zmanzzzz

the supreme court rules ...

Recommended Posts

Using a simple outdoor thermometer I have come to the conclusion that it gets warmerEVERY YEAR during the summer months. Coincidence? Hmmm. I think not.

there are more beans eaten during the summer... the summer is hotter..... coincidence , i think not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been the coolest summer that I can recall in East Texas. We have yet to top 100, and usually by this time we've been over 100 at least 10 to 15 days. I guess weather patterns change over long periods of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The government's official position is that global warming does NOT exist.

 

 

That glacier is doing just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This has been the coolest summer that I can recall in East Texas. We have yet to top 100, and usually by this time we've been over 100 at least 10 to 15 days. I guess weather patterns change over long periods of time.

hottest summer in 100 years in the midwest...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 minutes and 30 seconds... I watched the entire thing. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D i always thought you looked very familiar somehow. finally i can place it.

 

careful, Az, ginger's are known to have short tempers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool… this again. :D

 

Look. I think all of us are in agreement that emissions are bad for the environment. Close your garage, start your car and sit there for a while. Come back tomorrow and well me what happened. :doh:

 

The gray crap on the snow, the acid rain, etc. :tup:

 

OK. Emissions are bad. Why not approach the whole thing from this, proven and sound position? The “anthropogenic” effect on the environment is BAD SCIENCE! If it was good science, I am enough of an eco goober to stand there, shoulder to shoulder to defend your position. I CAN NOT. :D

 

It makes absolute sense to me to reduce emissions and create a cleaner world for us and all living things to live in. I can't imagine ANYONE would disagree with this general statement (implementation obviously is a whole different thread).

 

It is just another scare tactic used in the modern political world to get people to do what they want. A self-hating, emotionally charged issue with fudged numbers. When the FOUNDER OF F’N GREENPEACE won’t buy into that position, you have basically LOST!

 

35 years ago, there were fears of another impending ICE AGE. They told us about it in school. Right before the “duck and cover” drills in case nuclear war broke out.

 

The earth, with or without our influence, will not change permanently in just 100 years. We are a blip and insignificant to the global GEOLOGY. Maybe we have an effect on the world biome, but if we are unable to adapt and live on the planet because of what we do, well then, maybe we are self-selecting ourselves for extinction!?!?

 

Either way, the planet doesn’t give a crap if we are on it or not. The whole argument about “global warming” or “climate change” is based on a self-centered desire of self-preservation based on bad science and less than noble intentions.

 

Sometimes I am not real sure we, as a species, are worth saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look. I think all of us are in agreement that emissions are bad for the environment.

 

The gray crap on the snow, the acid rain, etc. :tup:

 

OK. Emissions are bad. Why not approach the whole thing from this, proven and sound position? The “anthropogenic” effect on the environment is BAD SCIENCE! If it was good science, I am enough of an eco goober to stand there, shoulder to shoulder to defend your position. I CAN NOT. :D

 

It makes absolute sense to me to reduce emissions and create a cleaner world for us and all living things to live in. I can't imagine ANYONE would disagree with this general statement (implementation obviously is a whole different thread).

 

It is just another scare tactic used in the modern political world to get people to do what they want. A self-hating, emotionally charged issue with fudged numbers. When the FOUNDER OF F’N GREENPEACE won’t buy into that position, you have basically LOST!

I'm sorry, I don't get this.

 

1. Emissions are bad.

2. It makes sense to reduce them.

3. It's all a scare tactic.

 

Is that right? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I don't get this.

 

Ehhh yea...it's a Boogie post. :D You forgot the part on how the founder of Greenpeace saying something is some sort of litmus test for climate change. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry, I don't get this.

 

1. Emissions are bad.

2. It makes sense to reduce them.

3. It's all a scare tactic.

 

Is that right? :tup:

 

When you choose to be thick...

 

Yes emissions are bad, they are not the "reason"for global warming/climate change (don't you love the way they kepp re-framing their terms and positions? It is sooo cute). You give us too much credit for long term effect on the planet . The global warming thingy is based on BAD SCIENCE and even worse interpretation of data. The planet will be just fine over the course of a couple million years. To worry about a 30-40 or 150 year pattern is stoopid and self-interested. Greenies are not interested in saving the planet, they want to save themselves.

 

The course for reducing emissions, using the scare tactic of "We are all gonna die because of our evil cars" and burn up in a world getting hotter by the second is stoopid. We should focus on the real reasons, the cogent reasons for reducing emissions across the board. There are many more proven reasons for doing so than the whole, "Cars are bad.. Um-kay!?!?" BS

 

Leave it to "liberals" to have someone on their side and still attack their position because it doesn't fall lockstep with your methods and plan. As a Bio major, I am facinated by and relish all life (except flys and mosquitos :D ). As a father, I want as clean and toxic free world for my children as possible. But, I am not going to stand shoulder to shoulder with a buch of doofus, feel goods supporting an ignorant position in order to accomplish my means.

 

CO2????? :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::D:doh: Quite the hoot! CO2 :D:clap::clap: You're killing me, STOP! :D

 

Now, if you want to talk CO and acidic/poisonous particulate matter entering the water cycle and polluting the soil so that we ultimately end up taking this sh!t in internally, now you're dealing in reality that I think EVERYONE could get aboard with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ehhh yea...it's a Boogie post. :tup: You forgot the part on how the founder of Greenpeace saying something is some sort of litmus test for climate change. :D

 

:doh:

 

Was that a fly or mosquito? Nope just

 

Bush :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words and in the simplest terms.

 

CO2 = naturally occuring gas that is neither clean or dirty. It just "is". :D

 

All the other crap that comes from emissions = Dirty and BAD. :D:doh::tup:

 

Focus on the "Dirty and Bad" part and you will get more people to join US in this worthy fight. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you choose to be thick...

If you took the time to actually read your own posts, you would clearly see where your use of "it" at the start of both the fifth and sixth paragraphs would confuse the reader. As usual, you're far too busy droning on about liberals to notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Focus on the "Dirty and Bad" part and you will get more people to join US in this worthy fight. :D

 

 

Boogie, I don't understand your scatterbrained trip. Last time on this discussion you posted some propaganda film as gospel and you have always tended to blabber about complete nonsense. You admit pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere probably won't have a desirable effect but then apparently dismiss the scientifically founded record high anomalous spike of CO2 in ice cores in recent times, over hundreds of thousands of years, as complete nonsense and bad science.

 

I,for one, have no clue what to expect from our anthropogenic caused warming of the planet, other than it is real and should be paid attention to. Warming and cooling periods are natural, but it is being expedited on some unknown level, because of us. There are some concrete steps we can make, at personal and corporate levels, without bowing down to senseless exercises in environmentalism.

 

You lose distinction between the hardcore greenies and those who don't walk whatever level of distrust of logical environmental awareness you are dealing with. I understand how you don't want Al Gore making environmental policy for us, the people, but he is a talking head taking advantage of a political situation and, IMO, will still be in the pocket of the energy industry and will eventually do squat if ever put in a position of power.

Edited by bushwacked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I preface this with the fact that my efforts to communicate with you are probably most definitely lost. I am sure you see my name and instantly are in the attack mode. You misquote me and soften my position as a leaping point for your rebuttal. You fail to realize that on this issue, we have a common goal. Responses like the one below, starting with belittlement and grandiose claims to my nonsense are rude and clearly not designed to inspire conversation, just intimidation. I scan the Tailgate, but don't participate very often any more. It is the same rudeness, from all sides, as always. BUT, when you start talking about the planet and keeping it clean, that is something that is VERY important to me! And it is my opinion that the militant, goofy and unreliable data being used to push this issue is driving more people away than it is attracting. Because of this, I feel it is a dangerous position and actually more harmful to the betterment of our environment than for the good. Rather than drawing on a wide base from all thought and political spectrums to work on this problem, the modern machination of down-your-throat politics has done nothing positive and polarized people into an argument, rather than bring them together in a positive and active way. This polarization has paralyzed the forward progress of the global environmental issue, creating a non-moving trench war with two sides screaming at each other through the barb wire. This is what has me the MOST frustrated. Join me in a desire to clean up the environment for our children, or not. But I sir, will not put "all my eggs in a basket" that may either be disproved or forgotten with time!

 

Boogie, I don't understand your scatterbrained trip. Last time on this discussion you posted some propaganda film as gospel and you have always tended to blabber about complete nonsense. You admit pumping fossil fuels into the atmosphere probably won't have a desirable effect NO!!! I said it is BAD, not probably bad, but bad. Why do you lessen my stance to give yourself a platform to argue from? but then apparently dismiss the scientifically founded record high anomalous spike of CO2 in ice cores in recent times, over hundreds of thousands of years, as complete nonsense and bad science. Here is where we seriously part. The "propaganda film" for one is a viable information source for another. The credible source for one is a politically motivated hack for another. What you don’t seem to understand is that in premise, I am on your side with this issue. I also was educated as a scientist, and taking all, not just the "propaganda film" (which I actually do find quite credible), but all the information on both sides of this and analyzing it myself (and not, I don't have a PHD), I and many of my science nerd friends, find the interpretation of the data presented by Gore to be faulty. Sorry! There is a side of me that would like it to be true because it would be another solid example as to why we need to move away from fossil fuels. Unfortunately, when politics is injected into any theme, as it clearly has been into this one, interpretation becomes jaded. Just as Biblical works, history and our own Constitution. It is hard to argue with ones interpretation of any topic so wide open for varied interpretations, once again, especially when political motivation is so deeply injected into its heart. This is one topic I am as passionate, maybe more so that any of you. All of my monthly charitable contributions go to "earth first" organizations and research entities working on alternate fuel technology (beside the part that goes towards assistance dog programs). You can call me "scatterbrained" and insult me all day. I am used to less than civil treatment from you. I call you liberal and you act as if I used the "F" word to your child! :D I don't know what scientific background you have, but what you find to be "scientifically founded" I, and many others, find inconclusive. I don't discount the fact that there may be some minor role we play in the effect on the atmosphere, but I am still convinced that our effect is much more greatly felt ecologically by the poisons in our emissions as opposed to the minimal impact we have over the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I don't see any "conclusive" data either way. As for now, it is funny to me that CO2 is being labeled as the culprit and how emotionally attached / scientifically ignorant masses are being consumed by this single aspect of a much bigger problem. It is the single stance, tunnel vision position that has been taken that has polarized the population on this issue as opposed to using the big picture reality that could draw many more people in to join the fight.

 

Have you ever been to Southern California when it is 90 degrees? Warm, but not uncomfortable. How about Florida when it is 90 degrees? Hot and muggy. Water vapor, or "Humidity" in the atmosphere has a mush greater effect on the amount of ambient energy retention (heat). World humidity levels are higher than they have been in a decade. How do you explain that? As far as I am aware, there has been no outcry against the use of Jacuzzis because of all the extra water vapor they put into the atmosphere (not that I think human use of Jacuzzis would actually effect the atmosphere except for the use of extra fossil fuels it would take to run them).

 

I, for one, have no clue what to expect from our anthropogenic caused warming of the planet, other than it is real and should be paid attention to. Warming and cooling periods are natural, but it is being expedited on some unknown level, because of us. There are some concrete steps we can make, at personal and corporate levels, without bowing down to senseless exercises in environmentalism. And, I don't believe there is enough proof to stand on a single issue argument. There is enough controversy based on your single issue stance to dismiss your concerns. I don't. Be as concerned as you want to be! Your concern on this single issue is positive, though possibly unfounded, support for the same goals I have with regard to the environment. I repeat, The militant approach taken by so many is unfortunately polarizing the issue and bogging the big picture down.

 

You lose distinction between the hardcore greenies and those who don't walk whatever level of distrust of logical environmental awareness you are dealing with. I understand how you don't want Al Gore making environmental policy for us, the people, He can't, he is not an elected official. He is entitled to his opinion, just like I am! but he is a talking head taking advantage of a political situation YES, THANK YOU! A POLITICAL SITUATION! YOU ARE STARTING TO UNDERSTAND GRASSHOPPER! and, IMO, will still be in the pocket of the energy industry and will eventually do squat if ever put in a position of power. I totally agree with this! The energy industry wants to burn all the coal and oil they can until it runs out. Finding another fuel source now would leave a lot of money in the ground. They want to exploit that BEFORE offering an alternative. With the advancement of science and technology, do you really think that it should have taken this long to create super efficient fuels and engines to run them? How about super efficient vehicles to use the current fuel sources? That would be bad because we would then spend less money buying their fuel and they would make less money selling it. Corporate greed is a factor. You receive no argument from me here. ( I bet you thought you would though :tup: )

 

As an aside to this. One other thing that holds our ability back to producing cleaner energy is yet another controversial subject. However, my environmentalist brethren are way off base when it comes to their stance on nuclear power. The advancement in reactors over the last three decades has been remarkable. Almost all of our major naval vessels are powered by reactors, and we never hear of meltdowns and major accidents. Even the event in Japan, as the result of an earthquake, did not cause any more than some juice to get spilled that can easily be cleaned up. The reactor itself is in tact and not posing a danger to anyone. The amount of waste is fractional compared to earlier technology, and even the waste is being used in other applications.

 

Unfortunately, this is where the non-corporate entities and militant environmentalist are to blame. Throw in a decent helping of, "Yeah, it is a good idea, just don't build it in my backyard!" and you have yet another viable (partial) solution taken off the table. :D

 

I will probably get creamed for this, but a good start to minimizing our effect on atmosphere and environment would be greater use of nuclear energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you took the time to actually read your own posts, you would clearly see where your use of "it" at the start of both the fifth and sixth paragraphs would confuse the reader. As usual, you're far too busy droning on about liberals to notice.

 

I am not at all suprised that you would focus on the definition of one word than attempt to take in the basic meaning of an entire thought or point. These are meassage boards, not Masters Degree position papers. You have learned well from Clinton my son! :doh:

 

I actually though that you and I had found some middle ground a while back. But is clear to me that if you were wearing a green shirt and I said, that is a cool green shirt, you would say, "Thanx, but it is actually closer to lime green!" :D:tup:

 

See y'all later. :D

Edited by McBoog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not at all suprised that you would focus on the definition of one word than attempt to take in the basic meaning of an entire thought or point. These are meassage boards, not Masters Degree position papers. You have learned well from Clinton my son! :doh:

 

I actually though that you and I had found some middle ground a while back. But is clear to me that if you were wearing a green shirt and I said, that is a cool green shirt, you would say, "Thanx, but it is actually closer to lime green!" :D:tup:

 

See y'all later. :D

Your wish to think evil of liberals outweighs your concern about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.