T1B

Why do you need beaurocrats from 154 countries to edit a scientific report?
needs a good punch line !

Wolfman wrote:Why do you need beaurocrats from 154 countries to edit a scientific report?

You could have made that into three lines......your enter button wearing out, finally?

Why do you need
beaurocrats from
154 countries to
edit a scientific report?

wouldn't want to dissapoint you !!

This is gonna be good. RACK Science.

Yeah, why do we need 154 countries editing a scientific report. Waste of time. They should just hand it over to Cheney, et al.
The Bush administration does a pretty good job editing scientific reports all by itself.

Really. All this global warming started January, 2001. That's why Clinton was so awesome...he never let the climate get out of control under his watch. And had Gore been President, this discussion surely wouldn't be taking place.

Mvscal doesn't seem to mind...as long as it's the "right" people doing the editing.

What's the problem? Edited clearly hear means making the thing readable, i.e. spelling, grammar, punctuation you know, the sort of stuff editors always do.

You must have me mixed up with somebody else.
Show me where I've EVER given any indication that politicians / bureaucrats should be editing scientific reports. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

Mikey wrote:You must have me mixed up with somebody else.
Show me where I've EVER given any indication that politicians / bureaucrats should be editing scientific reports. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

One thing I know is he doesn't have you mixed up with someone who can manufacture a well thought out response to either the article nor the fact that Clinton did next to nothing to improve this so called "human inflicted global warming catastrophe and it wasn't issue gore would have had to deal with.

Instead you just wowed us all with the blame Bush/Cheney card.

How wonderfully creative.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote:Show me where I've EVER given any indication that politicians / bureaucrats should be able to edit scientific reports. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

You're doing it right here in this thread.

Rather than simply condemn the report for the worthless political garbage that it is, you have done nothing but attempt to deflect attention away from the fact by trying to make it about me or the Bush Administration.

It wasn't about you until you chimed in with your bullshit.
And the point I made about your administration already editing scientific reports was completely legitimate.

So fuck off.

warren wrote:

Mikey wrote:You must have me mixed up with somebody else.
Show me where I've EVER given any indication that politicians / bureaucrats should be editing scientific reports. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

One thing I know is he doesn't have you mixed up with someone who can manufacture a well thought out response to either the article nor the fact that Clinton did next to nothing to improve this so called "human inflicted global warming catastrophe and it wasn't issue gore would have had to deal with.

Instead you just wowed us all with the blame Bush/Cheney card.

How wonderfully creative.

There's one thing I'll have to give mvscal credit for. At least he can form complete English sentences.
That's a start anyway.

Mikey wrote:

warren wrote:

Mikey wrote:You must have me mixed up with somebody else.
Show me where I've EVER given any indication that politicians / bureaucrats should be editing scientific reports. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of.

One thing I know is he doesn't have you mixed up with someone who can manufacture a well thought out response to either the article nor the fact that Clinton did next to nothing to improve this so called "human inflicted global warming catastrophe and it wasn't issue gore would have had to deal with.

Instead you just wowed us all with the blame Bush/Cheney card.

How wonderfully creative.

One thing I'll have to give mvscal credit for. At least he can form complete English sentences.
That's a start anyway.

Here's another sentence that is poorly structured for you. Grammar smack weak.

mvscal wrote:

Mikey wrote: And the point I made about your administration already editing scientific reports was completely legitimate.

Your point is completely irrelevant as well hypocritical since you have no problem with this report being secretly edited by government bureaucrats.

And where did I say that I had no problem with that?

Damn you lie just like Dinsdale when you're so obviously full of shit.

Seems you're the hypocritical one since you have no problem with the Bush administration bureaucrats secretly editing scientific reports to suit their own policy objectives.

warren wrote:

Mikey wrote:

warren wrote: One thing I know is he doesn't have you mixed up with someone who can manufacture a well thought out response to either the article nor the fact that Clinton did next to nothing to improve this so called "human inflicted global warming catastrophe and it wasn't issue gore would have had to deal with.

Instead you just wowed us all with the blame Bush/Cheney card.

How wonderfully creative.

One thing I'll have to give mvscal credit for. At least he can form complete English sentences.
That's a start anyway.

Here's another sentence that is poorly structured for you. Grammar smack weak.

Not grammar smack, dimwit. Writing a sentence that makes sense is not a matter of grammar. Learn talk English moron then back come.

Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a by product of industrialization and consumption.

Judging by the "trips" you take, you're doing just about as much to contribute to the "problem" as anyone else.

Tom In VA wrote:Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a by product of industrialization and consumption.

Link?


While human causes may well indeed be a factor in the current warming, to blame it all on human causes is jumping the gun.

While I tend to believe converting parts of the earth's crust to heat and making CO2 out of the rest very likely has had an influence on global temperatures, possibly a significant one, to attempt to place any direct blame or cause on any one thing with the available data is irresponsible.

Piss poor writing skills on my part. The suggestion is that it's a by product of industrialization and consumption.

It's my god damned gas mvscal, okay, there I admit it. Nothing else but my flatuence has caused global warming. And I'm fucking proud of it.

If you'd store it and burn it as a renewable fuel you could solve the energy crisis and global warming at the same time.
What are you waiting for, an invitation?

No, the patent. I need to get rich too you know. Not all of us have pools in the backyard yet Mikey. I'm sure the Dems won't rest until there's a chicken in every pot and a pool in MY backyard.

Power to the People, to give me a fucking pool in my backyard.

Dinsdale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a by product of industrialization and consumption.

Link?


While human causes may well indeed be a factor in the current warming, to blame it all on human causes is jumping the gun.

While I tend to believe converting parts of the earth's crust to heat and making CO2 out of the rest very likely has had an influence on global temperatures, possibly a significant one, to attempt to place any direct blame or cause on any one thing with the available data is irresponsible.

all your global warmings are belong to us.

make your time!

~ volcano's

Thanks Jsc. I know, I better start taking better care of myself. I don't think it's genetic, I think it's dietary. Global warming is messing with my beans and broccoli.

Tom In VA wrote:give me a fucking pool in my backyard.

Pond is good for you.

mvscal wrote:Rather than simply condemn the report for the worthless political garbage that it is, you have done nothing but attempt to deflect attention away from the fact by trying to make it about me or the Bush Administration.

No, babs, it's not about you. You're just a silly knee-jerk hack who has been dead wrong on EVERY single position you've hunkered down with over the years. You would surely hold some kind of record for going down with ship--except, being the slimester you are, you invariably jump ship at the last minute. In short, your dismissals and denials are as HOLLOW as the same blather of Rusp Limpdick, et al.

As for the Chimp n' Cheney, these dangerous criminals ARE very much in the equation as far as using all of their (unelected) power to stall, smear and discredit not only the issue of Global Warming, but all enviromental problems and their suggested remedies. Basically, they--and minions such as Pombo (before he was thrown out like a piece of trash)--are Corporate Whores, pure and simple. Sure, you could make a James Watt case for demented Christers urging on the Return Of the Lord by killing the earth ("when the last tree falls, the Lord will return"--James Watt, 1983), but what's the point? The Chimp and his gang are FAR more desperate than that. They are dead on the run, and ANY diversion is welcome.

The utter bullshit of the Global Warming denialists is posited on their basic tactic of CREATING a so-called "controversy." In fact there is no question that global warming is real--and critical. The "scientists" who sign on to these denial articles are bought and paid for by the various oil and indusrial companies. They have approximately the same standing in the scientific community as the "scientists" (with REAL degrees!) who deny Evolution.

WW

Dinsdale wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:give me a fucking pool in my backyard.

Pond is good for you.

Natural spring ? Anything would be good.

mvscal wrote:
It's all about creating a scam to trade "carbon credits."

Y'know, while I'm a "err on the side of the environment" guy...anytime they start assigning dollar figures to it, while not mandating any actual reductions, it definitely is a red flag that there's a scam brewing.

88 wrote:Oil is clean, cheap, easy to find, efficient and only in the hands of Americans so we should burn more of it.

That is what you meant to say right?

scam brewing ??

ding-ding-ding (we have a winner)

way to go Dinsdale !!

Tom In VA wrote:Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a contrived hoax perpetrated by those who wish to rule those whom are ignorant, cowardly, and weak.

FTFY dicklick

Jerkovich wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a contrived hoax perpetrated by those who wish to rule those whom are ignorant, cowardly, and weak.

FTFY dicklick

Glad you reacted to the first post and felt a need to respond. I "fixed it for my" or "FTFM" already, prickpuffer

Tom In VA wrote:

Jerkovich wrote:

Tom In VA wrote:Global warming is not a product of this administration. It's a contrived hoax perpetrated by those who wish to rule those whom are ignorant, cowardly, and weak.

FTFY dicklick

You're right, I'm a nitwit, along with most of the vermin that posts on this shithole.

FTFY :P

You win the FTF? smack round, this time, oh yes, this time.

But there will be others, lots of posts to FFP.

:nerdyguffaw:

Tom In VA wrote:
:nerdyguffaw:

gazundheit

ish dank aysh ztyer

88 wrote:Why do we even spend any time worrying about this?

Very true, ...... I don't.

Whichever party is in power is gonna slide it in us from some direction.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:Oil is clean, cheap, easy to find, efficient and only in the hands of Americans so we should burn more of it.

That is what you meant to say right?

FWIW, the only part of that I disagree with is the "only in the hands of Americans" part.

A) Oil is cheap and clean? Dolt.
B) Even if my last point was the only true one, that is still not enough to get you to stop wantingh oil?

What is wrong with utilizing a clean, abundant and cheap natural resource?

Al Gore says it's evil and anyone who invented the Internet is a modern day God.

Fall in line heathen!

While I certainly agree that if there was a cheaper alternative, it would be utilized, some of this shit is straight-up dumb.

88 wrote:Oil is clean.

Been to Los Angeles lately?

It is cleaner than hydroelectric (which causes the destruction of enormous land tracts to fill a basin with water).

Ohhhhhh...I get it -- you're trolling, M2 style. You almost had me fooled there, you slickster, you.

Because I know you're not dumb enough to insinuate that filling a canyon that is (quite arguably) useless for any other human purpose is "dirty." Nevermind its necessity for irrigation purposes, which would create the need for impoundments regardless of energy production.

Because no one is dumb enough to think that filling up a FLOOD PLAIN that's underwater for much of the year anyway, would somehow be construed as "dirty."


Nice try at pulling my leg, though. You almost trolled me.

there are some issues with flucctuating reservoirs
that have limited recreational uses-- of course
the folks that love fishing in say Lake Havasu don't
seem to mind !
I lived for a while in the northern Catskills in NY
where there were several reservoirs solely for the
storage of H2O-ska (as they say in Swedish) for
New York City. Not very nice looking "lakes" especially
when the reservoirs were low and certainly useless for
any other purposes. I'm guessing the small rivers
that were dammed likely ran through some very nice valleys
and provided haven for wildlife as well as fishing and hunting
for those so inclined.
I vote for using the hydrocarbon fuels that we have in the
US of A !!