T1B

88 wrote:I haven't the time or experience to critically evaluate whether the alternative theory for "global warming" mentioned in the article makes more sense than the greenhouse gas theory.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then.

And therein lies the whole freaking problem, eh?


The "science" involved is entirely driven by which tactic anyone discussing it has chosen to make their slice of the pie from.


But the UN solution of "well, if the United States gives every other country a bunch of money, it will surely solve this crisis" is about the stupidest one I've heard yet. See if I've got this right... by PAYING OTHER COUNTRIES to develop energy usage and petroleum burning, it will slow the greenhouse gas thing?

Is there anyone who actually expected the USA to fall for that?

Dinsdale wrote:

88 wrote:I haven't the time or experience to critically evaluate whether the alternative theory for "global warming" mentioned in the article makes more sense than the greenhouse gas theory.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then.

And therein lies the whole freaking problem, eh?


The "science" involved is entirely driven by which tactic anyone discussing it has chosen to make their slice of the pie from.


But the UN solution of "well, if the United States gives every other country a bunch of money, it will surely solve this crisis" is about the stupidest one I've heard yet. See if I've got this right... by PAYING OTHER COUNTRIES to develop energy usage and petroleum burning, it will slow the greenhouse gas thing?

Is there anyone who actually expected the USA to fall for that?

Is there anyone who actually expected the USA to fall for that?

It's going to be 86 degrees on the 50 yard line at the horseshoe on Sept 22nd vs. NW and I'm loving it !!!!

C'mere, bitch...bring that shit over here...bring it and I will eat you...c'mon..

LTS TRN 2 wrote:C'mere, bitch...bring that shit over here...bring it and I will eat you...c'mon..

You are a worthless and stupid muther fucker.

Sure, popfart has feltched me deeply on several occasions...whom has he hasn't?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Sure, popfart has feltched me deeply on several occasions...whom has he hasn't?

Ooops.

Looks like he got you there, AP.

Yeah, for a worthless muzzie, he sure got over. Nothing more worthless than being on an island and trying to convince people of another race/color/nation that said muzzie's life and opinions matter.

Huh?...

A-punk, yer a no-take clueless punching bag. Play your roll correctly.

Yes, yes..often between the jizz and the gas, while being feltched by A-punk, yes I formed my opinions...or, rather, my movement

Jobocky wrote:It's going to be 86 degrees on the 50 yard line at the horseshoe on Sept 22nd vs. NW and I'm loving it !!!!

RACK this! Any thing that makes Ohio warmer, Im all for!

Whether or not it can ever be proven that man made global warming exists, it is still a damn good idea to not spew pollutants into the atmosphere. Why we can't all agree on that simple premise escapes me.

Luckily for us the process of photosynthesis consumes CO2 and from what I understand there is a lot of that going on in cells that contain chlorophyll. I'm offsetting my CO2 by planting a few more ornamentals here at Casa del O. I'll even put in a few Bouganvilleas to help with Bri's emissions.
BTW--88---Sanibel Island is still above sea level, in case you wondered.

88 wrote:By the way, CO[sub]2[/sub] is what you exhale. If that is a pollutant, then get some duct tape out and cover your grill and nostrils tightly. You know, for the planet and the children and stuff.

CO[sub]2[/sub] ain't the only thing being spewed out of a coal fired power plant. Or your car. Or the tailpipe of Air Force One.

Leave it to the dittotards to not understand that clean air is a GOOD thing.

mvscal wrote:Leave it to a shitsucking liberal to misrepresent the topic. Carbon dioxide emissions don't have shit to do with clean air.

I was talking about clean air in general, not just greenhouse gas emissions. Something both "sides" of this debate seem to have forgotten.

R-Jack wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:

Not that I am a real honk for spelling smack, but I saw this from you in another thread.

IT'S "ROLE" YOU CHANGEUP CHUCKING SUB-EDUCATED DUMBFUCK!!!!!!!

Play your roll correctly. Whether you're a standard dinner role, a Cloverleaf (as pictured) or a Parkerhouse, just be a roll...and play your roll correctly.

As for babs' hapless gas...what are you really talking about...who..what are you?Thread stretching pic

Shrink your pics to fit or don't post them,

Sin,
Your Favorite Jew

Probably because we've gone along way to getting rid of the real pollutants while third world shitholes continue to shit al over the planet. So, since CO2 is the only thing we make much of, it is what the envirowhackos are aiming at. If they continued to go on about the nasty shit that china still spews into the enviroment, the chinks would tell them to go fukk themselves.

88 wrote:the "science" of "global warming" has become tainted with politics. The former should drive the latter. It is the complete opposite in this circumstance.

Couldn't agree more.

Sin,

Evolution

88 wrote:[And who is arguing that air pollution is a good thing? Is the straw man talking out of his ass again?

By his inaction, Bush is doing just that.

88 wrote:Air pollution in the United States has dramatically decreased as a result of the combined efforts of government, industry and individuals.

You were saying?

Yea, I wanted to remind you that indeed air pollution has decreased quite a bit in London since 1952



That's good. That's what we're supposed to do. The problem is greedy shortsighted malignant fuckstains like the Cheney cabal who obstruct, divert, derail and dismiss crucial problems and their requirements.

If you think the current Deregulated Free Market (Greenspan kleptocratic) surge presently feeding on itself and passing the debt onwards is somehow to be trusted to continue the innovations and corrections necessary to preserve some semblance of our social (technological) model, you might as well trust this guy to be a puppet "leader" of Iraq...

(the weirdo on the right, not the left)


And yet, this is just what the Cheney gang planned!!

So, why would you trust ANY of their "science" smear campaigns?

smackaholic wrote:Probably because we've gone along way to getting rid of the real pollutants.

Thanks for letting us know.

Sin
LA

88 wrote:There are times when I think I understand what you are trying to say through your insane ramblings. This is not one of those times.

Neither you or BS have answered the basic questions. What more was Bush supposed to do for air quality in the US? And where is the public groundswell for this action? And why isn't the opposition party pushing for this stuff now, if it is so important?

For one thing, he could keep his administration from fighting tooth and nail against allowing individual states to regulate their own air quality.

Mikey wrote:

smackaholic wrote:Probably because we've gone along way to getting rid of the real pollutants.

Thanks for letting us know.

Sin
LA

actually mikey, we have. Cali has the most stringent emmissions laws going, as you well know. the problem is, no matter how clean they are, you drive 30 million cars around inside a bowl like LA and it ain't gonna be pretty.

socals don't need cleaner cars. they need to just park the fukking ones they have. they should have the greatest public transit system in the country. instead they have billions parked on the freeway. but, atleast those priuses arent polluting while they sit parked on the 5.

Mikey wrote:For one thing, he could keep his administration from fighting tooth and nail against allowing individual states to regulate their own air quality.

Heartwarmingly conservative.

Rack REAL Conservatives.

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:For one thing, he could keep his administration from fighting tooth and nail against allowing individual states to regulate their own air quality.

Heartwarmingly conservative.

Rack REAL Conservatives.

Huh?

Granted to the Fed only the powers outlined in the Constitution is about as conservative as it gets, bro.


Just because a bunch of hiding-behind-bibles profiteers have hijacked the word "conservative," it doesn't change the Cause any.

Those political words have sure become warped in their definitions, eh? Since GW is probably the most LIBERAL president to ever hold the office, and the Repub-led Congress until recently was probably the most LIBERAL ever.


But when people get their definitions of those words from AM radio hacks, it's no wonder their lack of education on the subject come rising to the top.

Yeah, I got all that. I was just funnin' with the lib vs. conservative thingy.

mvscal wrote: One of those powers is the regulation of interstate commerce, idiot.

Oh. Would you care to name for me any corporations and/or business entities that are buying and/or selling air pollutants on the futures markets?


Uhm... I'll take your answer off the air?


But that's right... the fucking liberals are attempting to undermine the Constitution by making a mockery of the definition of "interstate commerce." It is how they roll.

Damn. What a great outline as to why we should fear people like you.


Liberalism at its lowest depths, right there.

mvscal wrote:Do you really need somebody to draw you a picture of how California's ridiculous proposals will effect commerce and industry in other parts of the country? Are you that fucking stupid?

Just talking straight out of your ass again.

California already has different emission standards. What's your point?

Hmmmmm...

There was never any problem with CARB and / or the regional AQMDs regulating stationary sources.
I guess when the auto and lawn mower industries get involved it's another thing altogether.
Care to explain how?

mvscal is right on this one. There is absolutely no proof that new state standards will have any effect on global warming, and it's actually ridiculous to think a such a relatively miniscule change to a such a small portion of the world climate could possibly affect global weather, or warming trends. Unless they come up with a plan to refreeze the melting glaciers and cool the earth down by a degree or so, it will have no effect except perhaps to maintain emissions production.

This is just Arnold jumping on the eco bandwagon to chum up to the dems.

We the consumers will get screwed in the end, as usual.

If we have no control over say local weather---what in hell makes anyone think they can control climate ??

cause algore said so, dummy!!!!

you don't think somebody badass enough to invent the internet would be wrong, do ya?

mvscal wrote:He can fix it. His dad is a TV repairman and has this awesome set of tools.

I'll rack the Fast Times reset. But Spicoli has more in common with Bush than with Gore. Sayin'.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I'll rack the Fast Times reset.

People on ludes should not attempt movie quotes.


I'd probably rack it, except for the part where it's not correct.

Dinsdale wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I'll rack the Fast Times reset.

People on ludes should not attempt movie quotes.


I'd probably rack it, except for the part where it's not correct.

Well, it’s not verbatim because the quote would be in the first person, and mvscal was speaking in the third person. In my opinion, it’s still a fine reset. Sheesh.

Goober McTuber wrote: Well, it’s not verbatim because the quote would be in the first person, and mvscal was speaking in the third person.

Yeah, it's also not verbatim because more than one of the key words that made the original funny are misquoted...


There is that.


But hey, if RACKing bullshit gets you through your day, then let me hook you up, bro...


Was it over when the Cambodians bombed Midway?


I've got a pool and a spa... spa's good for you.