T1B

Wolfman wrote:What's the latest? Regulating dust? Amazing.

WTF are you babbling about now?

Somebody needs to regulate the bullshit pouring from your piehole.

SS, that's the most tedious evasion I've seen in a good while. And the ONE thing you're actually saying is that you don't want any of that pesky regulation creeping into the halcyon of deregulation that Reagan envisioned and the Chimp delivered. How noble.

Your take on the environment and man's impact upon it is a weird train wreck of twisted logic and a shallow Libertarian stubborness. It's ludicrous. The notion that the planet will live on though we ("and some other species" ) might be lost. Are you completely nuts? First, our own pending extinction should be plenty enough to warrant serious prevention thereof. And moreover, while the earth could indeed presumably repair and renew its nurturing of life forms in the long roll of geological time, there's also a very real possibility it could effectively die--rendered a scorched dead ball like Mars or a wet hell like Venus--by virtue of our damaging the atmosphere. Or...is the ozone layer also improved?



Where do you possibly get off suggesting that the air and water quality in any major cities--especially the over 160 cities in China with more than a million people--has gotten better? Sure, the cars are cleaner and so is the fuel. But there are also a hundred times as many since the horrid emissions levels of the 60's. Are you a complete fraud? Seriously, are you just totally bullshitting?

Go ahead, try and actually back up any part of your basic assertion that the air and water are in fact improved over the past twenty years. Go ahead, it'll be like watching a monkey dance at a cheap carnival.

http://www.khastv.com/news/local/Senato ... 10479.html

Start paying attention shithead. I guess we now know you must not be the biological father of an Eagle Scout.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Yer lying through your teeth, wags. You know exactly who I am and where I'm from.

No, I don't.

I know nothing about you other than you seem to be delusionally paranoid. You see boogiemen around every corner, and in your world, a rectangle has about 17 corners.

They make drugs to combat the conditions from which you suffer, but knowing your aversion to Big Pharma, you most likely refuse to take your meds. One of these days you'll find yourself in a straightjacket and then how will you post?

And while you seem to take offense that I would presume to defend America's principles and purpose, we notice you offer nothing to actually dispute--or question--just what these are, or to suggest anything of the sort yourself.

I believe the United States of America principles and purpose were summed up succinctly in the Declaration of Independence. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I see no need to further embellish upon that document.

You are on record as a Christer, panting for apocalypse and that Happy Day, and that's sad and weird.

I don't pant for apocalypse, dumbass.

Wolfman wrote:http://www.khastv.com/news/local/Senato ... 10479.html

Start paying attention shithead. I guess we now know you must not be the biological father of an Eagle Scout.

Sorry, I haven't been following the conspiracy theory blogs as closely as you have. Maybe this is going a little overboard, maybe not. Have you read the EPA's reasons for doing this? You do realize that this is a Bush administration regulation don't you? Oh you didn't. No surprise there. It's gotta be Obama's fault.

At any rate what, if anything, does it have to do with the discussion that the non-senile adults were having before you so intelligently chimed in?

C'mon. wags, bring it! Step up and actually try to dispute one position I've advocated. Not just a snotty dismissal, but some actual reasoned argument. Betcha can't. Start with something easy, like..."AIPAC has a grotesquely disproportionate degree of influence upon our government and media."

Or, "The economic model known as 'neo-liberalism' is in fact a disastrous system of theft on the grandest scale."

Perhaps..."the religious paradigm of Abrahamic sects--Islam, Christer, Jewish--is utterly and profoundly false and toxic to humanity."

Let's see you dance a bit. Unless you're too weak or scared. :wink:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:First, our own pending extinction should be plenty enough to warrant serious prevention thereof.

Just a question...


At which point in human history do you believe the greatest number of human beings inhabited Planet Earth?

I'll give you my (correct) answer...


That would be August 4th, 2010.


But please... do tell of this "pending extinction." (The word you were looking for was "impending," BTW.)

I've never actually heard a biologist use the word "pending" (or "impending," for that matter) for a species that was currently at its greatest numbers in its history-BTW. You must have taken science classes that deviated greatly from what's accepted... since you're making it up.

Dins, you're being simplistic and silly. Clearly the overpopulation of humans is the number one threat to our survival. It's leading to the depletion of fish stocks, fresh water, clean air, as well as increased famine, deforestation, and desertification. And that's just the obvious catastrophes.

What's your point? Oh yeah, you don't have one, just the childish niggling of a bitter little prick.

The issue isn't merely Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, Global Warming, or pollution of our ground water with all manner of toxic waste. No, it's the attitude of corporate whores and their stooges (that's you) who merrily waltz along insisting there's nothing wrong that further deregulation won't cure--if not for those socialists!

You see, you'd be a joke if you and those like you weren't adding your dead weight to the inertia of ignorance and short-sighted greed.

WW

So, your argument is basically that when an animal population reaches an unprecedented level of population, health, longevity, food availibilty, and overall robustness, it's an obvious sign of impending doom?



Alllllllllrighty then.

This is the part you missed..

(effects of human overpopulation)
Climate Change, Ozone Depletion, Global Warming, or pollution of our ground water with all manner of toxic waste.


And...?...

You've got...what?.... :wink:

More Limpdickian nonsense from our resident goose stepper.

Look, SS, the "industrializing" of a nation represents a tremendous increase in the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution. It represents a similar exponential consuming of food, water, plastics, rubber, etc. In short, you've got it completely backwards in high gear.

What the fuck is your problem? Are you going to ignore your pathetically inane assertion that the air and water quality have improved over the past twenty years?

Or are you content to play the naughty child?

the world has been around for about 4 billion years. That's 4,000,000,000.

Whachu talkin' 'bout, willy?

--poptart and WeltsOnTheHead Wagon

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the "industrializing" of a nation represents a tremendous increase in the burning of fossil fuels and the resulting pollution.

Wasn't the computer you typed this on produced by an industrialized nation?

Do you own a car produced by an industrialized nation, or do you rely on one of those great perks that comes from an industrialized nation, that being mass transit?


See, you're not actually a part of the "solution" -- you're very clearly part of the problem, yet you're quite happy to tell your coconspirators in this evil planet trashing scheme that they're all in the wrong.

Maybe time to start practicing what you preach, rather than continuing to preach the water while drinking the wine...

Sending your computer to an appropriate recycling center would be a wonderful start, since it's an ill-gotten gain from an industrialized nation.

It does make one wonder about Evolution...all those monkeys fought so hard, and this is their reward

SS, your data is deceptive, only taking account of the improvement in catalytic converters, etc. You're basically clinging desperately to a straw, desperately ignoring the big picture. This is essentially cowardly.

Here is some of what you're avoiding..

* The U.S. has spent billions to support the growth of the corn ethanol industry—partially out of the belief that such first-generation biofuels could replace some oil and cut carbon emissions. But the policy has been linked to losses of grassland habitats in the Conservation Reserve program, while some the fertilizer used to grow that corn eventually washes out in the Gulf of Mexico, feeding dangerous dead zones. And there's growing doubt that first-generation biofuels cut carbon significantly.
* Hydropower is an existing, utility-scale source of very low-carbon renewable energy. But massive dams can cause ecological problems of their own. China's massive Three Gorges Dam will be able to produce 22,000 MW of electricity—offsetting countless polluting coal plants—but its 600 sq. km reservoir has threatened 37 endemic plant taxa and 44 endemic fish species, while displacing over 1 million people, who will migrate to new land and put pressure on wildlife there.
* Decreasing water supplies in the American Southwest—linked in part to climate change—has motivated Las Vegas to propose a massive series of pipelines that would bring groundwater from the valleys of eastern Nevada to the booming desert city. The water will come, but the project will likely damage species and ecosystems in the area. The same thing is happening in dry Australia, where proposals for water pipelines conflict with the need to protect the health of river systems.

Needless to say, your tedious evasions are easily bounced like a basketball up and down the court. But...why?...are you such a coward? Now when courage is needed.

Utterly trivial whimpering.

Ethanol subsidies should be shit canned, but not for environmental reasons. The problem with Three Gorges is that it is a cheap piece of shit which will catastropically fail one day and wipe out 20 million people not your hippy dippy tree hugger bullshit.

mvscal wrote:The problem with Three Gorges is that it is a cheap piece of shit which will catastropically fail one day and wipe out 20 million people

Which will put a small dent in the earth's population -- Felcho should be all about it.

Yep, that's the blog and the info--none of which you can dispute.

Start with the quickly diminishing fresh water--like in Vegas--and move towards the rolled back regulations on toxic waste. Keep going, and you'll get to the ocean, which is now home to huge growing dead zones and increased acidity.

What's your argument again? You keep forgetting to actually posit anything, such is your tendency to niggle and parse and evade and squirm like a bitch.

And Avi, of course the Planet Corn policy is fucked, but just because you agree doesn't nullify its reality. It's ON and growing--and so are its consequences. As for the China situation, considering that they are COMPLETELY propping up our debt-based economy, their problems are our problems. Start with the 160 or so cities with a population over a million and start parroting your Rusp Limpdick denialism into the mirror until you pass out.

Detroit? Nope, that's our sugar daddy, China, making all those cheap WalMart products...

LTS TRN 2 wrote:our sugar daddy, China, making all those cheap WalMart products...

Don't forget about the computer you're currently typing on.

He didn't buy it, the library did.

Interesting nihilistic musing, but hollow and cowardly.

Look, no one's asking or expecting you or I to provide easy answers for the complex and mounting crisis facing humanity due to its destruction of the earth's environment. But, the first step is to acknowledge and accept the truth. Then answers and remedies will come much sooner than you'd imagine. Teamwork is an all-but miraculous process that can achieve far more than the sum of its parts. Currently, greedy and insane corporate fuck stains are holding humanity hostage, stalling and thwarting practical measures which would serve to heal the planet--and create a shit load of jobs in the process.

There is no moral or logical basis for supporting WalMart. Monsanto, BP, or the gigantic Military Industrial Complex. These entities--and so many others in the same paradigm--are toxic in almost every sense of the word.

You really need to WAKEY WAKE!!!!

(it's time! :wink: )

And that's as weak a reply as I 've ever seen anywhere.

Try and actually dispute something. Try to actually fashion a coherent paragraph, and then attempt a joke. Of course this is a long way off for a recap like you. To jump start the process, go to the mirror, strip off your soiled and ill-fitting scraps of clothes, stare at your lumpy sad face and scream:

"ALL LAND IS HOLY, AND ALL PEOPLE ARE CHOSEN"...

Do this three or four times a day for a month, then check back.

Nice and cool out here. It's actually a little bit chilly this morning.

south alabama unbearably hot in august?

whodathunkit?

the east is having a hot summer, the west a cool one.

imagine that.

last summer it was the opposite.

when i start seeing palm trees in my yard, i'll think maybe something is up. till then i will expect that sometimes it will be hot, some times freezing.

smackaholic wrote:the east is having a hot summer, the west a cool one.

It's been fairly cool here, but Heat Wave #3 is starting today. Supposed to stay on the correct side of 100, but we'll see. Starting out with the offshore flow, which usually results in a humidity of 0.00%, which kinda sucks in an "opposite of muggy" way.

You guys are being embarrassingly shallow here. Look, the fact that we and many other countries are experiencing the hottest summer ever does not reflect the precise fact of Climate Change. Rather, it is the irregular nature of storms, floods, heat waves, droughts. It's the bigger picture--not just how the weather is outside your trailer park (Avi!).

There is no argument and there never really has been. The denialists and smear campaigners are tired assholes like Limpdick and Glenn Beck--and their toddling stooges--like you. There's no one else.

WAKEY WAKE

and read this..

As the latest heat wave passed through the East Coast, some were wondering if this summer’s heat would ever end. If you ask just about anyone in the northeast what this past July was like, they’ll tell you it was hell. On July 6, Central Park hit 103°F which led to reports of electrical transformers bursting into flames and underground cables going haywire. In Washington, D.C. they had 20 days with temperatures above 90°F and Philadelphia had two days above 100°F. There’s no doubt that the heat was awful for everyone, but as a climatologist who studies global warming, I found these high temperatures a troubling peek into where our weather is headed and how poorly prepared we are to deal with it.

Heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States—ahead of tornadoes, floods, or lightning strikes.

Let’s look at how July 2010 might stack up against the Julys of the future. Using climate models and a well-established statistical method for calculating shifts in average and extreme temperature, we can actually generate an informed projection of how July 2010 might compare with those in the years ahead—assuming we continue to pump heat-trapping gases into our atmosphere at a rate similar to today (what scientists refer to as the A1B scenario). In other words, we can estimate when July 2010—which ran about 4°F to 5°F hotter than average this year in the northeast—might become the average July.

Turns out, it’s pretty soon. According to the calculations, within 40 years the brutal heat that gripped cities like Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, D.C. could be more or less normal:

So if this July will be considered average or cooler than average by 2050, what kind of extreme temperatures can we expect to see by then? By projecting the number of days hotter than 90°F, 95°F and 100°F out to the middle of the century, it looks like we could see 10 percent to 50 percent more days that reach these torrid milestones:

With the high temperatures of this past July leading to brownouts throughout the northeast, it should come as no surprise that our aging power grid is currently ill-equipped to deal with demands like those that are likely to be placed on it by 2050—when the Census Bureau projects the United States will have roughly 130 million more people. Historically, for each 1.8°F of warming, cooling demand increases between 5 percent and 20 percent due to more people turning on air conditioners, refrigerators and then air conditioners having to work harder, higher resistance losses in transmission wires, and other factors. The end result of increasing heat and population growth is greater demand for electricity. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates electricity demand by 2050 could be 50 percent higher than it is today.

High demand and high temperatures are a dangerous combination—in some cases even deadly. Heat is the No. 1 weather-related killer in the United States—ahead of tornadoes, floods, or lightning strikes. The infamous Chicago heat wave in 1995 resulted in over 700 heat-related deaths over a period of five days. Projections for Chicago suggest this could become the average number of deaths due to heat waves by the 2050s.

As the debate over whether or not to curb heat-trapping gas emissions drags on, it doesn’t take away the serious risks posed by increased heat. If we can’t pass legislation to address the cause of global warming, we will most certainly have to deal with its consequences. That means preparing today for the warmer world of tomorrow. That means adding new transmission lines and making the grid smarter so that it can better handle demand spikes in hot weather and better utilize intermittent low-carbon electricity sources like wind and solar.

More than just saving lives, these investments will pay good returns. And while climate change may seem like low a priority during a recession, a recent study of federally declared disasters by the Multihazard Mitigation Council found that for every $1 spent on risk reduction measures and infrastructure improvements, roughly $4 was saved in the long run.

Change is often difficult, but when you plan ahead you can actually come out ahead

The Sun Also Rises is a boring book by a total fraud. Just sayin'.

You obviously haven't read the accompanying article, and remain curled in your fetal position of boring denial. Carry on, "Roach." :wink:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The Sun Also Rises is a boring book by a total fraud. Just sayin'.

You obviously haven't read the accompanying article, and remain curled in your fetal position of boring denial. Carry on, "Roach." :wink:

You are so delusionally self convinced stupid, its a wonder you dont jam your dick up your ass and fuck yourself in an attempt to impregnate one of your turds, since your bloated, lardassed, pile of shit self couldn't get laid in a women's death row prison with a fistfull of pardons and 5 cartons of cigs.

Go tounge kiss a tractor trailer's front bumper on teh interstate, you less than worthless sack of septic oozings

Oil is great. We need to have our lives further tied to it's exploration, extration and use. :doh:

Fucking tards.

Why don't you check back in when you've got something to replace the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day. Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself....tard.

Dinsdale wrote:Supposed to stay on the correct side of 100, but we'll see.

I think we'll see that the weatherdorks underestimated the teeth of this offshore.

There's a giant hair-dryer blowing from the east. It's before noon, and it's rippin' hot.

And 60's and foggy less than two hours from here on the coast... hmmmm...


Over/under on local drowing deaths in rivers this weekend -- I'll go with 3.5. And I'll take the over. Nothing like triple digits to make some people forget they can't swim for a shit in a cold-running, fast-running mountain stream. Then, we get the drunk jet skiers on the big rivers running into each other and downed water skiers... makes for plenty of work for the scrub reporters.

mvscal wrote:Why don't you check back in when you've got something to replace the 20 million barrels of oil we use every day. Until then, feel free to go fuck yourself....tard.

We know you are a Neanderthal living in the past, taking hairy cock in your ass and living in a cave.

Stop felching scat and cum for long enough to get with the program you ball licking dick-cushion.

Is that supposed to replace 20 million barrels of oil? It might be a good idea to check back in to reality every once in while. Bluster and bullshit isn't going to provide the energy we need.

So...what have you got? Anything?

I have a solar system for daytime electricity, I have a GT system to help with cooling and heating, I have a water battery run by a separate solar panel for night time electricity backed up by a turbine and a few batteries (still not off grid but I run my meter backwards) I have a hybrid for long trips (getting a Leaf and a new solar panel to run it next year) and I have a bike, an Ebike and a NEV (run by the existing solar system) for in town stuff. I use maybe 100 gallons a year in fuel. That's what I got. Besides a black cock in your ass, an IQ of 80 and a severe case of Racism what do YOU have?

In other words....you've got nothing that can replace 20 million barrels of oil per day.

Needless to say, you are a brainless fuckwit.

You're a racist cock swilling fuckhead and not capable of understanding English. Nice going you Big Oil nutsack riding cumbucket.

Oh, is that it? Help out here and point out your market ready solution to replace 20 million barrels of oil per day. If that is too tough, go ahead and point out a theoretical energy source capable of producing the equivalent of 20 million barrels of oil per day sometime in the next 50 years or so.

Or you could just say something about a cock again. We know it's always on your mind.

Avi, you tired little twirp, the first step is to cut that grotesque amount of 20 million per day in half through actual plans of conservation and recycling. That is, the corporate paradigm of consume, consume--"our shareholders demand it, and by law we must maintain those profits," etc.

What are you actually saying, anyway? You're never clear beyond your dutiful Limpdickian parrotings.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:the first step is to cut that grotesque amount of 20 million per day in half through actual plans of conservation and recycling.

10 million barrels of oil per day through conservation and recycling?



Well, good luck with that. I don't suppose you have any of these "actual plans" we can take a look at, do you?

LTS TRN 2 wrote: What are you actually saying, anyway? You're never clear beyond your dutiful Limpdickian parrotings.

I thought it was pretty clear. We use 20 million barrels of oil every day. If you would like to have a serious conversation about alternative fuels, you need to get to that number somehow or you are just jerking off.

Avi, your tired trip of snotty evasions and catcalls is like a limp balloon. Look, you know damn well that America is the most wasteful nation on earth. And that we can save a lot of energy by concerted conservation and recycling efforts. What the fuck is your point?

Here's an easy drive-by and strafing of your tedious childish post...

Last year alone, recycling bottles and cans saved enough energy to power up to 522,000 homes in California.

Energy drinks are all the rage, and in recent years beverages that invigorate consumers have flooded the marketplace. What many people might not realize is that the same bottles and cans that provide them with energy beverages could actually save the kind of energy needed to power their homes and televisions.

How much energy? In 2004, the 12 billion bottles and cans recycled by Californians saved the equivalent of enough energy to power up to 522,000 homes, according to DOC calculations.

“Most of us are well aware that recycling bottles and cans saves natural resources,” said California Secretary for Resources Mike Chrisman. “But when you add in the fact that it often takes a lot less energy to make a new product from recycled materials than virgin materials, recycling makes even more sense than ever year-round.”

It takes 95 percent less energy to make an aluminum can from recycled aluminum than from processing bauxite ore, and glass furnaces can run at lower temperatures when using recycled glass, thereby saving energy and extending equipment life. Although the number of bottles and cans recycled in California in 2004 set an all-time record, a staggering 8 billion plastic, glass and aluminum beverage containers still wound up in California landfills – enough to fill every major league baseball park in the state twice. That’s a lot of wasted energy and natural resources.