminology is there. I am not going to debate this with someone who has such a twisted view of the rest of the world. Debating like that is like a fish debating with a bird about how high the clouds are. The perspective is completely different. Best of luck to you and I sincerely hope that you are right that we are just in "fluctuations" and that there is no global climate change occurring. It might be and it might not be. However, as I said earlier we won't really know until after the fact.
  #224  
Old April 8th, 2007, 3:34 PM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Here are the average global temperatures for the last 450,000 years ... which, in terms of the age of the earth, is not very long ... For example, We know dinosaurs were here 225,000,000 years ago - meaning this represents about 0.2% of the time just going back to the dinosaur era. Another way of saying this: It would require 500 of these graphs just to go back to fairly early Triassic Era.

For more thought provoking info ... If the 450,000 years shown in this graph was one day, the last 125 years of data which is "proof" of "global warming", according to the believers, would be 24 seconds long.

link
__________________
,,
  #225  
Old April 8th, 2007, 4:35 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir View Post
The terminology is there. I am not going to debate this with someone who has such a twisted view of the rest of the world. Debating like that is like a fish debating with a bird about how high the clouds are. The perspective is completely different. Best of luck to you and I sincerely hope that you are right that we are just in "fluctuations" and that there is no global climate change occurring. It might be and it might not be. However, as I said earlier we won't really know until after the fact.
Obviously the bird knows better than the fish about how high the clouds are. So are you saying you're the bird? I'm just a dumb fish.

Thank you for your sympathy. Here's what I want to know from you

1) How has the IPCC separated itself from the political influence of the United Nincompoops? (That's the United Nations, but, hey, your a bird, so you know that).

2) Please cite me a controlled experiement where it is concluded that CO2 gases are the cause of Global War..er..uhh..Climate Change. I'm not saying there is none, I just do not know of any. Controlled experimentation is essential to scientic conclusion. Just review the Scientic Method.

3) If you are convinced that CO2 emissions are the cause of Global Climatic Change, that what are YOU doing to drastically reduce YOUR CO2 emissions.

I've previously posted things I think destroy lives like alcohol consumption. What do I do about it? I do not drink alcoholic beverages at all. None are in my house and I'm, sorry, we (us fish stay together as a family. Or is it school?), my wife and I, are raising our children to make the sa,me choices for themselves when they are adults. I do not sell alcohol off sets, nor do I buy them.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that I, MapleSyrup, agree 100% with you. What would our plan of action be?
  #226  
Old April 8th, 2007, 9:19 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
I hate getting drawn into these discussions. But, here goes.

1) I can't really argue this one because your basic assumption is that the UN is wrong and I don't think so.

2) I haven't found any accredited sources that have done these experiments. However you can test it yourself with this experiment below. Enjoy.
http://www.picotech.com/experiments/...alwarming.html

Here is someone that is doing research on the subject in Japan. He is using the Earth Simulator which is a supercomputer in Japan. However, you seem to think that they can't be trusted because their data is used by the IPCC. There is a link below this one that talks about the Earth Simulator.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/jp/pu...o17/ENG/p6.htm
http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/about/index.en.html

Specific controlled experimentation of something like Global Climate Change is impossible due to the fact that you would need a model that mimics exactly what the Earth does. In another words you need another earth. The best that we can do is use computer simulations to calculate the expected effects of increased greenhouse gasses. Like the one above.

3)
  • I bicycle instead of drive a car despite the fact that there are A-hole drivers in Alabama and we have no public transportation
  • I fly in a plane only if i need to
  • I reduce or remove my use of portland cement based construction materials
  • I eat local foods (which not only helps out the local farmers not controlled by agribusinesses but also tastes a hell of a lot better)
  • I compost
  • There are a bunch of other things that I probably do but I am too tired to list them. Simple things like turn off my lights, computer, etc. Common sense stuff.
  #227  
Old April 9th, 2007, 2:03 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir View Post
I hate getting drawn into these discussions. But, here goes.

1) I can't really argue this one because your basic assumption is that the UN is wrong and I don't think so.

2) I haven't found any accredited sources that have done these experiments. However you can test it yourself with this experiment below. Enjoy.
http://www.picotech.com/experiments/...alwarming.html

Here is someone that is doing research on the subject in Japan. He is using the Earth Simulator which is a supercomputer in Japan. However, you seem to think that they can't be trusted because their data is used by the IPCC. There is a link below this one that talks about the Earth Simulator.

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/jp/pu...o17/ENG/p6.htm
http://www.es.jamstec.go.jp/about/index.en.html

Specific controlled experimentation of something like Global Climate Change is impossible due to the fact that you would need a model that mimics exactly what the Earth does. In another words you need another earth. The best that we can do is use computer simulations to calculate the expected effects of increased greenhouse gasses. Like the one above.

3)
  • I bicycle instead of drive a car despite the fact that there are A-hole drivers in Alabama and we have no public transportation
  • I fly in a plane only if i need to
  • I reduce or remove my use of portland cement based construction materials
  • I eat local foods (which not only helps out the local farmers not controlled by agribusinesses but also tastes a hell of a lot better)
  • I compost
  • There are a bunch of other things that I probably do but I am too tired to list them. Simple things like turn off my lights, computer, etc. Common sense stuff.
Honestly, thank you vey much!!! I truely appreciate you living according to what you preach. Lots of Kuddos!!! I'd much rather converse with you than anybody else here that is pro-Global Warming.

My first question was not so much as to whether or not the United Nincompoops are correct or not as much as it was to learn about what the IPCC has done to separate itself from the politics of being an intergovernmental panel. Their funds are received by politicians for the intents of politics. My concern is that if the IPCC is going to pronounce itself as a scientific organization, then they need to proceed scientifically, not politically. Here's an previous link I posted to help explain why this concerns me.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/...ming020507.htm

A scientific question: If there has been no controlled experiment to conclude that CO2 gases are causing global warming, then how can the IPCC say, "the debate is over..."? That's not scientific reasoning, it's political. Now, the experiment you linked me to does concude, I have faith that the results are as advertised, that CO2 gases can increase tempurature. It, however, does not, as you pointed out, conclude that the raise in CO2s are causing global warming. The raise in temperature in the experiment could have been the plastic surrounding, the CO2 gases being completely trapped, not enough light (compared to how much sunlight is shown everyday), etc. Furthermore, it does not exclude possibilities such as Earth's orbit wobbling or solar flares. I'm only specuating but for the reason of asking, how can a credible scientist(s) say, "the debate is over,"? That doesn't reason with me.

As for the earth simulator, that can be terribly inaccurate, or dead on right. But I do not know how to tell.

All these questions should be aksed n the scientific community. The debate is never over.

Ps There are A-hole drivers in Texas too. I assure you I'm not one of them.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 9th, 2007 at 7:23 PM.
  #228  
Old April 9th, 2007, 7:28 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Kabir

Here's a new article on Global Warming. It points out in part how even the IPCC acknowledges that there are no increase in catostrophic events in any systematic way, ergo; you cannot tie them to Global climatic Change; how forcing change leads to undo hardships (if you recall in the other thread, "Peak Oil Theory", I love the idea of running on ethonal fuel but I do not support forcing people to change to that); the inaccuracies of modulating Global Climat Change; and much, much more.

It's a good read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/

The article iwas written by Richar S. Lindzen and here are his credentials as noted for the article.

"Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies."

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 9th, 2007 at 7:38 PM. Reason: Grammar
  #229  
Old April 9th, 2007, 7:56 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
National security!!!

Let's see, tie up our military with "peaceful" global warming initiatives while, what is that? Uuuummmmm. Oh yeah, increase government regulation and increase taxes. It's all about the money (and power), yo.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/wa...onal_security/

And look, it patters itself after the United Nincompoops.
  #230  
Old April 9th, 2007, 9:01 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
"Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere."

That is a quote from that article by the MIT Climate professor. I have tried to find information to support that on the internet but I have yet to find it. At the end of the article it says that this professor does not receive funding from any corporations and only gets his funding from the US Government. I personally find this to be a crock since the appointment of so many corporate lobbyists and corporate Board members to positions of power within the US government. Whether he is actually biased by that I can't make any credible comment on. However, being funded by the US government is no basis for credibility in this day and age IMHO. Read further about my views on how something akin to credibility can be found by having a broad section of scientists from many countries.

Concerning your issue with the IPCC distancing itself from the politics of the UN...

Decisions made by the IPCC about the issue of global climate change are made through their decision making process.
According to a flash animation on the front page of the IPCC's website, the people contributing to the IPCC 4AR include:
  • 2500+ scientific expert reviewers
  • 850+ Contributing authors
  • 450+ lead authors
from over 130 countries, contributing for the last 6 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergo...Climate_Change

I tend to look at it from the perspective that the more people you have in the decision making process the more averaged out and consistent the answers are. In addition the actual data is not created by them the data comes from other peer reviewed documents (with the exception of 2). They just study them and draw the conclusions. There have been issues of using unsupported data (See link below). I disagree with the IPCC in this regard. However, the issue involved around that seems to have more to do with editors and publishers and the red tape surrounding that. Apparently showing the data "would be a breach of Nature embargo" (being that the paper would be published in Nature magazine). Regardless though the IPCC should have waited until the report was finally approved which it was.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

Overall these hundreds of people are well represented from all across the world and from many different fields of study that are focused on the causes and effects of climate change. Out of all of the groups out there studying climate change these are the people I would trust the most.

Ackk. Back to your original question of political influences. If you read the wikipedia article at the bottom it will talk about disagreements over the IPCC and you will notice that there are influences from both the "left" and the "right". Here is where the large number of people involved will average out these influences by interest groups.

Disagreements with the concept of the greenhouse effect are made by single authors who some would say are "on the fringe". "On the fringe" is really a matter of perspective. I still think that their findings should be analyzed and reviewed and looked into. However, most of those "on the fringe" have been rejected by the majority of climate scientists. There is a link below that "debunks" the "Great Global Warming Swindle" video. I warn you that it is very left leaning and thus you will probably be irritated by reading it. However, from the links that I have gone to it looks sound.
http://adaisythroughconcrete.blogspo...-im-cross.html

I agree with you that the debate is not over about global climate change. However, I agree with the IPCC in saying that it is 90% over. As I said earlier any new theories and data should be reviewed and looked at. However, it shouldn't be given equal review time as the current theory of greenhouse gasses being the cause of global climate change.



************************************************** ****
These are my current views. I am not so stuck in my ways that I can not listen to reason. If you can articulately explain to me why and how my views are wrong please do. However, I am not a scientist and it might take me a while to read through and my decisions on things. Also, please keep your comments on topic and don't attack me with "leftist", "communist", "treehugger", or any other cliche name calling. I will try and do the same and not call you equally worthless names.

Oh, and I have written this and have not reread it for errors or for clarification. If you need me to clarify anything please say so. Thanks.
  #231  
Old April 9th, 2007, 9:35 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
You are right that the IPCC report is skewed by politics. It looks like the final report is altered by wrangling between a few politicians with the scientists:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...warming07.html

Yet that grim future is a toned-down prediction, a compromise brokered in a fierce, around-the-clock debate among scientists and bureaucrats. Officials from some governments, including China, the United States and Saudi Arabia, won some weakened wording.
...
"The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game," said John Walsh, a climate expert at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, who helped write a chapter on the polar regions.
...
Last-minute negotiations led to deleting timelines for future events and scaling back the degree of confidence in some projections. Both actions will ease pressure on industrialized nations to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that are warming the planet gradually.
...
Several scientists vowed afterward that they never would participate in the process again because of the political interference.

"Once is enough," said Walsh, who was not present during negotiations but kept abreast of developments with e-mails from colleagues. "I was receiving hourly reports that grew increasingly frustrated."
  #232  
Old April 10th, 2007, 6:11 AM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Here is an article from 2005 called "Is the Artic Cooling?". The interviewees are John Walsh and Mark Johnson.

Here is the link

And here are some quotes from Johnson and Walsh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by walsh
WALSH: "For example, in this most recent century the Arctic warmed rapidly from about 1900 to 1940. Then it cooled from about 1940 to 1970, and then it warmed from 1970 to 2000 at a pretty good rate. Now we don't know if the present warming is going to continue for another 10 or 20 years, and then there will be a downtick. We don't know if a downtick will set in fairly soon. It could go either way."
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnson
"I personally think we are part of a cycle here. While there is a long-term trend of sea ice decline, I think there is going to be more ice. By 2010, I think we are going to be back into colder conditions"
"Climate change" has been occuring for millions of years. Every "proof" that the scientists (whose livelyhood depends on continued funding on global warming) show has a "counterpoint" from scientists who don't stand to make a living from global warming.

For example: We were shown that average temperatures have increased, historically, with increases in CO2 levels.

Actual science showed that, in fact, CO2 levels increased several CENTURIES after the temperature increased.

The people screaming the most about "Global Warming" are the same people that will profit the most from scaring the general populace into believing drastic measures need to be taken to thwart "global warming".

If you don't believe that, buy some carbon offsets from GIM ...
__________________
,,
  #233  
Old April 10th, 2007, 8:27 AM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
From what I have found it is about an 800 year lag between initial temperature change and CO2 increase. The connection there is that this is the approximate time period for the oceans to release CO2 due to the warming waters. The actual warming trends will continue for about 5,000 years. That initial warming for the 800 years will tend to correlate with the Milankovitch cycles of the earth in relation to its orbit and tilt.

Concerning the profiting of the scientists about global climate change...I don't really buy that. The real money is not working for NGOs or the government but instead being in the pay of corporations that lobby for less strict laws regarding emissions of all kinds be it carbon dioxide, sulphuric, or mercury. Everyone has heard of the record profits that ExxonMobil made this past year and I have no doubt that they would jump at the chance to use some of that money to stay that way. Below is a website linking the 8 scientists in the "Great Global Warming Swindle" to ExxonMobil. It is done through Greenpeace and if you have read "State of Fear" or gotten into that mindset that environmental organizations want to rule the world then you won't like the website. However, you can checkup on their quotes and connections to different organizations and companies.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/index.php?mapid=831

If you have any questions about this then please ask. If I am in fact wrong here then please explain why and if it makes sense to me then I will gladly admit my mistake.
  #234  
Old April 10th, 2007, 9:28 AM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Kabir ... I am asking. Where is the Exxon connection in that link ?

For the record, Exxonmobil also paid more in federal taxes than any organization in history. How much does Greenpeace pay in taxes ?

And, if we are going to have an intellectual conversation, then you need to actually respond to what others actually are typing here.

For example, I said "The people screaming the most about "Global Warming" are the same people that will profit the most from scaring the general populace into believing drastic measures need to be taken to thwart "global warming".

If you don't believe that, buy some carbon offsets from GIM ... "

GIM has, as one of its founders, Al Gore. He is the person screaming the loudest about Global warming, and he stands to profit immensely from a widely held belief in global warming being a man made "catastrophe".

YOU twisted that into my saying it is scientists making the profit. The scientists are merely keeping their jobs.
__________________
,,
  #235  
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:24 AM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
First off I would like to apologize to you craigsub. I didn't mean to twist your words there. I thought that was what you meant. I must have misread you.

I don't doubt that ExxonMobil has paid more taxes than anyone in history and that since Greenpeace is a nonprofit that its taxes are slightly less than ExxonMobil's. My point has nothing to do with taxes but more has to do with the fact that ExxonMobil has consistently funded research against global climate change. If most people were in this for the money then all they have to do is go visit ExxonMobil and start working for them. Here is a link below with information about their funding anti-climate change groups.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/t...ml n_industry

Now, back to your original question which I misread. Your issue is with GIM which is a company that revolves around selling carbon offsets. The main issue is the fact that former Vice President Al Gore is the current chairman of GIM and stands to make millions (maybe billions?) of dollars if all of this goes through and people should start buying carbon offsets. What do I think about this? From what I can see Al Gore is concerned about the Global Climate Change issue and apparently has been since the 1970s. He apparently started this company about 3 years ago to put into action a plan that he thinks will work to help deal with this issue. As far as I can tell GIM is doing exactly what it says it would be doing and is offsetting the greenhouse gasses that its customers are producing. As long as this is happening and actual work is being done then I see nothing wrong with it. It seems to be like a fisherman trying to allow fishing in a certain area of the ocean and who is buying fish from himself. Hmm, maybe not the best analogy but I think you get the idea. Is it in Al Gore's self interest financially to promote carbon offsets? It certainly appears so. However, he created a company that he knows will offset his greenhouse gasses. There are other companies around that do this sort of thing but they all seem to have started around the same time that GIM started up.

Your issue seems to be with the fact that Al Gore looks to profit from his own lobbying. I admit that this seems to smell kind of fishy. However, that is no reason to discredit all of the work that climate scientists have been doing just because a politician looks to make some profit. And no, I am not a big fan of Al Gore. He is just as crooked a politician as the next one. American seems to have a sadly lacking supply of decent politicians.

Concerning the "Exxon connection in that link". If I understand what you are asking then the quick answer is this: Exxon funds those organizations which in turn fund those scientists. This is kind of like the Tobacco Institute which was funded by Big Tobacco to create discrepancies around the health risks of tobacco.

Now, if at all in here it seems like I am attacking you craigsub then I apologize. Sometimes I write something and know exactly what I mean by it and yet when someone reads it then it looks to them like I am attacking them. If you need anything explained then please do.
  #236  
Old April 10th, 2007, 11:49 AM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Kabir ... Greenpeace makes one think there is going to be some direct link between ExxonMobil and these scientists, and there is not. Unless someone can provide proof that the scientists who produced this video are paid by Exxon, suggesting they are is beyond irresponsible, it is an outright fabrication.

And yes, I happen to think is is outrageous for Al Gore to make this huge profit for his alarmist views on global warming. Quite frankly, I am amazed at the so call "intellectuals" who give him a free pass regarding this issue.

This is a pretty simple concept: If, as Gore has demanded it is, Global Warming is a MORAL issue, it is IMMORAL for Mr. Gore, as the leading spokesperson, to make a profit from it.

He is no better in this regard than Jim and Tammy Fay Bakker were in the 1980's in their so called "Christian Crusade".

Fleecing an unsuspecting populace is not virtue, it is contemptable.
__________________
,,
  #237  
Old April 10th, 2007, 12:39 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that [Richard] Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)

John Christy gets funding from the Competitive Enterprise Institute which in turn received over $2 million in funds from ExxonMobil amongst other corporate interests. Same sort of thing with the Cooler Heads Institute (silly name isn't it?).

These are only 2 of the 8 listed from the video. All of that has links to back up the connections. I have done some work for you getting that information. Now if you dispute it then you can do the rest and prove me wrong. If you do then I will be more than happy to admit I am wrong. So far I have checked up on their sources from a spattering of links from the 8 and then from the 20+ organizations they are linked to. As far as I can tell they all pan out. I haven't checked all since there are probably 200+ links in total.

You probably have already seen this but the link below is about the AEI thinktank funded by ExxonMobil offering "$10,000, plus travel and other expenses, to highlight the shortcomings in a report from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Considering Al Gore's actions moral or immoral is an opinion that you are welcome to. However, that shouldn't cloud your perspective concerning the efforts put out by ExxonMobil (and more than likely other corporations) to keep Global Climate Change disputed. I continue to agree that other possibilities should be looked into. However, at this point in time it seems likely that Global Climate Change will be caused by human activity.
  #238  
Old April 10th, 2007, 1:59 PM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Kabir ... You cannot show where any of the 8 men received money from Exxon.

That means Greenpeace is lying, and you are wrong. That may irritate you, but it is a fact. You can talk all day about how Exxon supposedly funds these groups, for example, the Cooler Heads people, but that does not mean that Exxon is paying the scientists.

I advertise for my auto dealerships in a local paper. That does not mean that the editorial writers in the paper are paid for by me.

You then site that Ross Gelbspan said ..... about Lindzen.

That is called hearsay, and it is not evidence. Had Gelbspan called Lindzen a pedophile, would that also be the "truth", in your world ?

Besides ... Assuming what Gelbspan says is true, does consulting for an oil company mean someone is not competent to discuss other issues ? It is interesting - you are fine with Mr. Gore making hundreds of millions ... but $2500 in alleged fees is going against your principals ?

You think it is perfectly OK for Al Gore to use his position to make himself a billionaire.

I cannot understand how any reasonable person could agree with your belief in this regard.

Mr. Gore is a shameless individual, and an embarassment to thinking people everywhere.

For example, he has declared that no debate is even permissable in regards to his view of global warming. Those are not the words of someone interested in science. Those are the actions and words of a cult leader - in this case, he has declared himself the guru of Global Warming, and calls anyone who disagrees with him "unbelievers" and "deniers".

Real science has never, and will never, use phrases like Mr. Gore is using.

Of course, this is not about science. This is about morality, according to Mr. Gore.
__________________
,,

Last edited by craigsub : April 10th, 2007 at 2:26 PM.
  #239  
Old April 10th, 2007, 2:33 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub View Post
Kabir ... You cannot show where any of the 8 men received money from Exxon.

That means Greenpeace is lying, and you are wrong. That may irritate you, but it is a fact. You can talk all day about how Exxon supposedly funds these groups, for example, the Cooler Heads people, but that does not mean that Exxon is paying the scientists.

I advertise for my auto dealerships in a local paper. That does not mean that the editorial writers in the paper are paid for by me.

You then site that Ross Gelbspan said ..... about Lindzen.

That is called hearsay, and it is not evidence. Had Gelbspan called Lindzen a pedophile, would that also be the "truth", in your world ?

Besides ... Assuming what Gelbspan says is true, does consulting for an oil company mean someone is not competent to discuss other issues ? It is interesting - you are fine with Mr. Gore making hundreds of millions ... but $2500 in alleged fees is going against your principals ?

Finally, you think it is perfectly OK for Al Gore to use his position to make himself a billionaire.

I cannot understand how any reasonable person could agree with your belief in this regard.

Mr. Gore is a shameless individual, and an embarassment to thinking people everywhere.

For example, he has declared that no debate is even permissable in regards to his view of global warming. That is not the words of someone interested in science. Those are the actions of a cult leader - in this case, he has declared himself the guru of Global Warming, and calls anyone who disagrees with him "unbelievers" and "deniers".

Real science has never, and will never, use phrases like Mr. Gore is using.

Of course, this is not about science. This is about morality, according to Mr. Gore.
Well I am sorry that you feel the way you do about Al Gore. Best of luck to you on that.

Moving on. Concerning your comment about Gelbspan. While equating pedophilia and corporate funding might be humorous it is a silly analogy. In addition you have to get your news from someone. Ross Gelbspan is a perfectly legitimate source. He has worked as a journalist for 31 years with such papers as The Philadelphia Bulletin, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. He has also written countless articles for many other papers. If in fact Gelbspan had called Lindzen a pedophile then I would have believed him up until the point that the rest of the media community jumped on Gelbspan for false accusations. Has anyone jumped on him yet for his not telling the "truth"? Not yet.

I will not go into an argument over whether Greenpeace is right because all that you have to do is look at the links that Greenpeace provides (have you looked at their sources yet?). We can just leave it that I put more faith in an organization that promotes the welfare of the world and humanity and you can put faith in corporations that promote their shareholders' earnings.

As I said earlier our arguments aren't going to go anywhere because your fundamental beliefs view Global Climate Change advocates as people who want to take your lifestyle away from you and tax you and your children into oblivion. I just happen to not see it that way.
  #240  
Old April 10th, 2007, 2:35 PM
Kabir Kabir is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 19
Kabir is on a distinguished road
As I figured when I first got into this discussion I don't expect to get anywhere. Our perspectives are way too different. As such if you reply don't expect a reply from me. However, you can catch me on the discussion about Peak Oil if you like.

http://forum.hsuresearch.com/showthread.php?t=2961
  #241  
Old April 10th, 2007, 3:19 PM
craigsub craigsub is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2004
Posts: 476
craigsub is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kabir View Post
Well I am sorry that you feel the way you do about Al Gore. Best of luck to you on that.

Moving on. Concerning your comment about Gelbspan. While equating pedophilia and corporate funding might be humorous it is a silly analogy. In addition you have to get your news from someone. Ross Gelbspan is a perfectly legitimate source. He has worked as a journalist for 31 years with such papers as The Philadelphia Bulletin, The Washington Post, and the Boston Globe. He has also written countless articles for many other papers. If in fact Gelbspan had called Lindzen a pedophile then I would have believed him up until the point that the rest of the media community jumped on Gelbspan for false accusations. Has anyone jumped on him yet for his not telling the "truth"? Not yet.

I will not go into an argument over whether Greenpeace is right because all that you have to do is look at the links that Greenpeace provides (have you looked at their sources yet?). We can just leave it that I put more faith in an organization that promotes the welfare of the world and humanity and you can put faith in corporations that promote their shareholders' earnings.

As I said earlier our arguments aren't going to go anywhere because your fundamental beliefs view Global Climate Change advocates as people who want to take your lifestyle away from you and tax you and your children into oblivion. I just happen to not see it that way.
This is not how I "feel" about Gore. I don't "feel" anything at all about this person. I am merely posting factual information and drawing conclusions from that. You just don't see real science operating the way Gore does. It was Gore who said this is a moral issue. It was Gore who said the debate is over.

The simple fact is, this is NOT a moral issue. And there is plenty of debate to be had, except people like you are supporting the person who demands that debate has ended.

That is not a scientific view.

Next topic...

You post a third party as saying that Gelbspan reported that Lindzen made $2500 per day for consulting services.

Gelbspan, who is lauded by MotherJones news, which is about a far left a "webzine" as one will find, is anything but objective.

Here is an interview in MotherJones, in which Gelbspan refers to anyone who disagrees with his view of global warming as "deniers".

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2.../gelbspan.html

Here is an editorial from The Boston Globe about Lindzen.

http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...ent_scientist/

Rather than hearsay, Linzden readily acknowledges the following

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexBeam
I decided to check out Lindzen for myself. He wasn't hard to find on the 16th floor of MIT's I.M. Pei-designed Building 54, and he answered as many questions as I had time to ask. He's no big fan of Gore's, having suffered through what he calls a ``Star Chamber" Congressional inquisition by the then senator . He said he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since.

He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits.
WOW ... a WHOLE $10,000 from the oil and coal companies during the decade of the 1990's. That works out to $1000 per year, including expenses. A guy could retire to Maui on that ...

The Boston Globe does not agree with yours nor Gelbspan's position regarding Lindzen. Lindzen, by the way, is A professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

That, Kabir, means he is a real scientist.
__________________
,,
  #242  
Old April 10th, 2007, 4:26 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Here's a little something I found on Wikipedia regarding Lindzen:

Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Ph.D., (born February 8, 1940) is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Lindzen is known for his research in dynamic meteorology, especially planetary waves.
He has been a critic of some anthropogenic global warming theories and the political pressures surrounding climate scientists. He wrote an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal in April, 2006, in which he wrote: "In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions."[1]

Now, why is it so many times by Kabir and other pro-global warmist, sorry climate changists, that they immediately point to scietists who may have accepted corporate monies as selling out their integrity but when monies are offered from governmet, it's somehow honorable, pure, and corruptin free? Why is it that when corporations sponsor scietific research into global warming, it is biased and has an agenda yet when and organitzation like IPCC is funded by the United Nincomoops, it's "scietific." Look at the latter part of the Wikipedia report where it says, 'apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions'. Those in threat of losing funding are precisely those who do not agree with the IPCC summarization that man is resopnsible for global warming and will bring about catostrophic doom.

When I first mentioned Lindzen in this thread, Kabir immediately annunced his skepticism that Lindzen does not receive any corporate money, only governmet. kabir reasoned tha there are business men in government and therefore could have sneeked some cash into Lindzen's pockets.

First of all, why is that bad, and only government money good?

Second, I research the National Academy of Science, of which lindzen serves, from Wikipedia and found that it is a government organization. It is funded by the United States govenment. If any private business money ran through there, I don't see it. I'm left to concluded that Lindzen doesn't take money currently from corporations, only government.

Third, how come the same argument can't be made to the United Nincompoops? They are govenment too and therefore must be infiltrated by evil businessmen who'll pay off those scientists. What of the food for oil scandal. That went all the way to the top of the UN's chiefs. Again, re-read the latter part of the Wikipedia insert. Scientists are threatened from decrease of funding if they question the results.



  #243  
Old April 10th, 2007, 4:29 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
The Debate is Over!!!

Al Gore isn't the only one saying this. Here is a "scientist". saying the same thing. It's about half way through the speech linked here.

http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blog...1f7974849be93e
  #244  
Old April 10th, 2007, 6:53 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
To Al gore or Not to Al gore

The first link is actually Al Gore friendly. The second, not so much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm
http://www.agweb.com/get_article.asp...36&src=gennews
  #245  
Old April 19th, 2007, 7:04 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Da' money, Yo

I the midst of recd-breaking storms and all, here are two articles to consider. Collectively they mention how scientists who disagree with the IPCC's announcments on Gloal Warming and how Global warming is not man-made. Enjoy!!!

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...29984220070418
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletim...090.xml&coll=1
  #246  
Old April 19th, 2007, 7:38 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
The deniers already gets a significant voice, especially compared to the percentage of scientists that are deniers.

Also, don't forget the recent report by a national security think tank, penned by a group of retired generals and admirals saying that global warming could post a national security threat:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/15/war....ap/index.html

• Report predicts wars over water, hunger, displacement in the next 30-40 years
• "Climate change exacerbates already unstable situations," one author says
• Gen. Zinni: We can pay with money now or with lives later to address problems



It is not news since in 2004, there was a secret report by the Pentagon said much of the same thing:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...153513,00.html

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

Article continues
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
  #247  
Old April 20th, 2007, 5:31 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Pentagon

Based on the computer models used, of course there will be great desasters. True or not, I do suport the military to be ready for disasters to happen.

Remember that the scientists that are "deniers" use scientific data, research, analysis, theories, etc. as much as the propagators of Global Warming. I say any trained scientist that uses scientific procedure should have equal access to funding by the the United Nincompops or any other organization or individuals who are sincere in finding out what science has to say about Global Warming: por or con. they should also have equal access to the media, including the political wing of the United Nincompops known as the IPCC.
  #248  
Old April 20th, 2007, 6:13 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Skeptical Inquirer

Just today I got my new issue of The Skeptical Inquirer, published by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (formerly the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP), part of the Center for Inquiry, and the cover story reminded me of this discussion.


If you don't know about the Skeptical Inquirer/CSI, they're an organization devoted to rooting out and exposing pseudoscience and charlatanry. Anyone interested in promoting good science and sound reasoning should try to be familiar with their work. They got their start in the '70s heydey of BS "psychics" like Uri Geller, and they do great work.

Skeptical Inquirer link: http://www.csicop.org/si/

Anyway, the cover story is on global warming, and it's a thoughtful, interesting read. It's written by an atmospheric scientist who works for NASA, and was vetted by a Center review committee, so this is carefully reviewed stuff, and anyone interested in the debate should read it.

I recommend picking up a copy of the May/June 2007 issue, but a more complete version of the magazine's article is available as a Center for Inquiry position paper at:

http://www.cfidc.org/opp/jordan.html
  #249  
Old April 20th, 2007, 8:14 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Based on the computer models used, of course there will be great desasters.
The secret pentagon report predicted global unrest even before the UN scientist's report (diluted by the IPCC political arm).

Quote:
True or not, I do suport the military to be ready for disasters to happen.
The pentagon and military leaders are saying to prevent the event from happening in the first place. They are not saying lets ramp up the military in preparation for the global conflict that will arise. Only a militaristic person would want to arm the country to the teeth, and for something that one doesn't even think is going to happen.
  #250  
Old April 21st, 2007, 12:19 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Yo, Maple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
So the only thing I'm left to conclude by his call for a total carbon freeze, is exactly that "total carbon freeze" means: completely stop carbon emissions. And, yes, that is insane.
So...Do you or do you not take back the statement above, and concede that it is not Gore's actual position? Your lengthy all-over-the-place reply to my long-ago post (which I only read today, in fact) *seems* to take it back at one point, but I'd like a little clarity.

Having abandoned this discussion a while ago and only recently having been reminded of it, that's the only question I have at the moment. You see, I originally abandoned the discussion as pointless, as you seemed utterly unwilling to concede the most obvious of points. If I want that kind of discussion, there are plenty of brick walls around for me to talk at.

Just agree or disagree with this: "Al Gore does not and has never called for a ban on all carbon emissions, even though I (Maple Syrup) once claimed 'Al gore has called for a carbon freeze. The way I interpret that, it means, no carbons should be produced.'"

Hint: If you really, really just don't want to talk to me, disagree with it.
  #251  
Old April 21st, 2007, 12:22 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
related humor

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/0...venient-truth/

From The Daily Show -Jason Jones Refutes “An Inconvenient Truth”
  #252  
Old April 21st, 2007, 5:18 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
The pentagon and military leaders are saying to prevent the event from happening in the first place. They are not saying lets ramp up the military in preparation for the global conflict that will arise. Only a militaristic person would want to arm the country to the teeth, and for something that one doesn't even think is going to happen.
Being prepared does not necessarily mean "being armed to the teeth". It also means that there are stocks of food, clothes, medicine, etc. to have on hand in case a catastrophe happens. If the Global Warming scare is what causes the military to be prepared, then so be it. Truth is that a whole variety of events can uccure in which the mainstream means of supplying the public would be blocked. We must be prepared now to help those in need in the future. I, for one, have a food storage that can last my family for about four months but our goal is to have supplies on-hand for a year. This supply would greatly diminish because we, of course, would share it with others in need during times of emergency.
  #253  
Old April 21st, 2007, 5:27 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
So...Do you or do you not take back the statement above, and concede that it is not Gore's actual position? Your lengthy all-over-the-place reply to my long-ago post (which I only read today, in fact) *seems* to take it back at one point, but I'd like a little clarity.

Having abandoned this discussion a while ago and only recently having been reminded of it, that's the only question I have at the moment. You see, I originally abandoned the discussion as pointless, as you seemed utterly unwilling to concede the most obvious of points. If I want that kind of discussion, there are plenty of brick walls around for me to talk at.

Just agree or disagree with this: "Al Gore does not and has never called for a ban on all carbon emissions, even though I (Maple Syrup) once claimed 'Al gore has called for a carbon freeze. The way I interpret that, it means, no carbons should be produced.'"

Hint: If you really, really just don't want to talk to me, disagree with it.
Oh boy, zhimbo. Please don't abandon a discussion and then "demand" I answer your request according to what we talked about 500 years long ago. At least make things simpler by letting me know where and when I posted this comment. Hold on whle I dig it out....
  #254  
Old April 21st, 2007, 6:23 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
zhimbo

I don't know how much you know about literature and f you don't know much, than that's Ok. I'm a horrible speller and am still becoming familiar with blogging techniques. So here goes...

"According to Gore's own actions, he does not mean to reduce carbon emissions, nor to prevent an increase. He has increased his own carbon emissions since the release of "An Inconvenient Truth". So the only thing I'm left to conclude by his call for a total carbon freeze, is exactly that "total carbon freeze" means: completely stop carbon emissions. And, yes, that is insane. "
Mape Syrup,
Posted May 26, 2007

Satire is a method of writing or commenting verbally in which the author purposly goes over-the-top in order to point out how another person is over-the-top. that is why I purposely denounce a "total carbon freeze" by talking about it literally. so to answer this request, yet again; but more direct, more clear, for blunt, etc. I do not think Al Gore wants to completely stop carbon production.

Now read this zhimbo:
But Al Gore' proposals to increase taxes in order for the government to combat Global Warming and "save us all" is a crock, and is virtually as insane as calling, literally, for all carbon production to stop. Increasing government revenues almost always leads to poverty and less production. The main reason the Soviet Union collapsed as an officially communist state is the same reason China is converting to a capatalist society. It's because government control does not work. I've spent much time in this forum writing about how inefficient government is and how, if you truely want society to progress and develope, including inventing more efficient ways to do things, than let people be free to progress. Don't burden them with heavy taxes and regulations. I've also talked about some regulations I do support. If you want to chime in, please do, but, please, read the posts and go on the sum of them, not an itty bitty part.

Once again, you make your demand to answer a specific question, "in order to continue our conversation," so, once again, I do the same to you. After all, if this is your methodology to have a "discussion," then continue by example. This is what I posted on May 27th: ( I think this is the time you ran away, probably back to your college studies; but good for you. Again, think satire. Sarcasm is part of it, don't take it literally)

1) I am defying reason and evidence? If Al gore truely believes that using huge amounts of energy by going to destroy the planet in 20 years, why has he increased his personal energy use since the release of, "An Inconvenient Truth"?

2) I'm demonizing my opponent? Has not Al gore demonized me, you, and industry at large by saying our energy consumption is going to destroy the planet in 20 years?

3) Shame on me? Al Gore is the one scaring society, not me. and he doesn't even practice what he preaches. Shame on him. Why do you defend him?

4) "Al Gore never said such a thing." I KNOW HE HAS NOT!!! (Or, rather, I know that is not what he meant literally) but he has called for a "total carbon freeze" as well as for a new carbon tax. Zhimbo, I am making a delibrate lunitic statement to counter Al Gore's delibrate lunitic scare the world tactics.

5) I have presented no matter of evidence? Al Gore's own actions are evidence. He tells the world that there is a dire need to reduce carbon emissions but he increases his own. Since this is insanity, I'll make insane comments in reply.

If Al Gore says we need a "total carbon freeze" and he increases his own energy consumption including flying around in a private Gulfstream Jet (the biggest gas-guzzling private jet on the market from my knowledge) to promote his ideas of reducing carbon emissions, what should I believe? If Al Gore says one thing and practices another, than what should I think? If I were to say there should be a "total illegal drug freeze" and then increase my cocain consumption within a year, how could you conclude that what I meant was that there should be no more increase in illegal drug usage? My actions would be completely inconsistant with that interpretation, wouldn't it? And yet you diligently defend Al Gore and attack my credibility?

He has "never said such a thing" but I make my "over-the-top lunitic" assertion, not based on his words, BUT HIS OWN ACTIONS. He does NOT believe what he is telling people. If he did, he would REDUCE his energy use, not INCREASE it.

Time for you to make answer some questions my friend. From there we'll work on your own concessions:

1) If Al Gore really wants to limit carbon emissions, than what should he do with his own personal energy consumption?

2) If literally banning all carbon emissions is lunacy, than isn't it about equally luney to call for no more net increase in carbon emissions? [Some random but reasonable questions]Who would regulate it? How would such a social policy by enforced? If HSU Research decided to double its production and shipping which resulted in increasing their net carbon emissions, would that be illegal? (Please focus you answer on the first question in #2).

3) Why are you questioning my credibility and not Al Gore's? You're the one defending a man using massive amounts of energy who at the same time is telling the world that if we use massive amounts of energy, the world is doomed. And you question my credibility?

Pick your battles Zhimbo. I'm not the discredited subject character in our "discussion".

[This is in reply to you denouncing my embracement of reason and shaming me for doing so. So, again, lead by example. Answer the latter three questions.

By the way, yes, I do want to communicate with you, all I ask is you comply with your own standards.]
  #255  
Old April 21st, 2007, 6:26 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
The secret pentagon report predicted global unrest even before the UN scientist's report (diluted by the IPCC political arm).
I would ask what do you think of the IPCC? Do you consider them legitimate scientists? Are their conclusions scientific "fact"?
  #256  
Old April 21st, 2007, 6:40 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
So...Do you or do you not take back the statement above, and concede that it is not Gore's actual position? Your lengthy all-over-the-place reply to my long-ago post (which I only read today, in fact) *seems* to take it back at one point, but I'd like a little clarity.
Yes, I gave a thorough answer but it was all relevant to the discussion. That's how discussions flow sometimes. If you want a baby discussion then please type the following: "I, zhimbo, do not whish to read anything MapleSyrup writes in this forum unless it is a direct answer to my questions or demands. Upon MapleSyrup writing his reply t my questions or demands I, zhimbo, do retain the right to no longer participate in this discussion with MapleSyrup if I determine that he did not answer my simple question or satisfactorially comply to my specific requests. If MapleSyrup does not satisfy my assessment of his replies than I, zhimbo, would rather talk to a brick wall as there are plenty of those around me to do so."
  #257  
Old April 21st, 2007, 7:09 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
4) "Al Gore never said such a thing." I KNOW HE HAS NOT!!! (Or, rather, I know that is not what he meant literally) but he has called for a "total carbon freeze" as well as for a new carbon tax. Zhimbo, I am making a delibrate lunitic statement to counter Al Gore's delibrate lunitic scare the world tactics.
LOL, I was rereading my post just now and loookey what I said in number 4? See what happens when you run away? It leaves you in the dark. Now that this dire question WAS answered, you ay proceed with your points of view.

Satire, dude, satire. That's what the number four up here is all about.
  #258  
Old April 21st, 2007, 11:19 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Only a militaristic person would want to arm the country to the teeth, and for something that one doesn't even think is going to happen.
It dawned on me one day that there is an element worthy to note in this forum an it was this quote by Lwang that reminded me of it.

Yes, I do think that rapid a rapid increase in global temperatures can wreck havoc on the world. but I am of the belief that this Earth was designed to sustain industrial growth for populations 10,20,30, 40, even 100 times the current population. The Earth is simply that good. One thing I see as people progress is that they naturally seek out methods to become more effecient. hybrid cars, the BASH amplifier, Egergy Star ratings on appliances, are examples of it. now while any one of these developments could have had a government influence, (I don't know if the Energy Star rating was govet. mandated or not), it is not govenment that motivated the development or sales of these products. Why would the developers of the BASH amp. advertise that it retains most of the effeciency of a digital amp? Why are hybrib cars all the rave (fuel-efficient cars too)? Because people want effeciency. They'll by effecient products when offered.

how to get effecient? I say let people be free to prosper. From what I understand , the Alaskan pipeline is a marvel to behold. The technology used to design, build, and currently maintain were and are phenominal achievements. But over in Russia marvels are not so great. I may error in saying, but I do not think so, but when the Russian government decided to copy the Alaskan success, it flopped. Their pipeline effeciency did not even come close to that experienced in Alaska. So the difference? Freedom. In Alaska, people went to work motivated by getting big paychecks as it was a privately-funded project, the largest of its time. In Russia they were motivated because the people's government told them to do it. The end result is night and day.

It is of my opinion that the best way to get people to become more efficient is to let people be free to progress. Economic freedom is the best way to free up resources to allow inventions in techniques, methods, and technolgies to become more efficient.

[On a side note, another reason I am not all riled up with Global Warming is that I think that peple's immral choices will and do cause individuals and societies at large to suffer and ultimately be destroyed. Immoral choices will and do destroy people far more rapidly than greenhouse gases.]

I am reading zhimbo's latest link amd I plan to reply when time permits.
  #259  
Old April 22nd, 2007, 8:02 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
I've spent much time in this forum writing about how inefficient government is and how, if you truely want society to progress and develope, including inventing more efficient ways to do things, than let people be free to progress.
You give this pseudo libertarian talk, but it is nothing more than a rehash of what the conservative polemicsts goes on spewing. Libertarians don't believe the idea the the only government should be the one in the pentagon. There are many forms of minimal government system and the ones that the cons are screaming for ain't one of them.

Quote:
One thing I see as people progress is that they naturally seek out methods to become more effecient. hybrid cars, the BASH amplifier, Egergy Star ratings on appliances, are examples of it. now while any one of these developments could have had a government influence, (I don't know if the Energy Star rating was govet. mandated or not), it is not govenment that motivated the development or sales of these products. Why would the developers of the BASH amp. advertise that it retains most of the effeciency of a digital amp? Why are hybrib cars all the rave (fuel-efficient cars too)? Because people want effeciency. They'll by effecient products when offered.
From what I understand, people are showing interest in energy efficiency not because they all want to be do-gooders, it is from the awareness that has been raised by the good effect they would have, and those pushing the awareness are the same people you call global warming alarmist.

The whole reason fuel efficiency for cars were even in anyone's mindset was due to a long cause and effect process that dates back to 1967, long before CAFE came about. You could even say that another effect of the actions taken have caused many other events.
Quote:
It is of my opinion that the best way to get people to become more efficient is to let people be free to progress. Economic freedom is the best way to free up resources to allow inventions in techniques, methods, and technolgies to become more efficient.
And in the many years that this idea has been applied, people are working 20% longer at a much higher pace, with both members of the family having to join the workforce. And all just to keep up with the same quality of life people use to have? I think all the efficiency gained are only benefiting the people holding the whip.
  #260  
Old April 23rd, 2007, 10:29 AM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Maple S.

Let me try to be clear. The reason I'm speaking this way to you is because I have no interest in talking to someone who:

1. Repeatedly and unambiguously claims X, where X is clearly false.
2. When called on it, claims X really is true.
3. When no longer can keep claiming X is true, claims he never said X.

This is not an honest debater, and there's no use in holding a serious debate with such a person.

Let's look at your comments on "carbon freeze", by which Gore means a stop in the *increase* of total net output of carbon emissions.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that Al Gore was calling for a complete elimination of all carbon emissions, slowly and painfully abandoned this claim, and now claim you never meant it.

1. Post 140
Quote:
And when time comes for Al Gore to approach a total carbon freeze (an absolute impossibility)
How can it be an absolute impossibility to have carbon emissions at the level they currently are? This suggests you may have another idea of what "carbon freeze" means. Hmmmm. Let's move on.

2. Post 146
Quote:
He can have a home and office in the same building. How much energy does he office work require? And how does that help to produce no carbons?
Note your wording: "produce no carbons".

Quote:
My contention about Gore is if he is proposing a total carbon freeze (an impossibility), then why is he allowed to produce carbons?
Again: "impossibility", and "allowed to produce carbons".

3.post 150
Quote:
If Al Gore is going to call for a total "carbon freeze" as he did in the Senate last week, than he needs to start by freezing his own carbon production. Since this is biologically impossible [...] I highly doubt this will be acheived. Since mammals produce extraordinary amounts of CO2 into the air simply be exhaling,
Again you claim that the mere act of breathing would violate a carbon freeze. "Biologically impossible", you say.

In post 151, I suggest you misunderstand what Gore means by a "carbon freeze".

Then comes the absolute clincher.

4. Post 154
Quote:
Al gore has called for a carbon freeze. The way I interpret that, it means, no carbons should be produced. Or did I misread Gore?
You very clearly and unambiguously state the wrong definition. Then you ask if your definition is wrong.

You also state:
Quote:
inhofe's oath is far less surpressing for Gore than Gore's own call for a carbon freeze."
Which only makes sense if you are WRONG about what carbon freeze means. Which you were.

You then ask:

Quote:
lease exlain to me/others what a carbon freeze is
In post 160, I do so.

5. Post 164
Remarkably you state that because of Gore's actions:

Quote:
So the only thing I'm left to conclude by his call for a total carbon freeze, is exactly that "total carbon freeze" means: completely stop carbon emissions. And, yes, that is insane
I am so appalled and baffled by your argument and insistence on the wrong meaning of carbon freeze, I give up on the discussion altogether in my post 168, figuring I have better things to do with my time.

When recently drawn back I see this is your response:

6. Post 169
Quote:
"Al Gore never said such a thing." I KNOW HE HAS NOT!!!
Well, maybe NOW you do, but you clearly and unambiguously did NOT know that earlier.

So, the record shows: 1. You didn't know what carbon freeze meant. 2. even after asking if you were wrong, you first refused to admit you were wrong. 3. You then pretended that you knew it, and it was all "satire".

Do you see why I hesitate deeming you worthy of a committed debate, Maple Syrup?

Still, you now admit, despite your previous misunderstanding, that Gore is not calling for something so silly.

So, what is Gore calling for? No net increase in national production of carbon emissions. Individuals should take steps to minimize their "carbon footprint", but he is NOT calling on EVERY person and/or business to have a legally required freeze, or even that everyone should voluntarily freeze. Gore is a smart person trying to come to realizable solutions, and knows that this not feasible, and that many of the sources of carbon emissions are beyond individual control.

So, as for your three questions:
1. Gore isn't calling for everyone to have low emissions, as he understands that people have different requirements and not everything is under individual control (sources of power, efficiency standards are biggies).
2. No, "no net increase" is not equally loony as "no emissions". The former is physically and biologically possible, as it's what we're doing now (by definition) and the latter is impossible, because even breathing does produces carbon emissions (as you noted when you misunderstood what Gore was saying). So, there is some difference in "looniness" level of these ideas.
3. Why am I questioning your credibility and not Gore's? I'm questioning your credibility because I'm in a discussion with you, and trying to make sure I have an honest, worthwhile debate partner. I'm not even defending Gore's credibility in general, only on quite specific points. I make no specific claims about whether Gore is "doing enough". As you may recall, my point for getting in this discussion was the Inhofe oath.

Last edited by zhimbo : April 23rd, 2007 at 10:51 AM. Reason: spelling
  #261  
Old April 23rd, 2007, 4:44 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
Maple S.

Let me try to be clear. The reason I'm speaking this way to you is because I have no interest in talking to someone who:

1. Repeatedly and unambiguously claims X, where X is clearly false.
2. When called on it, claims X really is true.
3. When no longer can keep claiming X is true, claims he never said X.

This is not an honest debater, and there's no use in holding a serious debate with such a person.

Let's look at your comments on "carbon freeze", by which Gore means a stop in the *increase* of total net output of carbon emissions.

You clearly and unambiguously stated that Al Gore was calling for a complete elimination of all carbon emissions, slowly and painfully abandoned this claim, and now claim you never meant it.

1. Post 140


How can it be an absolute impossibility to have carbon emissions at the level they currently are? This suggests you may have another idea of what "carbon freeze" means. Hmmmm. Let's move on.

2. Post 146


Note your wording: "produce no carbons".



Again: "impossibility", and "allowed to produce carbons".

3.post 150


Again you claim that the mere act of breathing would violate a carbon freeze. "Biologically impossible", you say.

In post 151, I suggest you misunderstand what Gore means by a "carbon freeze".

Then comes the absolute clincher.

4. Post 154


You very clearly and unambiguously state the wrong definition. Then you ask if your definition is wrong.

You also state:


Which only makes sense if you are WRONG about what carbon freeze means. Which you were.

You then ask:



In post 160, I do so.

5. Post 164
Remarkably you state that because of Gore's actions:



I am so appalled and baffled by your argument and insistence on the wrong meaning of carbon freeze, I give up on the discussion altogether in my post 168, figuring I have better things to do with my time.

When recently drawn back I see this is your response:

6. Post 169


Well, maybe NOW you do, but you clearly and unambiguously did NOT know that earlier.

So, the record shows: 1. You didn't know what carbon freeze meant. 2. even after asking if you were wrong, you first refused to admit you were wrong. 3. You then pretended that you knew it, and it was all "satire".

Do you see why I hesitate deeming you worthy of a committed debate, Maple Syrup?

Still, you now admit, despite your previous misunderstanding, that Gore is not calling for something so silly.

So, what is Gore calling for? No net increase in national production of carbon emissions. Individuals should take steps to minimize their "carbon footprint", but he is NOT calling on EVERY person and/or business to have a legally required freeze, or even that everyone should voluntarily freeze. Gore is a smart person trying to come to realizable solutions, and knows that this not feasible, and that many of the sources of carbon emissions are beyond individual control.

So, as for your three questions:
1. Gore isn't calling for everyone to have low emissions, as he understands that people have different requirements and not everything is under individual control (sources of power, efficiency standards are biggies).
2. No, "no net increase" is not equally loony as "no emissions". The former is physically and biologically possible, as it's what we're doing now (by definition) and the latter is impossible, because even breathing does produces carbon emissions (as you noted when you misunderstood what Gore was saying). So, there is some difference in "looniness" level of these ideas.
3. Why am I questioning your credibility and not Gore's? I'm questioning your credibility because I'm in a discussion with you, and trying to make sure I have an honest, worthwhile debate partner. I'm not even defending Gore's credibility in general, only on quite specific points. I make no specific claims about whether Gore is "doing enough". As you may recall, my point for getting in this discussion was the Inhofe oath.
Wow, you really did your homework. I'll post a reply after I spend time with the family and watch some TV. I am really impressed.

Ps, you did not answer the first question. What should Al Gore do wit his own energy consumption if he thinks that sing massive amounts of energy will produce too many CO2s and destroy life on this planet?
  #262  
Old April 23rd, 2007, 7:24 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
[quote=zhimbo;25408]Maple S.

Let me try to be clear. The reason I'm speaking this way to you is because I have no interest in talking to someone who:

1. Repeatedly and unambiguously claims X, where X is clearly false.
2. When called on it, claims X really is true.
3. When no longer can keep claiming X is true, claims he never said X.

This is not an honest debater, and there's no use in holding a serious debate with such a person.


Let's look at your comments on "carbon freeze", by which Gore means a stop in the *increase* of total net output of carbon emissions.

To take something that is obviously not true and claim is true is a method of debate. The trouble with calling for a "total carbon freeze" is the power of the words. It can call attention to a matter that would otherwise not be looked at. In order to comment now I've looked back at our posts on this topic.


Yes, in post 146 is when I first said that a "total carbon" freeze is an imossibility. That's because literally it is. Did Al Gore literally mean that? Nope. But calling for a cap on total net carbon production while fyling around in the most fuel-ineffecient private jet on the market den't help his own "moral" call to cap carbons, nor to reduce them. So, why did I say it was impossible? Just to get you or others to focus on Al Gore. I simply sensationalized Al Gore's sensationalized rhetoric on the upcoming global crisis. He set the pace here, not me.

Now, your quoting me in post#150, you placed a "[...]" in a critical place. That is where I said "(and in rational practice as well..." I then used HSU shipping subwoofers overseas as an example. The way I see it, a typical business would have to be forced to reduce carbon production to meet Al Gore's call to reduce carbon production by 90% by 2050. Now, why is saying "in a rational practice," orth mentioning here. Because this is where I was acknowledging that I was deliberately taking the meaning for a "total carbon freeze" as literal. That's why I chose to use the word, "rational". Perhaps I could have explained that better. That was my fault for not doing so.

In post 154 you cite "the clincher". In saying, "the way I interpret that [a total carbon freeze], it means, no carbons should be produced." This comment was meant to reflect back on Al Gore's own lifestyle. If he truely believed that there should be a cap on total carbon production, then he should start by capping his own. But he never has. In fact, he increases it. I know you defend his businesses, but what does he do that requires so much energy? It's not like he has a car assembly line in his house. So, according to Al Gore's own lifestyle, I made this remark to sarcastically show how Al Gore "cannot really" be asking for a carbon cap; so I'm left to only believe that he "literally meant" a total carbon freeze. It's Al Gore's lifestyle under my attack and I used his own words to do it. Sort of comical.

This was also more direcly reflected in post 164, where I said, "According to Gore's own actions, he does not mean to reduce carbon emissions, not to prevent an increase." This, again, is to "shame" (as you like to put it) Al Gore for not living up to what he calls an urgent need to reduce cabon emissions; or life as we know it will be whiped out. If it is soooooooooo urgent, then he should live it first, not preach it.

It was after you declaring in post 169 that I do not use reason and you shamed me for not doing so that I decided to just be blunt and just say exactly what I meant.

In hind site (which is always 20/20, right?) I think I could have simply lead the discussion between you and I on exactly what Al Gore wants and look at those issues. That could have avoided our tangent war over symantics.

I still do not see why this one specific topic is so important for you that you have ignored what I think are excellent points made about how Al Gore, the poster child for Global Warming, is a fraud. You make great points as well and I thank you for them. If we continue, I say let's focus on that.
  #263  
Old April 24th, 2007, 5:01 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
You give this pseudo libertarian talk, but it is nothing more than a rehash of what the conservative polemicsts goes on spewing. Libertarians don't believe the idea the the only government should be the one in the pentagon. There are many forms of minimal government system and the ones that the cons are screaming for ain't one of them.
I don't know what you meant by "you give this pseudo libertarian talk,". Are you connotating that I try to pretend to be a Libertarian; but I'm really not? Are you trying to point out some sort of deceptive plot to secretly place in my point of view? I don't get it.

I'm a conservative, I've told you this before. I love the Libertarian position on taxes. It's exactly right. Get rid of them, they only enslave people. All of them can be replaced by one national sales tax. I also think Libertarians are exactly right on gun rights. Arming honest citizens, or rather, upholdingthe 2dn Amendment and allow honest citizens to carry concealed handguns to places like schools will not increase shooitngs one bit. In fact, they'll reduce them. I do not like the Libertarian position on the war in Iraq, nor thei ultral Liberal view that the US military is torturing prisoners and treating them unjustly. Nor their blaming America for american hatred overseas. In fact, I just blasted Ron Paul, a republican but a Libertarian at heart, in another forum/blog for being the posterchild of non-leadership. I attacked his lack of action on anything (all he does is vote) and I blasted him for blaming the Us for the 9/11 attacks. He didn't even want to vote to go to war in Afghanistan. If there ever were a reason to go to war, the towers were it. ron Paul simply towed the libertarian extreme non-interventionalist line and I can't stand the party for advocating it, and for Ron Paul living it.

I love limited government. I do not recall where I've declared that the government rests in the Pentagon. in fact, I think the sum of my politics here is that people should be free. That the power rests with their people, and therefore their representatives in Congress and the White House. The Constitution s the ultimate authority, not the military. Though I highly honor the military and recognize they are needed to maintain freedom, security, and prosperity.

I'm against school vouchers but am very pro home schooling if that is what parents prefer. I strongly condemn the actions of the German government, namly their courts, to remove children just because they are being home schooled. That's power I do not whish our government to have.

I support the minimum wage increase as proposed. I think $7.00/hr is reasonable.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
From what I understand, people are showing interest in energy efficiency not because they all want to be do-gooders, it is from the awareness that has been raised by the good effect they would have, and those pushing the awareness are the same people you call global warming alarmist.
As long as products are offered freely and honestly and peop[le are free and honest to chose them, I have no problem who offered the incentive to get them promoted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
The whole reason fuel efficiency for cars were even in anyone's mindset was due to a long cause and effect process that dates back to 1967, long before CAFE came about. You could even say that another effect of the actions taken have caused many other events.
Um...Ok.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
And in the many years that this idea has been applied, people are working 20% longer at a much higher pace, with both members of the family having to join the workforce. And all just to keep up with the same quality of life people use to have? I think all the efficiency gained are only benefiting the people holding the whip.
Yes, and this trend in unfortunate. How would you propose "correcting" it?
  #264  
Old April 24th, 2007, 5:49 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Conervative?

LOl, I didn't really explain how I'm Conservative, did I? Not that anyone cares (and it's a big tangent); but since it was brought up, here goes:

I want low to no taxes (I've said much about one national sales tax)

Gun rights should not be violated, nor any of the Bill of Rights

Religion is important and I encourage all to make an honest search for spirituality. Once found: live it, love it, and share it

If people are gay, then they are gay. Don't make it a marriage issue.

HSU Research rocks!!! (LOL, I know, that's just a matter-of-fact, not political)

SECURE OUR BORDERS!!!!!!!!!!

VICTORY IN IRAQ!!!!

IMPEACH BUSH!!!! (He's way to Liberal and an absolutely horrible Commander-in-Chief)

Let businesses prosper, use regulations prudently (they are needed)

The Constitution of the United States is the Law of the land, not George W. (who is failing to fullfill his Constitutional oath to protect our land), nor the courts

The Constitution was divinely inspired by God

The Declaration was divinely inspired by God. John Locke and others had their role to play to inpire it

Freedom comes from God, not man

Only God can take away freedom

Man should be free to make his own laws

Obey the law of the land; but voice your dissent if you think it is necessary

Communism, Socialism have good points but as practiced, have utterly failed. Capatalism is the best economic system available.

Give to charity

Give generously to charity

Support traditional marriage

Having children is important

Any movement advocating against having children will ultimatley lead to suffering and destruction

The are only my opinions. Feel free to agree or disagree. Again, I only menton them to "clear things up"; not necessarily to debate them here. There are other forums more appropriate for that.
  #265  
Old April 24th, 2007, 5:55 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Maple S.:
Quote:
Ps, you did not answer the first question.
The question in question:
Quote:
1) If Al Gore really wants to limit carbon emissions, than what should he do with his own personal energy consumption?
My answer:
Quote:
Gore isn't calling for everyone to have low emissions, as he understands that people have different requirements and not everything is under individual control (sources of power, efficiency standards are biggies).
Granted, it's an indirect answer. I jumped ahead a little, let me fill in the blanks better:

Simple: Gore should practice what he preaches - take steps to be energy efficient and less wasteful.

I take "what he preaches" for individuals to be the items listed here:
http://www.climatecrisis.net/takeaction/whatyoucando/

and I know he does many of them, and some not listed as well.

One thing he *doesn't* preach is that everyone must use a "low" amount, or below whatever amount. Why? Pretty obvious - people have different needs, and he believes the solution isn't only for individuals to limit their energy needs, but broader solutions are also called for (alternate energy sources; more efficient cars and appliances, etc).
  #266  
Old April 24th, 2007, 5:57 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Maple S.:
Quote:
If we continue, I say let's focus on that.
While I must say I really don't follow your reply very well at all, I'll certainly consider that topic finished.
  #267  
Old April 24th, 2007, 8:46 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
Maple S.:

While I must say I really don't follow your reply very well at all, I'll certainly consider that topic finished.
His views doesn't make sens because he picks up views from pundits or WND, who doesn't give facts, but spin things around or spread misinformation. Hearing the same things repeated with no factual backing gives the implication that those talking points got drilled to his brain. Saying things like the IPCC is all political is absolutely right. Asking the scientists behind it and they will tell you their report got skewed by the UN whom watered down the report.

Quote:
As long as products are offered freely and honestly and peop[le are free and honest to chose them, I have no problem who offered the incentive to get them promoted.
You underestimate the power of the massive amount of money spend on marketing and advertising. There is no free choice, all the ideas of what you think you want are put in there in your head by the constant repetition of the marketers.

Quote:
Um...Ok.
I guess you don't know the cascade of events that lead to where we are today. We'll just leave it so.

Quote:
Yes, and this trend in unfortunate. How would you propose "correcting" it?
There is no correction if there is this belief by bot the left and right that corporatism's unstoppable appetite for ever more profit is a good thing.


Anyway, back to global warming. It is funny, that prior to 1995, the public was catching onto global warming and the scientists were approaching a consensus on the fact that it was really happening. A strategy was created by the republican media adviser Frank Luntz to drill into the public's mind that there are differences of opinions between scientists. Many years later, the enlightened Luntz himself came to the conclusion that global warming is in fact real and man made. But that idea that there is still a debate between scientists is still pushed onto the people as of today and people are swallowing it.
  #268  
Old April 25th, 2007, 1:45 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
His views doesn't make sens because he picks up views from pundits or WND, who doesn't give facts, but spin things around or spread misinformation. Hearing the same things repeated with no factual backing gives the implication that those talking points got drilled to his brain. Saying things like the IPCC is all political is absolutely right. Asking the scientists behind it and they will tell you their report got skewed by the UN whom watered down the report.
LOL, he was talking about my answer to his assertion that I will not admit my lie. (It was poorley written).

Now, about my brainwashing... How was my citing WND not factually correct? Did not Al Gore not refuse to take the beforementioned oath? Also, have not Global Climatic scares been published in the past? Are they not similar to that being puplicized today?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54831
http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/21/193901.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=54483

And what "pundits" do you refer to? I've linked scientists that do not agree with Al Gore's catastrophic conclusions, that's all. Many of these scientists, I'm sure, are very Liberal in their personal thinking; so being brainwashed is hardly the issue.

As for biases? Do we not all have them? My viewpoint is based upon he belief that this Earth was created for you and me to live on and to prosper on. It's Creator, I believe, knew of the industrial revolution and has never told man to be weary of it. The Earth's creator, however, does, however, again, my personal belief, want use to be prudent in how we use the Earth. But I think the Earth is far more durable than what I'm hearing from those who believe that CO2 emissions are going to ruin life on massive scales. In fact, the most destrutive effects of the Industrial Revolution are a result of not caring about how to treat others. That is a moral issue far greater in scope than regulating greenhouse gasses; and it is compatible to my viewpoint that life can be and does suffer and gets destroyed far quicker by immoral choices by man than by greenhouse gasses. To this end, I support government regulating age, minumum wage, overtime, working conditions, etc. though here I think we should be very cautious in how much government should regulate business.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
You underestimate the power of the massive amount of money spend on marketing and advertising. There is no free choice, all the ideas of what you think you want are put in there in your head by the constant repetition of the marketers.
I have to laugh here because you almost sound just like Michael Savage; and I highly doubt you favor him. There's much about him I myself disagree with. In the end, if whatever product is offered to the public and the public chooses it, that's OK with me. If you're concerned about manipulation, than that's a huge reason to restrict government regulation. I fully support anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws; but again am cautious as to how they are used and how much government should be allowed to break up businesses (they were horribly applied in the government attempt to bust up Microsoft). Heavy government restrictions and regulations vastly decrease consummer choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Anyway, back to global warming. It is funny, that prior to 1995, the public was catching onto global warming and the scientists were approaching a consensus on the fact that it was really happening. A strategy was created by the republican media adviser Frank Luntz to drill into the public's mind that there are differences of opinions between scientists. Many years later, the enlightened Luntz himself came to the conclusion that global warming is in fact real and man made. But that idea that there is still a debate between scientists is still pushed onto the people as of today and people are swallowing it.
Anybody that places any political party first, I do not trust. Which is why I've always carried a disfavorable view of "El Rushbo" and recently my opinion of Hannity has majorly plummetted. but, regardless, if I see anybody speak what I see as truth, I'll support that aspect of them.

But are you insinuating that Luntz is the reason for skepticism? i'm sure he may be an influence; but there are lots of scientists who not just disagree with the notion that CO2s are responsible for Global Warming but even among those who agree they do raise the world's temperatures still disagree that there is ample evidence that shows an impending disaster unless we reduce them. I whish I could find the Hannity and Colmes video where jsut that kind of scientist was interviewed. Perhaps it's on YouTube.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 25th, 2007 at 1:52 PM. Reason: Grammar and clarification
  #269  
Old April 25th, 2007, 2:39 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
zhimbo

Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
Maple S.:

While I must say I really don't follow your reply very well at all, I'll certainly consider that topic finished.
Yes, it was poorly written. I guess the major point is that I deliberatly interpreted Al Gore's call for a "total carbon freeze" as literal because according to Al Gore's lifestyle, there is "no other way" to interpret it. It was my fault that this wasn't more clearly explaind when you originally popped in.

Here is what I understand Al Gore has proposed. In purple are my replies:
  1. An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050. (this is in no way plausable. This is based on the assumption that CO2s are responsible for the raising global temperatures in which an inevitable catastrophy is highly in doubt. Solar energy can much more accurately explain the raise in global temperature as well as the Earth being in the latter end of a "Little Ice Age". how do you forsee this being accomplished wthout making businesses comply?)
  2. Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions. (By it's vary nature, taxes force people to comply. Taxation by and large strip the public of resources and greatly impedes economical and technological growth. So vote "yes" to decrease the income tax but vote "no" to the new carbon taxes. Any one whish to guess whose business will enormously benefit from a carbon tax? Doesn't that worry anyone but me?)
  3. Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition. (Put aside all taxes and replace them with one national sales tax. In terms of government policy, that will help the poor more than anything else)
  4. Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010. (Again, entering a country into a treaty forces its citizens - or subjects as it applies here - to comply. People will have no choice and would be forced to live a science that hasn't even been proven yet. Again, wind patterns, sea patterns, and solar activity can also explain Global Warming).
  5. Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration. (I agree to filter industry for toxins; but for CO2s? Like I said, it's not even proven science. Even if it were, the scientific method allows for ever continual research and understanding. The debate is never over in science.)
  6. Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates. (Awesome idea; but forcing it through government will propably not be wise.)
  7. Raise CAFE standards. (No way, they are not needed to be raised. If they are, itll be done out of fear and emotional reaction, not out of reason. Doing this will force all businesses to comply. Isn't that what you say Al Gore is not advocating?).
  8. Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs. (My house was just fitted with a cfl light bulb in every socket because they can save us a bit on our nearly $400/month electric bill during the blazing hot Houston summer months. I learned, however, through a "non factual" source, and therefore I'm washing my brain, that cfls have Mercury. See what forcing people to change can do? Now I have to worry about them breaking and getting Mercury into my house and inflicting illness on my family (wife, children, and myself). Again, banning them would force people to comply; and, of course, Al Gore does not want that, right?).
  9. Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building. (This sounds pretty cool).
  10. Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk." (Why is this needed. To force companies to comply to a non-scientific "fact"? Al Gore should be appalled at whome ever proposed this ).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...c_b_43952.html

CFLs: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55213

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 25th, 2007 at 8:24 PM. Reason: Explanation and Grammar
  #270  
Old April 25th, 2007, 8:01 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Carbon Creditless

Just something to watch as it unfolds...

Got this from Drudge Report. Hope it's factual.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

What are these carbon offset companies supposed to be doing anyway? are they supposed to plant trees or what? Don't logging companies plant trees after they cut them down? My wife planted a tree, can we sell the credits?
  #271  
Old April 25th, 2007, 8:44 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Now, about my brainwashing... How was my citing WND not factually correct? Did not Al Gore not refuse to take the beforementioned oath? Also, have not Global Climatic scares been published in the past? Are they not similar to that being puplicized today?
Your links are just diversion tactics that tries to lay the blame on the messenger. If the pundits shift the blame, you gladly go along. I think nobody here fell for the trap except for when zhimbo came along.

Quote:
In fact, the most destrutive effects of the Industrial Revolution are a result of not caring about how to treat others. That is a moral issue far greater in scope than regulating greenhouse gasses; and it is compatible to my viewpoint that life can be and does suffer and gets destroyed far quicker by immoral choices by man than by greenhouse gasses. To this end, I support government regulating age, minumum wage, overtime, working conditions, etc. though here I think we should be very cautious in how much government should regulate business.
The industrial revolution is what brought about the robber barons that turned this country into a kleptocracy. Not to take credit away from the Supreme court and the rest of govt that laid the way for them to come into power.

Quote:
I have to laugh here because you almost sound just like Michael Savage; and I highly doubt you favor him. There's much about him I myself disagree with. In the end, if whatever product is offered to the public and the public chooses it, that's OK with me. If you're concerned about manipulation, than that's a huge reason to restrict government regulation. I fully support anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws; but again am cautious as to how they are used and how much government should be allowed to break up businesses (they were horribly applied in the government attempt to bust up Microsoft). Heavy government restrictions and regulations vastly decrease consummer choice.
There is the assumption that if the government just disappears, people would just have the free will to live the way they want. But that just a blindsight since the multi-national corporations are there waiting to suck up whatever power vacuum that is have been left. You will get control and manipulation of the public either way. Believe me, there are many on the left that don't want any power to exist, whether it be the corporate owned subsidiary of the US govt or the mega corps themself.

Quote:
Anybody that places any political party first, I do not trust. Which is why I've always carried a disfavorable view of "El Rushbo" and recently my opinion of Hannity has majorly plummetted. but, regardless, if I see anybody speak what I see as truth, I'll support that aspect of them.
But you yourself are unintentionally brainwashed by the pundits. Given that you seem to reference them so much. That's why the so called liberal pundits on those shoutfests are also nothing more than corporate shills.

Quote:
But are you insinuating that Luntz is the reason for skepticism? i'm sure he may be an influence; but there are lots of scientists who not just disagree with the notion that CO2s are responsible for Global Warming but even among those who agree they do raise the world's temperatures still disagree that there is ample evidence that shows an impending disaster unless we reduce them. I whish I could find the Hannity and Colmes video where jsut that kind of scientist was interviewed. Perhaps it's on YouTube.
Luntz came up with the whole idea of casting doubt in the science behind global warming. The whole idea that there is a belief that there isn't a consensus on global warming shows how effective his strategy is, the agenda lives on even if the man behind it doesn't (as a believer). If you think these ideas just comes out of thin air (or are created by pundits), you are mistaken. The political strategist and advisors (who are the wizards on perception of the public), creates initiatives to manipulate the public so they would sway to the direction of what the policy makers wants to do. Terms like "climate change", "healthy forest", "no child left behind", "ownership society", etc are all terms created to persuade people to think that they are good ideas without knowing what's really behind it.
  #272  
Old April 25th, 2007, 8:55 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Just something to watch as it unfolds...

Got this from Drudge Report. Hope it's factual.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

What are these carbon offset companies supposed to be doing anyway? are they supposed to plant trees or what? Don't logging companies plant trees after they cut them down? My wife planted a tree, can we sell the credits?
I mentioned that this cap and trade scheme is nothing more than to benefit a few and will be manipulated by the ones who benefits from the manipulation. That is exactly what this article is saying. I also said the deniers might as well join in on the green gold rush because if there is money to be made from it, you can be sure companies will go after it. It would not be whether they believe it or not, but how much it would line their pocket up. Not sure what Drudge is trying to spin this into. But FT is reporting on the corporate fraud that's taking place.
  #273  
Old April 26th, 2007, 8:14 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
I mentioned that this cap and trade scheme is nothing more than to benefit a few and will be manipulated by the ones who benefits from the manipulation. That is exactly what this article is saying. I also said the deniers might as well join in on the green gold rush because if there is money to be made from it, you can be sure companies will go after it. It would not be whether they believe it or not, but how much it would line their pocket up. Not sure what Drudge is trying to spin this into. But FT is reporting on the corporate fraud that's taking place.
Actually, I think I do remember you saying this in previous posts. Looks like you called it Lwang; and right the money!!!
  #274  
Old April 26th, 2007, 8:48 AM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Your links are just diversion tactics that tries to lay the blame on the messenger. If the pundits shift the blame, you gladly go along. I think nobody here fell for the trap except for when zhimbo came along.
I have to preface that my knowledge of science is limited. that is in quantity, not necessarily in capability. Though there are times where I do need to ask questions as to what somethingsmean. I still do not know about the carbon cycle you and Nigel wrote about. Is it similar to the water or nitrogen cycle? If so, that'll at least give me an idea as to the concept you two wrote about.

My links focus on human action. Let's just say, theoretically, that we all agree cO2s are causing Global warming. Without acting on it, what worth is that agreement. The entire Global Warming/Climatic Change debate is to rally people to do something. I am dead-set opposed to allowing government to become bigger, "richer" from taxes, and more heavy-handed from this debate. So I honestly do not intend a diversion tactic; but a humanistic tactic, if you will. Once knowledge is gain, people must act, or that knowledge is worthless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
The industrial revolution is what brought about the robber barons that turned this country into a kleptocracy. Not to take credit away from the Supreme court and the rest of govt that laid the way for them to come into power.
While I do not condemn the Industrial Revolution, it was an awesome evolution of man, it was a time where people were horrifically abused. Women and children especially. That is why I do support government regulations in industry; but given too much regulation, industry can easily be crippled. All countries with heavy government restrictions are far less advanced industrialwise than the US. Also, the US can prosper much more economically, industrially, and technologically, were the government to ease restrictions like drilling offshores and in ANWR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
There is the assumption that if the government just disappears, people would just have the free will to live the way they want. But that just a blindsight since the multi-national corporations are there waiting to suck up whatever power vacuum that is have been left. You will get control and manipulation of the public either way. Believe me, there are many on the left that don't want any power to exist, whether it be the corporate owned subsidiary of the US govt or the mega corps themself.
James Madison, the writter of the US Constitution, wrote that if men were angels, there would be no reason to have government. But he concluded that men are not angels so that government is necessary and the trick is to get the government to govern itself. The Constituion is an absolutely brilliant step forward in that direction. The way I see it, the more heavy-handed the government gets, the less it governs itself and the more opressive it becomes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
But you yourself are unintentionally brainwashed by the pundits. Given that you seem to reference them so much. That's why the so called liberal pundits on those shoutfests are also nothing more than corporate shills.
Why are all scientists that dissent "corporate shills"? Why is there only pure and noble science when it's government-funded?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Luntz came up with the whole idea of casting doubt in the science behind global warming. The whole idea that there is a belief that there isn't a consensus on global warming shows how effective his strategy is, the agenda lives on even if the man behind it doesn't (as a believer). If you think these ideas just comes out of thin air (or are created by pundits), you are mistaken. The political strategist and advisors (who are the wizards on perception of the public), creates initiatives to manipulate the public so they would sway to the direction of what the policy makers wants to do. Terms like "climate change", "healthy forest", "no child left behind", "ownership society", etc are all terms created to persuade people to think that they are good ideas without knowing what's really behind it.
I can't stand No Child Left Behind; but you are absolutely correct tha tthe wording is a touchey-good feeling. But the sad fact that NCLB is leaving many a child behind. Teachers and principals too. But I see the same thing with Al Gore and the whole carbon offset tdeal. People are buying into it because it makes them feel good. I felt like I was doing good for replacing all my incandescent light bulbs wit hcfl ones. Then I find out they contain mercury. Yuck!!! Neither Wal-Mart, Al Gore, nor any enviromental group told me of that. And they are still being promoted without the warning. Just look at zhimbo's last link.

Now "healthy forest"? If that means permitting hunting and small fires, then I actually agree with that policy.

Now, were there not scientists who have always disagreed about the Global Climate Change theories that have come and gone? Global disaster is always in the news, but they do not happen. Today's debate I see no different. Why should I?

Now, you point actually goes back to my previous point in that there are going to be real political implications from the whole GW debate. That is one reason that I focus a lot, but not exclusively, on the people behind the song and dance. Whatever action is taken, it will affect everbody's life.
  #275  
Old April 26th, 2007, 12:21 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
My links focus on human action. Let's just say, theoretically, that we all agree cO2s are causing Global warming. Without acting on it, what worth is that agreement. The entire Global Warming/Climatic Change debate is to rally people to do something. I am dead-set opposed to allowing government to become bigger, "richer" from taxes, and more heavy-handed from this debate. So I honestly do not intend a diversion tactic; but a humanistic tactic, if you will. Once knowledge is gain, people must act, or that knowledge is worthless.
Since this is a society where money talks, gov't has always been using money to either dissuade certain behaviors or provide incentive, either it be the alcohol or cigarette tax, or tax breaks on certain type of research. They do it everyday with the federal reserve manipulating the interest rate to steer people to put their money in certain investments.

Having an idealogical bent on thinking taxes just makes the govt to become richer blindsights you to thinking it is the government that is getting fat on it. Much of what goes on in the tax codes benefits the plutocrats, and they are phrased in such a way to make the common J6P outraged or complacent. "death tax" is just one such example. It benefits nobody but the super rich, but it tricked the whole blue collar conservative movement to be against it. The end result is not less taxes, but more taxes for those people because the money has to come from somewhere, usually having that burden shifted to the state and local level with increased taxes or surcharges somewhere else.

The left/right wing pundits, who are nothing more than corporate shills, steers clear of those points because their paymasters wants to be behind the safety of their gated communities and board rooms while the masses gets intentionally divided and slug it out with each other. The winner would think they have won the battle, but all they would have done is slay the false enemy.

Quote:
Why are all scientists that dissent "corporate shills"? Why is there only pure and noble science when it's government-funded?
Many science are funded by the government because there are immediate payoff on them, plus there are alot of basic science research that paves the foundation to commercializable science.

gov't science are not all noble either. Many of the biggest science projects by the govt and gov't financed universities are military related.

There were many climate research science done at the scientists level, but gets shut down if it does not fit with the policies of the government, as recently witnessed by director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies James Hansen's having the administration edit his climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.

Quote:
I felt like I was doing good for replacing all my incandescent light bulbs wit hcfl ones. Then I find out they contain mercury. Yuck!!! Neither Wal-Mart, Al Gore, nor any enviromental group told me of that. And they are still being promoted without the warning. Just look at zhimbo's last link.
You just get fooled by these idealogical pundits that has their mind set on to be against anything that is from the environmental left. There might be mercury in the CFL, but they emit much less mercury in their lifetime than the incandescent bulbs they replace because of all the mercury laden coal that is used to generate those electricity. Look at the EPA's estimated mercury emission for both type of bulbs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onment.svg.png

And there are also benefits of less electricity usage and cooler operating temp.

Quote:
Now, you point actually goes back to my previous point in that there are going to be real political implications from the whole GW debate. That is one reason that I focus a lot, but not exclusively, on the people behind the song and dance. Whatever action is taken, it will affect everbody's life.
The elected officials will not take action on anything unless they feel something is at stake since they have arrived at their destination because of the comfortable relationship with whomever that brought them to power. That is why everything has to start at the grass root level (which is where the green movement started a long time ago). When they do eventually get traction on something and the officials feels the heat (not just by the citizens, but by their corporate paymasters, who are also feeling the heat from their consumers), that is when they start to take action. Of course, the officials have their idealogical bend and still have to bow to the money that brought them to power, so whatever stand that they eventually take, it will be primarily to benefit the people or group that is waiting for their payback.
  #276  
Old April 26th, 2007, 2:28 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Since this is a society where money talks, gov't has always been using money to either dissuade certain behaviors or provide incentive, either it be the alcohol or cigarette tax, or tax breaks on certain type of research. They do it everyday with the federal reserve manipulating the interest rate to steer people to put their money in certain investments.

Having an idealogical bent on thinking taxes just makes the govt to become richer blindsights you to thinking it is the government that is getting fat on it. Much of what goes on in the tax codes benefits the plutocrats, and they are phrased in such a way to make the common J6P outraged or complacent. "death tax" is just one such example. It benefits nobody but the super rich, but it tricked the whole blue collar conservative movement to be against it. The end result is not less taxes, but more taxes for those people because the money has to come from somewhere, usually having that burden shifted to the state and local level with increased taxes or surcharges somewhere else.

The left/right wing pundits, who are nothing more than corporate shills, steers clear of those points because their paymasters wants to be behind the safety of their gated communities and board rooms while the masses gets intentionally divided and slug it out with each other. The winner would think they have won the battle, but all they would have done is slay the false enemy.


Many science are funded by the government because there are immediate payoff on them, plus there are alot of basic science research that paves the foundation to commercializable science.

gov't science are not all noble either. Many of the biggest science projects by the govt and gov't financed universities are military related.

There were many climate research science done at the scientists level, but gets shut down if it does not fit with the policies of the government, as recently witnessed by director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies James Hansen's having the administration edit his climate-related press releases reported by federal agencies to make global warming seem less threatening.


You just get fooled by these idealogical pundits that has their mind set on to be against anything that is from the environmental left. There might be mercury in the CFL, but they emit much less mercury in their lifetime than the incandescent bulbs they replace because of all the mercury laden coal that is used to generate those electricity. Look at the EPA's estimated mercury emission for both type of bulbs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...onment.svg.png

And there are also benefits of less electricity usage and cooler operating temp.

The elected officials will not take action on anything unless they feel something is at stake since they have arrived at their destination because of the comfortable relationship with whomever that brought them to power. That is why everything has to start at the grass root level (which is where the green movement started a long time ago). When they do eventually get traction on something and the officials feels the heat (not just by the citizens, but by their corporate paymasters, who are also feeling the heat from their consumers), that is when they start to take action. Of course, the officials have their idealogical bend and still have to bow to the money that brought them to power, so whatever stand that they eventually take, it will be primarily to benefit the people or group that is waiting for their payback.
WOW!!!

A) Military research is necessary. Green policies will not protect this nation from attack. So military funding is not a good example of how government science is corrupted. Or do you think planting trees defeated the Nazis?

B) Mercury emissions are not the same as having mercury in your home. Toxins are emitted all the time and naturally filtered out in the atmosphere. So unless you smoke, which conducts a "healthy" dose of toxins directly into your body, emitted toxins do not affect you as nearly as much as having the actual toxin in your home. Also, mercury emissions can be filtered out from the coal burning, having mercury in your home is, by the mere fact that it's there, not filtered out. Mercury is a carcinogen if I'm not mistaken. I do not see how advocating placing mercury in people's homes is better than having more mercury emissions as helping people save themselves from destruction. I think mercury can also cause brain damage. That's where "mad-hatter" comes from. It'll be like advocating people to use a type of water that has lead in it so that lead emissions are reduced. So let me ask you, would you like mercury in your home, you know, to "save" the planet, or would you rather have higher mercury emissions?

C) The fact that government works on taxes makes it more difficult to usher in the fair tax. By advocating taxes, you pretty much advocate government control. This is necessary but don't get carried away with it. As for the death tax: it's the people's money, let them keep it. your money belongs to you. If you want to give it away, do so. If not, there is no reason for it to be taken from you.

D) Grassroots movements are great. I'm involved in one myself right now, however limited my capacity is. But they are a matter of priorities. You seem to favor green movements so I don't think you'd support the largest grassroots movement in the country which is the NRA. But, when used effectively, they do get political attention.

E) How come I'm brainwashed and you're not?

Solar Warming

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...solar-warming/

Am I brainwashed to think this is correct? And if you disagree with this report, doesn't that just show there is no universal consensus on Global Warming? I know, Duke is a conservative university so they're brainwashed and corrupt... but did Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West use science to conclude this theory or did they not? They don't even say that anthropogenic GW doesn't exist; just it's not huge a factor as others say. you know those who say, "the debate is over."
  #277  
Old April 26th, 2007, 2:40 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Solar Warming

Here's a counter article I previously posted. It has a chart I believe you previously posted. How much of the debate should be "over".

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html
  #278  
Old April 26th, 2007, 9:29 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
A) Military research is necessary. Green policies will not protect this nation from attack. So military funding is not a good example of how government science is corrupted. Or do you think planting trees defeated the Nazis?
Military research is not beneign, and it being an industry, has to grow just like all the other industries. The perpetuating of conflict and fear at home and in the rest of the world is what allows this industry to thrive, causing the country has to work in the industry's interest.

Quote:
B) Mercury emissions are not the same as having mercury in your home. Toxins are emitted all the time and naturally filtered out in the atmosphere. So unless you smoke, which conducts a "healthy" dose of toxins directly into your body, emitted toxins do not affect you as nearly as much as having the actual toxin in your home. Also, mercury emissions can be filtered out from the coal burning, having mercury in your home is, by the mere fact that it's there, not filtered out. Mercury is a carcinogen if I'm not mistaken. I do not see how advocating placing mercury in people's homes is better than having more mercury emissions as helping people save themselves from destruction. I think mercury can also cause brain damage. That's where "mad-hatter" comes from. It'll be like advocating people to use a type of water that has lead in it so that lead emissions are reduced. So let me ask you, would you like mercury in your home, you know, to "save" the planet, or would you rather have higher mercury emissions?
Mercury in a sealed unit causes no harm. It comes down to the disposal issue. Mercury emitted into the atmosphere does not get filtered out, but percipitates back to earth and finds its way back to the human body. Practically all the mercury related fetus grown issues are from power plants.

I have mercury filled thermometer, mecury filled switches in my home. As long as they are sealed, there is no issue with them.

Quote:
C) The fact that government works on taxes makes it more difficult to usher in the fair tax. By advocating taxes, you pretty much advocate government control. This is necessary but don't get carried away with it. As for the death tax: it's the people's money, let them keep it. your money belongs to you. If you want to give it away, do so. If not, there is no reason for it to be taken from you.
The fact that government dictates the taxes is laughable. The massive amount of loopholes left in them are there for a reason, and it is not so J6P could sneak their deductions in. Some other powerful group want it that way so they could keep driving their mac trucks through those loopholes.

Quote:
D) Grassroots movements are great. I'm involved in one myself right now, however limited my capacity is. But they are a matter of priorities. You seem to favor green movements so I don't think you'd support the largest grassroots movement in the country which is the NRA. But, when used effectively, they do get political attention.
NRA has grown and mutated into a behmoth that's nothing more than a guns or death lobby. When they get too big and powerful, they start acting like a bull in a china shop, where it cares about nothing else and destroys everything in its path.

I'm not a green or death advocate. There are other issues more important. But pushing green is part of fighting the power that is so against it. Just like the global warming movement. Once that gets accepted by the power, the next fight is against the power that will use it to corrupt the system.

Quote:
E) How come I'm brainwashed and you're not?
Because I keep hearing from you the "talking point" lines that's spewed out by these corporate shill in conservative clothing pundits. I don't get anything out of the corporate shill in liberal clothing pundits. They only throw mud at each other on topics that they are allowed discuss, while shielding their paymasters.
In fact, I rarely go after the wingnuts, since those 2 groups does just fine playing their little game not unlike the World Wresteling Entertainment. I usually go after the so called liberal pundits and democrats because of they basically acts as a gatekeeper on the issues that could be brought onto the table. Heck, many people I know who voted democrats were shocked at first that I go after practically everyone on the party ticket that they think that I am some wingnut. It is just that they are tricked into thinking that they only have a choice between eating spoiled food or drinking sour milk.

Quote:
Am I brainwashed to think this is correct? And if you disagree with this report, doesn't that just show there is no universal consensus on Global Warming? I know, Duke is a conservative university so they're brainwashed and corrupt... but did Nicola Scafetta and Bruce West use science to conclude this theory or did they not? They don't even say that anthropogenic GW doesn't exist; just it's not huge a factor as others say. you know those who say, "the debate is over."
I think I have said it already, their research is not new, but a rehash of their earlier work. Even a scientist that helped research and write the paper says there are so much unknowns that nothing could be concluded.

But the fact is, in the media, for the sake of balanced coverage, they have gave a vastly disproportional coverage to the doubters and deniers compared to the number of scientists with those beliefs. Given that the IPCC scientists have a consensus on the human contribution to global warming (in 1990 and 2002), a study in 2004 on articles about global warming as covered by NYT, LAT, WP and WSJ showed that 53% of the articles gave equal coverage to human contribution and natural fluctuation, 6% cast doubt on the human cause, 6% gave exclusive views of human cause, and 35% emphasized the human cause while also presenting the view from the other side. The articles does not reflect an accurate view of the consensus of the scientists, giving an impression that there are big disagreement between scientists where there is not, all for the sake of balance.
  #279  
Old April 27th, 2007, 3:03 PM
zhimbo's Avatar
zhimbo zhimbo is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2007
Posts: 15
zhimbo is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Yes, it was poorly written. I guess the major point is that I deliberatly interpreted Al Gore's call for a "total carbon freeze" as literal because according to Al Gore's lifestyle, there is "no other way" to interpret it. It was my fault that this wasn't more clearly explaind when you originally popped in.
Well, since you insist on bringing this up again...

OK, to clarify then: In which part below (1,2,3,4,5,6) were you using "satire" and in fact perfectly understood what Gore meant? It seems to only to apply to 5 and 6, indicating that you are still trying to avoid admitting you were simply wrong.

Are you telling me that, for instance, part 4 (post 154) is supposed to be satire?


1. Post 140
Quote:
And when time comes for Al Gore to approach a total carbon freeze (an absolute impossibility)

2. Post 146
Quote:
He can have a home and office in the same building. How much energy does he office work require? And how does that help to produce no carbons?
Quote:
My contention about Gore is if he is proposing a total carbon freeze (an impossibility), then why is he allowed to produce carbons?
3.post 150
Quote:
If Al Gore is going to call for a total "carbon freeze" as he did in the Senate last week, than he needs to start by freezing his own carbon production. Since this is biologically impossible [...] I highly doubt this will be acheived. Since mammals produce extraordinary amounts of CO2 into the air simply be exhaling,

4. Post 154
Quote:
Al gore has called for a carbon freeze. The way I interpret that, it means, no carbons should be produced. Or did I misread Gore?
Quote:
inhofe's oath is far less surpressing for Gore than Gore's own call for a carbon freeze."
Quote:
lease exlain to me/others what a carbon freeze is
5. Post 164
Quote:
So the only thing I'm left to conclude by his call for a total carbon freeze, is exactly that "total carbon freeze" means: completely stop carbon emissions. And, yes, that is insane

6. Post 169
Quote:
"Al Gore never said such a thing." I KNOW HE HAS NOT!!!
  #280  
Old April 27th, 2007, 7:16 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Zhimbo

My last reply was to conclude this topic, not further it. I agree that the matter is closed. Here goes anyway...

Post 146:
My contention about Gore is if he is proposing a total carbon freeze (an impossibility), then why is he allowed to produce carbons?

Yet further down in the same paragraph...

But, according to Gore, [the] end of the world is nigh unless people produce less carbons and he himself will not pledge to produce less carbons.

Focus on, "according to Gore". Here I was acknowledging precisely what you were contending as Gore's actual position on CO2 emissions. Yes, Gore advocates a reduction in total CO2 output. I said as much in this paragraph. Does this cntradict saying that Gore literally means to stop all carbon production? Yes, it does. I contradicted myself. I did so not because I thought that Gore literally meant it; but to satirize Gore's official position. I clearly wrote here Gore's actual position. I know and knew what you were saying was actually true.

Post 150:

Again you quote, "If Al Gore is going to call for a total "carbon freeze" as he did in the Senate last week, than he needs to start by freezing his own carbon production. Since this is biologically impossible [...] I highly doubt this will be acheived. Since mammals produce extraordinary amounts of CO2 into the air simply be exhaling, Gore can start reducing carbon emissions simply by shutting up. But I guess that's another topic for another day."
But...

all along, it has been according to Al gore's actions that he does not mean to cap CO2s at current levels, which is exactly what he said. His actions speak otherwise. So I concluded that "there is no other way" to interpret that what Al gore means that we should cap CO2s, because he has nt capped his; but has increased them since the release on, "An Inconvenient Truth".

You replaced, again, the following with a "[...]": "(and in rational practice, is impossible as well. That would mean no more HSU subwoofers shipped over seas )"

Again, this is crucial. the reason I wrote, "and in rational practice," is to acknowledge that interpreting Al gore's "total carbon freeze" as literal is irrational as expressed by writing, "a biological impossibility,". Again, in the same paragraph I acknowledged that you were correct. That Al Gore was not literally meaning a total carbon freeze.

Post 164:

You cite, "So the only thing I'm left to conclude by his call for a total carbon freeze, is exactly that "total carbon freeze" means: completely stop carbon emissions."
Perspective
This quote totally needs to be put into perspective. In the same paragraph I wrote, "According to Gore's own actions, he does not mean to reduce carbon emissions, nor to prevent an increase. He has increased his own carbon emissions since the release of "An Inconvenient Truth". look at the first theree words because this is the very reason I was so "arrogant" on this issue. The words are "According to Al gore's own actions..."

Let me propose you the scenario I proposed originally in post 169 where I more bluntly acknoledged that you were correct. "If Al Gore says one thing and practices another, than what should I think? If I were to say there should be a "total illegal drug freeze" and then increase my cocain consumption within a year, how could you conclude that what I meant was that there should be no more increase in illegal drug usage? My actions would be completely inconsistant with that interpretation, wouldn't it? And yet you diligently defend Al Gore and attack my credibility?"

It's Al Gore's actions that gets to me. I deliberately made an absurd statement to show how absurb Al gore is. That's satire.

In post 169, I just laid out for you my point of view in a frank, blatant manner. Although I did this in previous posts, perhaps I should have been clear from the get go. That was my fauly for not doing so. A lot of confusion could have been avoided.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 27th, 2007 at 7:21 PM. Reason: Addition to Ending
  #281  
Old April 27th, 2007, 7:34 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
If you want me to think Gore is a hypocrite for refusing Inhofe's joke of an "oath", then you need to find me some evidence that Gore has ever asked everyone to reduce their usage to less than the current American average household, or something more stringent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhimbo View Post
So, what is Gore calling for? No net increase in national production of carbon emissions. Individuals should take steps to minimize their "carbon footprint", but he is NOT calling on EVERY person and/or business to have a legally required freeze, or even that everyone should voluntarily freeze. Gore is a smart person trying to come to realizable solutions, and knows that this not feasible, and that many of the sources of carbon emissions are beyond individual control.
He's NOT calling for households to reduce their production? Please explain the items in my April 25th post (post#269) Pay special attention to items 1 and 4. Let's add in number 2 as well since everybody has to pay taxes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Here is what I understand Al Gore has proposed. In purple are my replies:
  1. An immediate "carbon freeze" that would cap U.S. CO2 emissions at current levels, followed by a program to generate 90% reductions by 2050. (this is in no way plausable. This is based on the assumption that CO2s are responsible for the raising global temperatures in which an inevitable catastrophy is highly in doubt. Solar energy can much more accurately explain the raise in global temperature as well as the Earth being in the latter end of a "Little Ice Age". how do you forsee this being accomplished wthout making businesses comply?)
  2. Start a long-term tax shift to reduce payroll taxes and increase taxes on CO2 emissions. (By it's vary nature, taxes force people to comply. Taxation by and large strip the public of resources and greatly impedes economical and technological growth. So vote "yes" to decrease the income tax but vote "no" to the new carbon taxes. Any one whish to guess whose business will enormously benefit from a carbon tax? Doesn't that worry anyone but me?)
  3. Put aside a portion of carbon tax revenues to help low-income people make the transition. (Put aside all taxes and replace them with one national sales tax. In terms of government policy, that will help the poor more than anything else)
  4. Create a strong international treaty by working toward "de facto compliance with Kyoto" and moving up the start date for Kyoto's successor from 2012 to 2010. (Again, entering a country into a treaty forces its citizens - or subjects as it applies here - to comply. People will have no choice and would be forced to live a science that hasn't even been proven yet. Again, wind patterns, sea patterns, and solar activity can also explain Global Warming).
  5. Implement a moratorium on construction of new coal-fired power plants that are not compatible with carbon capture and sequestration. (I agree to filter industry for toxins; but for CO2s? Like I said, it's not even proven science. Even if it were, the scientific method allows for ever continual research and understanding. The debate is never over in science.)
  6. Create an "ELECTRANET" -- a smart electricity grid that allows individuals and businesses to feed power back in at prevailing market rates. (Awesome idea; but forcing it through government will propably not be wise.)
  7. Raise CAFE standards. (No way, they are not needed to be raised. If they are, itll be done out of fear and emotional reaction, not out of reason. Doing this will force all businesses to comply. Isn't that what you say Al Gore is not advocating?).
  8. Set a date for a ban on incandescent light bulbs. (My house was just fitted with a cfl light bulb in every socket because they can save us a bit on our nearly $400/month electric bill during the blazing hot Houston summer months. I learned, however, through a "non factual" source, and therefore I'm washing my brain, that cfls have Mercury. See what forcing people to change can do? Now I have to worry about them breaking and getting Mercury into my house and inflicting illness on my family (wife, children, and myself). Again, banning them would force people to comply; and, of course, Al Gore does not want that, right?).
  9. Create "Connie Mae," a carbon-neutral mortgage association, to help defray the upfront costs of energy-efficient building. (This sounds pretty cool).
  10. Have the SEC require disclosure of carbon emissions in corporate reporting, as a relevant "material risk." (Why is this needed. To force companies to comply to a non-scientific "fact"? Al Gore should be appalled at whome ever proposed this ).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...c_b_43952.html

CFLs: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55213
Doh, how could I forget to aks you to also look at the last item.

Clearly, Gore DOES want to force households and businesses to comply to reducing CO2s.That's what taxes and government regulations do by their very existance. I say, if you really are concerned about the environment (and we all are to different degrees), then educate people and let them be free to develope whatever is necessary to tackle the issue.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : April 27th, 2007 at 7:49 PM.
  #282  
Old April 30th, 2007, 6:18 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Gore and Cow Farts

Gore Gone Wild story... On the Canadians, eh?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070428...anadausclimate

The United Nincompoops must act quickly to stop ALL cow farting and burping!!!

http://shotsacrossthebow.com/archives/000848.html
  #283  
Old May 1st, 2007, 2:34 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Just thought I'd check in with a url I'm sure many have seen already today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/...warming_ice_dc

Scambos is a scientist with pretty clean credentials and not beholden to anyone in particular. The organizations support comes from government sources and there are no clearly identifiable agendas hiding in the shadows that I can see.

I'm not sure what page all the naysayers and Gore bashers are on, but I am buying new waders and planning a trip to Glacier National Park while there is something to see. Not sure if I'll be able to swing further north to see a Polar Bear or two before they are drowning in the melt, but Nero's fiddle is screeching in my ears.

When you guys decide to agree if the heartburn is really global warming, Al trying to make a few bucks, or part of some other vast conspiracy, post it here, I seem to keep coming back looking for some resolution...
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #284  
Old May 1st, 2007, 4:11 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Just thought I'd check in with a url I'm sure many have seen already today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070501/...warming_ice_dc

Scambos is a scientist with pretty clean credentials and not beholden to anyone in particular. The organizations support comes from government sources and there are no clearly identifiable agendas hiding in the shadows that I can see.

I'm not sure what page all the naysayers and Gore bashers are on, but I am buying new waders and planning a trip to Glacier National Park while there is something to see. Not sure if I'll be able to swing further north to see a Polar Bear or two before they are drowning in the melt, but Nero's fiddle is screeching in my ears.

When you guys decide to agree if the heartburn is really global warming, Al trying to make a few bucks, or part of some other vast conspiracy, post it here, I seem to keep coming back looking for some resolution...
Is it CO2s, solar winds, solar flares, wind streams, water streams, animal flatulance, ending a "Little Ice Age, or a combination? There is no "universal" consensus that I can see. So perhaps you might not get the resolution you want. If you think it's CO2 emission, how do you plan to travel? Polar bears, by the way, may have very well lived in warmer weather for centuries.
  #285  
Old May 1st, 2007, 7:49 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Is it CO2s, solar winds, solar flares, wind streams, water streams, animal flatulance, ending a "Little Ice Age, or a combination? There is no "universal" consensus that I can see. So perhaps you might not get the resolution you want. If you think it's CO2 emission, how do you plan to travel? Polar bears, by the way, may have very well lived in warmer weather for centuries.
The deniers constantly put that "no universal consensus" as a smokescreen, and as I have quoted in a study, the so called liberal media portrays it that way also in the name of providing balance.

Saying polar bear might have very well lived in warmer weather is just putting one's head in the sand. I could deny the existence of practically everything in this universe by using that kind of logic.

Anyway, carbon tax, whether to be collected by your United Nincompoops world government or as a carbon neutral scheme that is being adopted by many business by adding a carbon surcharge on their own (as written about in article below). By selling to the consumer as a feel good charge (thus allowing them to continue conspicuously consume sin free), but at the same time, with no oversight of what is really happening to that money. It could as well disappear into the coffer's pockets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/we...=1&oref=slogin
  #286  
Old May 2nd, 2007, 7:39 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
More on the Polar Bear "controversy"...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0503/p...gi.html?s=yaho

Damned conservationists, save the seals and the bears do better...doh...despite the meltdown
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #287  
Old May 6th, 2007, 7:17 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Just got back from Chicago to see little sister get married off to an awesome guy. She's the last in the litter and so my parents will be greatly enjoying their house to themselves for many years to come. That is, until their grandchildren come to visit. Like they did with me and my wife. I flew back to Houston but will fly back later and drive back to Houston with the family. Ahhhhhhhhh those CO2s I'm producing. I'm such a virus

http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...506180903.aspx

I know this article is on the radical end, but unfortunately this Global Warming hype has given creedence to the enviromentalist cause. Or am I the only one in this forum who thinks that?

Anyway...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
The deniers constantly put that "no universal consensus" as a smokescreen, and as I have quoted in a study, the so called liberal media portrays it that way also in the name of providing balance.
Lwang, there are many scientists who DO NOT believe our current global climatic change will destroy life as we know it. All the articles to this end that I've linked in this forum are those who include scientists who use scientific methods to conclude that there is no evidence of doom from global warming. Virtually all bias in the media that I experience directly is 100% in favor of pronouncing an apocalyptical end (only this one has the "evil" humans winning) to humanity unless we change our energy consuming ways. Anything countrary to that I heard is almost exclusively on talk radio, World Net Daily (the brainwashing club ), Drudge Report, and stuff I google on the internet. There is no universal consensus. For those who are united in pronouncing certain death are funded big bucks by the United Nincompoops and other governmental agencies. Their end agenda is to raise taxes and increase government regulation. If there is no impending disaster then there would be no agrument for thier cause, period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Saying polar bear might have very well lived in warmer weather is just putting one's head in the sand. I could deny the existence of practically everything in this universe by using that kind of logic.
This is in reference to my reply to jmprader in post # 284 where I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
...Polar bears, by the way, may have very well lived in warmer weather for centuries.
Follow the logic on this one.

Here an excerpt from Wikipedia on the Holocene Maximum time period:
At 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites. At 16 sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures were on average 1.6±0.8 °C higher than present. Northwestern North America had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago, while the Laurentide ice sheet still chilled the continent. Northeastern North America experienced peak warming 4,000 years later.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum

Now, to claim I have my head in the sand and infer that I am disregarding all reason you would pretty much have to think along the following lines:
1) You do not think the Holocene Maximum ever existed
2) You do not think that the Holocene Maximum lasted centuries long
3) You do not think polar bears existed during the Holocene Maximum period; that they somehow appeared after the Holocene Maximum ended and the earth began to cool towards where modern-day tempuratures are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Anyway, carbon tax, whether to be collected by your United Nincompoops world government or as a carbon neutral scheme that is being adopted by many business by adding a carbon surcharge on their own (as written about in article below). By selling to the consumer as a feel good charge (thus allowing them to continue conspicuously consume sin free), but at the same time, with no oversight of what is really happening to that money. It could as well disappear into the coffer's pockets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/we...=1&oref=slogin[/quote]

Yes, there is already mucho dinero (a lot of money) to be made by selling CO2 offsets. This helps the consumer to feel good about their lifestyle (a very flawed line of thinking if you ask me). The problem, like your link here shows, and like my previous link showed in post # 270 where I wrote...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Just something to watch as it unfolds...

Got this from Drudge Report. Hope it's factual.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

What are these carbon offset companies supposed to be doing anyway? are they supposed to plant trees or what? Don't logging companies plant trees after they cut them down? My wife planted a tree, can we sell the credits?
...is that there is NO government regulation in this new business; so fraud can run rampantly free. I actually do not mind any business selling CO2 offsets as long as they are open and honest; and people are free to buy it or not. I do not want it forced on people. Now, if there is fraud or intentional deception, then any business caught doing so ought to be held accountable before the law. That is according to fundamental governent regulations I do support.

The huge difference between a business selling this stuff and a tax on this stuff is that the former allows people to chose to participate whereas the latter is something forced on people and people's monies are taken at gunpoint. The latter offers no choice whatsoever for people to opt out. Taxes, by and large, really, really, suck; and impair growth and development while doing awefully little to improve their intentional target. MapleSyrup ain't down with that..
  #288  
Old May 6th, 2007, 7:48 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
China and Socialism

Topic A: Babies are Bad
Let's see, China regulates how many children couples ought to have. So do some enviromentalists:

Excerpt:
"The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added.

Reply:
Um, no. What should be taken into account is that each child has a married Mom and Dad and that Mom and Dad raise their children in a loving and nurturing way. Those situations where there is no two parents, the single parent is equally accountable to the child; but society should always emphasize children having a mother and a fother in his or her life. Limiting children in the name of the environment will lead to suffering, less growth, and shift more costs of society on less people. bad, bad, and bad. Let mom and Dad decide how many children they shoulf have. Though I encourage all married couples to have many babies, according to individual circumstance.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...009760,00.html

Topic B: Spirituality

Excerpt:
"It's in part a spiritual crisis," Gore told the crowd in the Convention Center at the American Institute of Architects national convention. "It's a crisis of our own self-definition — who we are. Are we creatures destined to destroy our own species? Clearly not."

Reply:
Huh? If Al Gore wants to be scientific, then Ok. If he wants to be sipiritual, then, again, OK. If he wants to be both scientific and spiritual, then, awesome!!! But spirituality based on science? Huh? Is there a pergatory for me in his view and a heavenly reward for those "on his side"? Do our CO2s get reincarnated to a better or worse life form? Where's his doctrine? I fully believe in being good stewards of the Earth God created; bt his spiritual message here is based on the Global Warming theory, that's all. Hey, that makes me a non-believer. But that also makes government regulation against CO2 emissions a matter of implamenting church into state law.

Excerpt:
"I used to be the next president of the United States," Gore deadpanned to the laughing crowd as he introduced himself. "I don't find that funny. Put yourself in my position. I flew in Air Force Two for eight years. Now I have to take off my shoes to get on an airplane."

Reply:
Does Al gore fly commercial?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/met...e.35aecd4.html
  #289  
Old May 6th, 2007, 7:59 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Heretic

A perfect follow-up to my last post.

Excerpt: (From a question and answer format)
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.

Reply:
LOL, that's hilarious; but probably true.

http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html
  #290  
Old June 10th, 2007, 9:14 PM
Tomorrow Tomorrow is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 23
Tomorrow is on a distinguished road
There seems to be such a talented and articulate supply of Conspiracy Theorists visiting this thread, I just want to say thank you for turning over all those rocks. Even though none of you are scientists and only mime your particular sources of the 'truth', this thread has provided many hours of reading pleasure and enjoyment in a delightful demonstration of what it is to be an adamant "True Believer".

After all, must not PROOF come with the more determined and fervent posts! Naw!

There is a good lay book on quantum physics by a once sane author named Gary Zukov. It's title is Dancing Wu Li Masters. Wu Li has several definitions, including "physics", and "one who holds one's opinions tightly". Funny how Buddhism links the two. One person's science is another's opinion.

So keep holding on, boys. Not being scientists, perhaps you can change someone's opinion.

Naw. J/K. It won't happen.

By the way, can someone clue me in on the existence of aliens at Area 51?

Last edited by Tomorrow : June 10th, 2007 at 9:25 PM.
  #291  
Old June 13th, 2007, 10:23 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Gleaning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
There seems to be such a talented and articulate supply of Conspiracy Theorists visiting this thread, I just want to say thank you for turning over all those rocks. Even though none of you are scientists and only mime your particular sources of the 'truth', this thread has provided many hours of reading pleasure and enjoyment in a delightful demonstration of what it is to be an adamant "True Believer".

After all, must not PROOF come with the more determined and fervent posts! Naw!

There is a good lay book on quantum physics by a once sane author named Gary Zukov. It's title is Dancing Wu Li Masters. Wu Li has several definitions, including "physics", and "one who holds one's opinions tightly". Funny how Buddhism links the two. One person's science is another's opinion.

So keep holding on, boys. Not being scientists, perhaps you can change someone's opinion.

Naw. J/K. It won't happen.

By the way, can someone clue me in on the existence of aliens at Area 51?
You must have skipped the science parts of this forum. If you're not a scientist, then why are you commenting in a place you seem to think only scientists should speak? If you are a scientist, then, what's your take. Heck, what's your take anyhow?

The only thing I know about Area 51 is that there have been movies about it. Some of it appreared on Independence Day.
  #292  
Old June 14th, 2007, 6:54 AM
Tomorrow Tomorrow is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 23
Tomorrow is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigsub View Post
And yes, I happen to think is is outrageous for Al Gore to make this huge profit for his alarmist views on global warming. Quite frankly, I am amazed at the so call "intellectuals" who give him a free pass regarding this issue.
An interesting sidebar just reported...one of the apparent centerpieces of 'truth' of Gore's movie is the melting of the snowcap of Mt. Kilamanjaro. Turns out that global climate change has nothing to do with it (as the temperature never exceeds freezing there). The lack of snow on the mountain is all due to lower than usual snowfalls and sublimation (similar to the effect of 'freezer burn'), the snow's subsequent evaporation without melting.

Now just how and why is it that Gore's gaggle of scientists didn't think of that?
  #293  
Old June 14th, 2007, 7:57 AM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
An interesting sidebar just reported...one of the apparent centerpieces of 'truth' of Gore's movie is the melting of the snowcap of Mt. Kilamanjaro. Turns out that global climate change has nothing to do with it (as the temperature never exceeds freezing there). The lack of snow on the mountain is all due to lower than usual snowfalls and sublimation (similar to the effect of 'freezer burn'), the snow's subsequent evaporation without melting.

Now just how and why is it that Gore's gaggle of scientists didn't think of that?
Why is the Kaiser dude rehashing his old study? Didn't he write a study already back in 2004 on that topic? He should be moving on to study all the other glaciers that has melted away.

Maybe they don't need to. Look what the author said:

Quote:
Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends.

He hastens to add that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the fact that nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away. Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study.
  #294  
Old June 14th, 2007, 11:46 AM
Tomorrow Tomorrow is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jun 2007
Posts: 23
Tomorrow is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Why is the Kaiser dude rehashing his old study? Didn't he write a study already back in 2004 on that topic? He should be moving on to study all the other glaciers that has melted away.

Maybe they don't need to. Look what the author said:
"Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends. He hastens to add that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the fact that nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away. Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Who's debunking climate change? What's at question is the "science" of the "Inconvenient TRUTH". Or I suppose it could be called a "Convenient Untruth".

Last edited by Tomorrow : June 14th, 2007 at 1:16 PM.
  #295  
Old June 14th, 2007, 3:22 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Lwang

Hi again. Why is your position on anti-global warmists (which does not mean they deny global warming, just do not accept it as the reason for the impending world catastrophy, nor that man is the absolute cause of it) always a "rehash" of former information? do not the pro global warmist simply rehash former agruments as well? World catastrophy from the natural environment due to man's interference has been predictied for well over one hundred years.
  #296  
Old June 14th, 2007, 3:30 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Denver

I'm fine with recycling; but fining people for excessive energy use? Eeeek, stay out of my city politics!!!

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...l_warming.html
  #297  
Old June 14th, 2007, 3:32 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
Who's debunking climate change? What's at question is the "science" of the "Inconvenient TRUTH". Or I suppose it could be called a "Convenient Untruth".
What's inconvenient is just how untrue an Inconvenient Truth is.
  #298  
Old June 14th, 2007, 7:50 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Hi again. Why is your position on anti-global warmists (which does not mean they deny global warming, just do not accept it as the reason for the impending world catastrophy, nor that man is the absolute cause of it) always a "rehash" of former information? do not the pro global warmist simply rehash former agruments as well? World catastrophy from the natural environment due to man's interference has been predictied for well over one hundred years.
There are opportunists on all sides, with many corporations getting ready to get in on the deal with their "free" credits that they could make money out of, and of course, Gore, who knows what has to be done to further his environmental agenda, but who live in the world where profiting from it is always in one's mind, thereby thinking that he mind as well eat the cake too.

There already has been world catastrophes. Us, being humans and the aggressor, are oblivious to it. The almost complete annihilation of buffaloes, sharks, whales, elephants and other species looks very different when seen from their perspective.
  #299  
Old June 15th, 2007, 7:48 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
There are opportunists on all sides, with many corporations getting ready to get in on the deal with their "free" credits that they could make money out of, and of course, Gore, who knows what has to be done to further his environmental agenda, but who live in the world where profiting from it is always in one's mind, thereby thinking that he mind as well eat the cake too.

There already has been world catastrophes. Us, being humans and the aggressor, are oblivious to it. The almost complete annihilation of buffaloes, sharks, whales, elephants and other species looks very different when seen from their perspective.
I agree hunting a species to extinction is stupid. "Illogical", as Spoc said it in Star Trek 4. The catastrophe I referred to was that caused by climatic changed which was caused by humans. The world's end, if you will, has been predicted for over one hundred years and the predictions I refer to have come from scientists and propogated, and even sensationalized, by journalists. So now that we are hearing that man is causing global climatic change and that is going to cause the death of billions of humans and other species, isn't everything simply being "rehashed", as you put it?
  #300  
Old September 12th, 2007, 3:12 PM
Stan Stan is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Posts: 83
Stan is an unknown quantity at this point
500 Scientists Share Their Views...uhoh how did ALGORE miss all of them??!!?:

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...e,176495.shtml
  #301  
Old September 12th, 2007, 7:04 PM
Active Speaker Active Speaker is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Dec 2003
Posts: 213
Active Speaker is on a distinguished road
Alex Jones, Alex Jones..............
  #302  
Old September 12th, 2007, 8:37 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Alex Jones? Doesn't he now work for the jackboots, after being being abducted and knocked up by them?
  #303  
Old September 14th, 2007, 10:11 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Thread active!!!

I'm surprised this thread was still active. Audioholics just shut their thread down on a similar topic. Ah well, it's their site.

Yup, I love those 500 scientists. I first heard about it on the radio and then read abut it on the blog. Good stuff.

Good to see you here again Lwang. Always a pleasure.

Who is Alex jones? And what, exactly are "jackboots"? I've never quite placed that term into context.
  #304  
Old September 16th, 2007, 8:47 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Who is Alex jones? And what, exactly are "jackboots"? I've never quite placed that term into context.
Never heard of this gang? They are uber-liberitians, who's afraid that the gov't has already taken over our lives (strangely, they are very against building walls to separate people in other parts of the wall, but are very for building the wall between US and Mexico.) Their fear of jackboots seem to stem from Bush Sr's advocating UN having a international role, thereby having a blue helmeted world police kicking down our doors. All that time they were so afraid of the world gov't taking our country's power, they obviously missed the US has already became the de-facto world police. The UN did not take sovereignty of the US, but the US has taken away the legitimacy of the UN.
  #305  
Old September 21st, 2007, 7:17 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Un and Jackboots

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
Never heard of this gang? They are uber-liberitians, who's afraid that the gov't has already taken over our lives (strangely, they are very against building walls to separate people in other parts of the wall, but are very for building the wall between US and Mexico.) Their fear of jackboots seem to stem from Bush Sr's advocating UN having a international role, thereby having a blue helmeted world police kicking down our doors. All that time they were so afraid of the world gov't taking our country's power, they obviously missed the US has already became the de-facto world police. The UN did not take sovereignty of the US, but the US has taken away the legitimacy of the UN.

Thanks for the description. I think you already know my sentiments for the Uinted Nincompoops. So no need to reiterate it here (though they do need to back up and get out of my country).

But, no, I read the news a lot but do not recall hearing the term jackboots.
  #306  
Old October 22nd, 2007, 12:03 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
I recently received a great article from my father-in-law, the rocket scientist.

This is a great read that will give something for the naysayers to chew (or choke) on...

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/Ea.../lewis-web.pdf

...sometimes I just can't help myself...
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #307  
Old October 22nd, 2007, 8:47 PM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
I think much of this is discussed, including Gore's nukular option. The main issue is not just efficiency, but consumption. If everybody wants a 5000 sq ft McMansion and use their Expedition as a substitute for their feet, then the efficiency push will only mitigate the effect instead of tackling the problem. The vicous cycle of consumption that was premeditately fed to us so that we could perpetually feed their bottom line is at the core cause. Of course, nobody is going to tell us to head in that direction because that will cause us to stop feeding the corporate beast, which needs every one of our dollar to stay alive.

BTW, where are all the deniers? Still sulking that Gore & the IPCC won the peace prize instead of W or Cheney? Have no fear, the Nobel winning "humanitarian interventionalist", whom is also is a proponent of "State sponsored torture", will probably be pushing "environmental intervention", so do not fret, there would undoubtly be many more countries to invade and topple over.


One thing they missed is tidal and wave energy, which with the extinction of coral reefs, would provide ample area to install them.
  #308  
Old November 22nd, 2007, 12:24 AM
crespowu crespowu is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
crespowu is on a distinguished road
I think it's the destiny of our earth.



How to convert DVD to iPod
  #309  
Old January 16th, 2008, 9:21 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Talking Hi, again

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I recently received a great article from my father-in-law, the rocket scientist.

This is a great read that will give something for the naysayers to chew (or choke) on...

http://pr.caltech.edu/periodicals/Ea.../lewis-web.pdf

...sometimes I just can't help myself...
Before I choke on your article, how are countries without electricity doing? How are African countries who bowed to international pressure not to use their resources doing? How's having no A/C in hospitals going? How's burning sticks better than using natural gas helping mankind?

Just random thoughts. i'll check back here, probably in another couple of months .
  #310  
Old January 17th, 2008, 7:32 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
It's Cooooold

[EXCERPT]

Quote:
While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
Those darn electricity users. They're making the world warm and Greenland freezing cold. i'ts never been tha way before electricity was used. Sheesh.
  #311  
Old March 25th, 2008, 11:26 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
resurrection...

Pay no attention to that ice shelf, the size of connecticut...it's just a slight schism, a slight schism...


http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/03/...ef=mpstoryview

...after all, it's just a coincidence...

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/


btw, I'm trying to do my part, solar panels at my home (with enough juice to handle my Hsu subs, of course!) and at a rural site, just gotta figure out how to get there without gas...
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #312  
Old March 30th, 2008, 6:06 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Pay no attention to that ice shelf, the size of connecticut...it's just a slight schism, a slight schism...

...after all, it's just a coincidence...

btw, I'm trying to do my part, solar panels at my home (with enough juice to handle my Hsu subs, of course!) and at a rural site, just gotta figure out how to get there without gas...
But you're supporting industry by buying HSU subs (which I'm very glad you did, a fine prodct). You are destrying the planet by supporting HSU Research's energy consumption.

And ice melts all the time too.

Quote:
· Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
Wow, the fate of the human race is, without debate (for that is "over"), is bound to happend because of global warming, because humans have raised CO2s levels, and yet scientissts don't understand the data they receive on Global Warming.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025
  #313  
Old March 30th, 2008, 6:11 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push
Quote:
The current temperature is about average for the past 3,000 years.
http://thenewamerican.com/files/2404-F1.jpg


Stupid idiots. What kind of scientists are these? Didn't they get the memo that "the debate is over"? How dare these scentists continue to follow the scientific model and make scientific inqiry against the United Nincompoops' designs and desires?

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpres...-warming-push/
  #314  
Old March 31st, 2008, 5:17 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Chuckle

This gave me a bit of a chuckle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIMelBR3A3w

Also from MIT as reported in the Boston Globe

Quote:
Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."
http://www.boston.com/news/science/a...ent_scientist/

Regarding jmprader's three posts before this one I heard on Glenn Beck a certain Lord (someone) say there was an earthqake soon before where the shelving he has us look at and that the earth's waters have not been warming for the past five years except in that area where the shelving is occuring. That could be from volcanoes. So volcanic activity could explain both the earthquake and warmer tempuratures, unique to that area, and thus the shelving.

Just food for thought.
  #315  
Old April 6th, 2008, 5:17 AM
unbridled_id unbridled_id is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Posts: 1
unbridled_id is on a distinguished road
The real inconvenient truth is Al Gore is a huckster.
  #316  
Old April 29th, 2008, 8:16 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
So Maple Syrup, how are your friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research doing on their 990 filings, much less their credibility?

Or are they working on improving the carbon footprint of the still they must be fond of?

...that's just a reminder of your glossover on this forum, you really do need to back up your claims, if they are to be plausibly credible...

FAST FORWARD TO THE RECENT PAST...

That BG article is soooo 2006. Nonetheless, I will throw you a bone. An Alfred P. Sloan Prof can capture my attention, they are bright people. Is his stance still the same, or was he quoted in the same vein as the TCPR moonshine social club?

Finally, as to 22k scientists with doubts...what does it take to be classified as a scientist? My sister is a Christian Scientist...does that count? Statements like these have as much validity as some of Al Gore's silly charts...none

In the meantime, whilst the Nero's fiddle and 2 out of the 3 little pigs fritter their earnings away pumping petrol into their SUV's instead of saving up for brick house hybrids, I have gone beyond the solar panels at my home (you know, the panels that are helping me offset the cost of operating my beloved HSU subs and their manufacturing process cost contribution to global warming) by investing $250k in solar pv installations in a small office building we own and planning for another $200k of "putting my money where my mouth is" on advance planning for other holdings, just for starters.

...but I'm a conservative guy, for the future of my kids and their friends by reducing my carbon footprint. Heck, if I'm wrong, I just bet wrong on the market...and may have exacerbated that approach with our two ULEV high mpg vehicles (ok, we have a guzzler truck for hauling...), compost pile and never fill the "to the landfill" garbage can credo...and that would be short term pathetic, because, as John Maynard Keynes said "In the long run, we are all dead".

I hope you are enjoying your $4/gal gasoline as it churns carbon emissions into the atmosphere. I'm paying for it too, but trying hard to reduce my carbon footprint to 0 and sandbagging against the frailty of human reason.

I'm still anxiously awaiting some kind of credible argument/evidence that all this brouhaha is patently false. Until then, it's a question of who is supporting a Type I or Type II error in their stats...
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #317  
Old May 9th, 2008, 8:45 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
jmprader

This will be my last post here until the porn is removed. It's been there two days (according to the date it was posted). Very unfortunate. Usually the moderator gets an email in blogs/forums about any posts made. Perhaps Peter's given up in checking up on this entire thread. I sent my report about it. So, like I said, if it's not removed, i'll no longer post here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
So Maple Syrup, how are your friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research doing on their 990 filings, much less their credibility?
I've no idea what a 990 filing is and nobody there is my friend. Was their report on Al Gore's energy consumption correct or not? That was the only reason I posted their findings. Why are they not credible and Al Gore is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Or are they working on improving the carbon footprint of the still they must be fond of?
Who cares about their carbon footpring? I don't even care about Al Gore's carbon footprint but that he wants to tax me for making one far less than his.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
...that's just a reminder of your glossover on this forum, you really do need to back up your claims, if they are to be plausibly credible...
Go back and look stupid. I backed up just about every claim I made and cited the source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
An Alfred P. Sloan Prof can capture my attention, they are bright people. Is his stance still the same, or was he quoted in the same vein as the TCPR moonshine social club?
That (what I highlighted in bold) makes him credible, no? He just differs from what you think. How is the idea of carbons warming the earth any less nastalgic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Finally, as to 22k scientists with doubts...what does it take to be classified as a scientist? My sister is a Christian Scientist...does that count? Statements like these have as much validity as some of Al Gore's silly charts...none
Stop being stupid. Read the article. These are amongst the world's top credentialed scientists, not members of a religion, which is good, but the focus here is on professonal scientists. Some of 22K scientists were used in the IPCC report to conclude that carbons are warming the earth. You know, to announce that "the debate is over", which is the most unscientific conclusion anyone can make.

Previously I've cited Reid Bryson, "Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize '“outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment."'

In an interview Bryson said of carbons, "And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Read article here

There is also Timothy Ball who said, "I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition." Who challenges the notion of man-made carbo emissions being the cause of global warming.

Read Here

NASA recently launched probes into the ocean and concluded that there has been NO, I repeat NO warming during the past few years *except* where you fearful ice shelving occured. There was also volcanic activity just before. That chunck of ice, BTW, has refroze. That's what happens to ice. It freezes and melts, melts and freezes, melts again and refreezes.

Of the NASA probing the earth's waters: "· Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them." Scientists "don't know" what the data is telling them? I thought the debate was over? Furthermore, it was reported that, "This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming." So if "the debate is over" and "the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming", and the oceans have not warmed up in three years, what's the fuss?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=88520025

And here's a URL that has several anti-GW hype articles. One is from the Christian Scientist Monitor. Should make you feel at home with your sister.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I have gone beyond the solar panels at my home (you know, the panels that are helping me offset the cost of operating my beloved HSU subs and their manufacturing process cost contribution to global warming)
Now this is really, really stupid. *If* the human race is in dire need of salvation from carbon emmisions and HSU subs emmit "unnatrual" carbons into the atmoshpere, THAN DON'T BUY HSU subs. Remember my porn comment to launch this reply? Porn is here, porn is dangerous, therefore I will not place myself in the mist of porn. I reported it to get rid of it. So, GET RID OF YOUR SUB. That's what you should do to put your money where your mouth is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
by investing $250k in solar pv installations in a small office building we own and planning for another $200k of "putting my money where my mouth is" on advance planning for other holdings, just for starters.
1) How about promoting nuclear power plants: te cleanest, most carbo-free producition of electricity available forthe masses?

2) If this matter truly concerns you, than dismantle your business completely. That will reduce carbons greatly (in your estimation).

3) Were your business be taxed under a new carbon tax, who much of that hundreds of thousands of dollars would you have to put up solar panels.

4) If you want solar panels on your business, that fine. Don't force it on the masses.

Here's an aricle where a man *can't* install solar panels due to enviromental regulations:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=63234

Do better next time.

Toodles, until this site is porn-free.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : May 9th, 2008 at 8:49 PM. Reason: remove orignal quotes / qualify remark / grammar
  #318  
Old May 12th, 2008, 8:11 AM
Pete_Hsu Pete_Hsu is offline
Hsu Research
 
Member Since: Dec 2004
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 4,212
Pete_Hsu will become famous soon enoughPete_Hsu will become famous soon enough
It was removed, thanks for reporting the post
__________________
Pete - Hsu Research
  #319  
Old May 13th, 2008, 7:55 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Getting a bit testy there...take a chill pill with the "stupid" comments, they detract from the rest of your argument.

But, there is hope on the global warming front. And the hope could well result in the first step towards "peace" for people like you and me. It's 50 minutes in length, but well worth the watch:

http://today.caltech.edu/theater/item?story%5fid=24502
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #320  
Old May 13th, 2008, 8:04 PM
Slinky Slinky is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2008
Posts: 3
Slinky is on a distinguished road
"Eisenhower's warning was understandable ... If we were spending $$$$ at the 1960 rate today, defense spending would be $1.35 TRILLION."

What do you think the US Defense budget is right now? I would think that $1 trillion is about right. Or are we supposed to just read the budget and ignore all of the "off-budget" spending? (We've seen this sort of accounting technique before--say at Enron. I guess it is just a coincidence that the current administration is full of ex-Enron employees.)

In case everyone has forgotten, what did the geniuses at the White House and Pentagon tell us the war was going to cost: $50 billion. They fired the Treasury Secretary (Paul O'Neil) after he said the costs for the war could be as high as $200 billion dollars. It seems this White House has a problem with even inconvenient approximations of the truth.

But, hey, why worry about a silly one (or two or three) trillion dollars. It isn't the first time in history that some wreckless, idiotic leader has taken his country to war and wasted a country's wealth. It has happened before it will happen again. Just like global warming. So let's get on with our life. Because trying to do anything about it will just "wreck" the economy.

PS: Those with short memories will have forgotten that when Clinton proposed a .04/gallon gas tax to raise revenues for research on alternative energy (using that silly idea that you needed to pay for things you wanted to spend money on), all of the Republicans (and some Democrats in Michigan) declared that the tax would wreck the economy, send us into recession, cost million and millions of jobs, etc. At the time gas was around $1.40 a gallon. Even when that amount was cut to $.01, the argument was the same. Fast forward to the Bush administration--until a couple of months ago the line out of the White House and the Republican party was that the effect on the economy of doubling or even tripling gas prices would be 'benign.' (That line didn't come from the President, however, who, until recently, appears to be the only person in the U.S. to be unaware of rising gas prices). During this time, the Republican solution has been to subsidize Exxon et al to do research on alternative energies. Makes sense to me.

Last edited by Slinky : May 14th, 2008 at 5:56 AM.
  #321  
Old May 14th, 2008, 8:13 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Peter

Why thank you. And thanks for removing the post.
  #322  
Old May 14th, 2008, 8:21 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinky;
Fast forward to the Bush administration--until a couple of months ago the line out of the White House and the Republican party was that the effect on the economy of doubling or even tripling gas prices would be 'benign.' (That line didn't come from the President, however, who, until recently, appears to be the only person in the U.S. to be unaware of rising gas prices). During this time, the Republican solution has been to subsidize Exxon et al to do research on alternative energies. Makes sense to me.
Yes, those food subsidies are:

A) releasing new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like methane and nitrogen (I don't really care but that goes completely against the idea people had for subsidizing crops such as corn).

B) Driving gas prices through the roof - has even caused riots throuhghout the world and even the United Nincompops have said that the move has created a crisis

c) Placed the United States in a position where it has to import its own wheat (farmers moving towards corn since its not so profitable to sell). The united States is the worlds' largets wheat producer, or was. It has not had to import its own wheat in over 200 years.

Govnerment intervention leads to making the situation worse.
  #323  
Old May 14th, 2008, 8:27 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Getting a bit testy there...take a chill pill with the "stupid" comments, they detract from the rest of your argument.

But, there is hope on the global warming front. And the hope could well result in the first step towards "peace" for people like you and me. It's 50 minutes in length, but well worth the watch:

http://today.caltech.edu/theater/item?story%5fid=24502
Your logic was stupid. If releasing CO2s is going to wipe out humanity, than stop producing them. Don't offset them, that's a huge scam to make a few peole rich. Also, you accused me of not backing up my comments. I think I've linked the source of my comments extremely well throughout this entire thread. I've also cited some extremely well-credentialed scientists that either say global warming is not man-made or say that the impending doomsday disaster is not scientifically sound. I'll look at the link, don't know when but I'll look at it.
  #324  
Old May 14th, 2008, 8:45 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
jmprader

Before watching your caltech link, I read the synopsis:

Quote:
David Rutledge, Caltech's Tomiyasu Professor of Electrical Engineering, presented a Watson Lecture called "Hubbert's Peak, the Coal Question, and Climate Change." Rutledge discussed whether oil, natural gas, and coal resources will be sufficient in the future, and explained efforts to predict the changes in climate that will result from consuming these fossil fuels.
Before watching this video which will undoubtebly decare the natural resources plummeting let me point you to a blog thread where the peak oil theory was opened for discussion. It points to some realities in the world such as there being 1.3 trillion barrels of proven oil (places where drilling has struck oil and people know it's there). In that blog I pointed out two oil reserves right here in the United States. One in North Dakota and the other between I think it was Colorado and Utah in the form of oil shales. The estimated reserves currently stand at 200 billion barrels for the first and 800 billion for the latter. that's a combined reserve of 1 trillion barrels. Not too far behind the proven oil reserves of the ENTIRE WORLD. This is NOT including ANWR, or the California and Gulf coasts. The thread also points to how nearly impossible it is to get a oil drilling permit here in the US.

So before I get enlightened, via your caltech link, as to the dire scarcity of our resources, please keep these points in mind.

Ps (I'm Darren10 in the blog)

http://lonestartimes.com/2008/05/09/...-oil/#comments

Thanks for your link. I'll take a look.

UPDATE: The caltech link is not hooking up the video portion. I clicked on everything there and no theater video. Let me know what I can do if anything. If not, feel free to summarize the discussion.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : May 14th, 2008 at 8:52 PM. Reason: Update
  #325  
Old May 19th, 2008, 9:07 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
More Global Warming Rejection

GOOD NEWS!!!

Quote:
More than 31,000 scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.
...

Quote:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
More and more scientists are siging the Petition Project to disagree wth the conclusion that man's releasing of CO2s is going to raise the earth's temperatures and create catastrophe around the world. The whole hype is all about moey and power. I've no problem with anyone making money, just do it openly and honestly.

Last edited by MapleSyrup : May 19th, 2008 at 9:10 PM. Reason: Remove URLs and Font codes
  #326  
Old May 20th, 2008, 7:12 AM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Cal Tech neglected to note that you need to have at least a free version of RealPlayer installed.
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #327  
Old May 25th, 2008, 7:42 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
So Maple Syrup, how are your friends at the Tennessee Center for Policy Research doing on their 990 filings, much less their credibility?
http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_...200612_990.pdf

Do you consider these guys (or should I say, this guy) to be credible sources, or do you want to walk away from these nimrods?

Answer the question, don't change the subject. We have a long road to travel if you are honest and sincere.
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #328  
Old May 25th, 2008, 7:53 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
GOOD NEWS!!!


More and more scientists are siging the Petition Project to disagree wth the conclusion that man's releasing of CO2s is going to raise the earth's temperatures and create catastrophe around the world. The whole hype is all about moey and power. I've no problem with anyone making money, just do it openly and honestly.
scientists...? Some of these schmoes have doctoral degrees, most do not.

Moronic logic.
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #329  
Old May 25th, 2008, 8:27 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
jmprader

What are you talking about? 9,000 have PhDs in fields related to earth's temperature. How many PhD scientists are there in the United States and in these fields? What moronic logic is there? The only thing is they disagree wth what you believe. That's the ony reason you conclude that this is "moronic".
  #330  
Old May 25th, 2008, 8:34 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Your logic was stupid.
You cannot event remember what you posted, can you? Here's your line:

"Go back and look stupid."

That's a direct quote. You don't even remember what you posted, do you? Or do you conveniently forget? Do I get a real apology, or will you just blast off on some more inanity?

BTW, your I saw your post regarding massive reserves in shale...


“America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times…”

Is your day job somehow affiliated with the oil industry, or what?

Don't make no never mind...your claims are bad juju and absolutely not supportable. Most oil in shale is not recoverable even under current market conditions. And, if you ain't been paying attention, most of the Middle East reserves are being written down of late...seems they are having trouble counting.

Andecdotally, we own property that was under a very lucrative lease for shale extraction, back when oil was $16-33/bbl. Big oil walked away more than 20 years ago, and they ain't been back recently. Am I gonna be rich? Or are you just blowing more smoke up anyone silly enough to check in here? I'd love the former, I'm betting on the latter...and I'm not quite sure what the "H" oil reserves have to do with reduction of global warming, which, after all is the primary thrust of this thread.

Sorry to be soooo stupid...but I live to experience truth...feel free to enlighten me/us.
__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #331  
Old May 25th, 2008, 9:29 PM
jmprader jmprader is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: May 2005
Location: Salinas, CA
Posts: 223
jmprader is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
What are you talking about? 9,000 have PhDs in fields related to earth's temperature. How many PhD scientists are there in the United States and in these fields? What moronic logic is there? The only thing is they disagree wth what you believe. That's the ony reason you conclude that this is "moronic".
Maple:

Didn't look to see the credential, much less the tranches, but 9k is pretty good, though it's a fraction of the phd's loitering around just the SF bay area, so I'm not quite convinced with the "lots of smart guys" argument. The UCS has plenty of phd's, too. In my industry, there are plenty of smart guys (phd's in bus/stats/econ) who are eating their words over residential lending strategies about now...or they continue to spout drivel.

Also, don't ignore what is inconvenient for your "case". Let's get your response to the credibility of those TN research guys. Then, how about a little disclosure of your affiliation/employment/consulting relationship, if any, with the petroleum/energy industry.

For the record:

I am 53. I have an undergrad degree in Political Economics for UC Berkeley and an MBA from the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth. I am a self-employed real estate consultant< and an own-account/related party real estate investor/manager. I serve small market clients, more than 75% of my assignments have <$12m project cost. I have no affiliation with the energy industry other than the fact that I fill my gas tank at the gas station, am attached to PG&E's grid, and have a propane tank. To my knowledge, I have no direct or indirect stock ownership of any petrochemical companies, period...not even in a mutual fund holding. Same goes for any investments in alternative energy companies...but I have made hard dollar investments in alternative energy products for my home and business.

Address outstanding challenges, tell us about yourself, then take me to task.

__________________
John Prader
Salinas, CA

...trying hard to be a subwar pacifist
  #332  
Old May 29th, 2008, 8:07 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
jmprader

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
You cannot event remember what you posted, can you? Here's your line:

"Go back and look stupid."

That's a direct quote. You don't even remember what you posted, do you? Or do you conveniently forget? Do I get a real apology, or will you just blast off on some more inanity?
No, you don't get an apology. You said I needed to cite my sources after I cited my sources. You did so in the same post you said stupid things like your sister was being a Christian Scientist and asked if I included her as one of the scientists who I cited as rejecting the global warming danger. That's moronic. And what was the point of this part of the post? What in the world were you referring to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
BTW, your I saw your post regarding massive reserves in shale...


“America is sitting on top of a super massive 200 billion barrel Oil Field that could potentially make America Energy Independent and until now has largely gone unnoticed. Thanks to new technology the Bakken Formation in North Dakota could boost America’s Oil reserves by an incredible 10 times…”

Is your day job somehow affiliated with the oil industry, or what?
I'm a 5th grade teacher in the Houston area. I whish I was in the oil industry.

Why are those who promote oil comsumption and reject the global warming hype linked to working for the oil industry?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Most oil in shale is not recoverable even under current market conditions...Big oil walked away more than 20 years ago, and they ain't been back recently.
Here's a 2005 article about Shell extracting it.
http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002981.html

Here's a 2007 article about Shell shelving its mining permit in ONE of its three areas of extracting oil from shale. The costs in that area have risen for Shell to make this decision.
http://www.denverpost.com/extremes/ci_6155257


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
And if you ain't been paying attention, most of the Middle East reserves are being written down of late...seems they are having trouble counting.
My understanding is the bubbling oil that's close to the surface of the ground has diminished. They now have to start drilling deep to get the oil that's there. I'd love to learn more. What source do you get this from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Andecdotally, we own property that was under a very lucrative lease for shale extraction, back when oil was $16-33/bbl.
Cool, what's the land? And how much did the lawsuites from enviromentalists and all the taxes the government gets from oil extraction play into the decision for the oil companies walking away? Any news articles on this story? I'd love to see them.

One pertenant queston is that if extracting this oil will increase CO2s and increasing CO2s will kill you and people "catastrophically" world-wide, than why would you allow your land be used to get thew oil, release the CO2s and kill you and people around the world? If something is going to kill you and/or others, why endorse it? Why promote it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
and I'm not quite sure what the "H" oil reserves have to do with reduction of global warming, which, after all is the primary thrust of this thread.
What the heck is an "H" oil reserve? And if I understand your concern correctly correctly, I linked the blog post of Lone Star Times in response to your CalTech link that was going to teach me that our natural resources are depleting and we must act now to preserve them. So in essence it was a direct reponse to a direct concern you brought up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Sorry to be soooo stupid...but I live to experience truth...feel free to enlighten me/us.
Don't be sorry for being stupid, just don't be stupid. My main point is that not all people agree with the global warming hype. Early on in this thread the global warming psychos were enthusiatically pointing to the fact that the IPCC report cited 2,000+ scientists saying man's making global warming by releasing CO2s in the air and this global warming is going to have catastrophic results on all of humanity. Some of the commentors here in this thread who were on the side of global warming being the cause of destroying humanity as we know it endorsed the idea that there was a "universal consensus". I'm simpy saying it's not "universal' (the consensus) and that following the recomendations of these insane human beings will wreek more havoc upon the world's societies than would any gas.
  #333  
Old May 29th, 2008, 8:25 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
jmprader

[quote=jmprader;31673]Maple:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Didn't look to see the credential, much less the tranches, but 9k is pretty good, though it's a fraction of the phd's loitering around just the SF bay area, so I'm not quite convinced with the "lots of smart guys" argument.
I'm not out to convince you of anything. You must do that yourself. And don't interpret what I posted as a "smart guys" sad so and therefore i'mright and you're wrong. Again, I only want to point out that there are very credible people who say that global warming is way overhyped.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
Let's get your response to the credibility of those TN research guys.
I already responded. I've no idea what a 990 file is (or whaever you called it) and I asked simply if their report on Al Gore's energy consumption was accurate or not? Was it true or not? NOW, *after* that report, did Al gore put in solar pannels in his house. I do think they hit on something.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I am 53.
Cool, I'm not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I have an undergrad degree in Political Economics for UC Berkeley and an MBA from the Amos Tuck School at Dartmouth.
Cool. I like poli-sci, that explains your interest here. You having graduated frm UC Berkley explains why you side with Al Gore. Or was it more conservative 30 some odd years ago?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I am a self-employed real estate consultant
Cool I want to buy realestate andrent the properties out to make passive income.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
I have no direct or indirect stock ownership of any petrochemical companies, period...not even in a mutual fund holding. Same goes for any investments in alternative energy companies...
I wouldn't care any more or less if you were connected directly to oil or alternative energy. I'll post according to the arguments made.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jmprader View Post
but I have made hard dollar investments in alternative energy products for my home and business.
Outstanding. now please advocate the government not taxing its people which would deplete their resources ad thus, according to your reasoning, increase global warming buy taking away people's abilities to buy their own solar pannels.


I graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in History Teaching and minors in Spanish and Potuguese. Im married with kids and have pets. I see all of them as a great blessing, not a curse on the earth because they all produce CO2s.
  #334  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 3:39 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
Put a price on carbon?

You and I naturally produce carbon. My dogs naturally produce carbon. My children natrually produce carbon. Don't you think we live on a planet that can deal with carbons? Al Gore and many in the Senate don't.

Here's a petition I signed to protest the debate in the Senate today over proposing a carbon tax. It includes a video only a couple minoutes long featuring none other than Al Gore. His summarative solution is to put a price on carbon and send that price tag to companies he has stock in. That's perfectly fine with me as long as he makes his money openly and honestly. Setting up a business and then using government to change its laws to enrich that company is totally fascistic in nature. Feel free to dig up anything for or against this video clip.

As Ive stated before, the global warming hype boils down to nothing more than money and power.

http://www.grassfire.org/106/petition.asp
  #335  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 6:00 PM
JonnyOzero3 JonnyOzero3 is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: Around
Posts: 543
JonnyOzero3 is on a distinguished road
I'm going to produce some carbon soon!

I decided to take a 1300mi roadtrip back home to see my family. Why did I drive? Because I felt like it!

Wooooo...polar bearssssssss!
  #336  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 7:06 PM
MapleSyrup's Avatar
MapleSyrup MapleSyrup is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Feb 2007
Posts: 126
MapleSyrup is on a distinguished road
...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonnyOzero3 View Post
I'm going to produce some carbon soon!

I decided to take a 1300mi roadtrip back home to see my family. Why did I drive? Because I felt like it!

Wooooo...polar bearssssssss!
Blessings to you and yours!!! My wife planted a pine tree. Does that count?
  #337  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 8:45 PM
JonnyOzero3 JonnyOzero3 is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Jul 2005
Location: Around
Posts: 543
JonnyOzero3 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by MapleSyrup View Post
Blessings to you and yours!!! My wife planted a pine tree. Does that count?
I think her carbon footprint is lower than mine then I planted four Emerald Arborvitae's in my backyard, so maybe that'll offset all the gas I'll use...

Anyhow, nevermind my distraction. Just seemed like it was awfully serious in here
  #338  
Old October 21st, 2008, 8:59 AM
Lwang Lwang is offline
Registered User
 
Member Since: Mar 2003
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,520
Lwang will become famous soon enoughLwang will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lwang View Post
There are a difference between small business owners (including peddler in the street selling his wares and Hsu) and the global corporations and the market manipulators, hence wall st and the hedge funders at their waterfront locations in greenwich ct.
....
If you don't think that's how capitalism works, you haven't been hanging out in wall st or greenwich ct. much.
I guess now people have been given the insight on how it really works. The neoliberalization/globalization/financialization trio has been exposed.
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
 


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 2:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Forum Rules The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Technical Support: The best way to get tech support for serious issues is to call or email us. Questions asked on the forum may not be answered by qualified professionals.

No "Flaming": Spiteful talk and flaming wars will lead to "time-outs" for parties involved.

Shootouts: Shootouts are comparisons between products. We need to know about shootouts before allowing them on the forum, so call us and talk to the director of Sales before posting. Otherwise, your shootout may be removed.

Add to Reputation: Once you are a registered member, you can click this icon to add to the tally of other members' Rep Points. You must vote for seven other people before you can vote for the same person twice.

Report Bad Posts: Once you register, click this icon to let Administrators know if they should review a post. Please be specific as to why action might be needed.

HSU RESEARCH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMENTS MADE BY THIRD PARTY INDIVIDUALS ON THIS FORUM.

Thanks for reading the rules. Have a good time :)

In Association With