You'd likely lose, as well. Just like you banked on Bush and greed-driven Crapitalism.
You da winna ! You da man !! You see dem tings clearly now !
You should smoke some dope and actually see where you've gone oh-so-wrong, XFOB.
Being a plodding dinosaur in a time of fast, thinking, armed mammals has only one advantage.
You make nice lizard-skin shoes.
Your are so typical, bush again? Really? So he's ruled the world for like what...200 years ?
You sure are a big talker on that thar intrawebs. Still living with mommy huh.
When you factor in the consequences for being wrong with the evidence of the inescapable, it makes the right wingers even more delusional and dangerous than ever speculated hitherto. We cant get rid of them, they're like bankers and CEOs. They get bonuses for being repeatedly wrong and seriously incompetent. They proudly state that we should wait until it's too late. Not leaders, wankers.
Then why did the bankers and CEOs vote Obama into office? Your logic is deeply flawed.
You'd likely lose, as well. Just like you banked on Bush and greed-driven Crapitalism.
'The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money'
I know you've seen that one before, but it rings so true. Let us hard working fools keep our Capitolism and go somewhere else. If you give them enough handouts your free-loading friends will follow you there.
"The difference between left and right of center...originated in the French parliament. The people left of center were liberals; the people right of center were conservatives. Broadly speaking. And generally speaking, people on...the right of center, are interested in property values, property, property rights. The rights and the rights of property. And generally speaking again – it's all generalized – the left-of-center people are more concerned with humans and human beings and human concerns; to the care of humans, not the care and worry about property rights. That's generally been true. And Bush is pushing this country farther down the hill, faster than anyone has before."
That sounds like it was written by a true bleeding-heart-liberal. Spending other people's money on other people, that's the name of the game right? Some of us believe in hard work for fair pay without giving half or more to the government, mostly for entitlements and special interests. I don't understand why that concept is so hard to grasp.
Not true. There is enough proof to have convinced every single peer-reviewed and serious scientist on the planet.
If we seem a little "short", it's just being tired of the same mindless "questions" being asked all the time by people who are too lazy to do just some simple research. I hope you're not just another one.
I've seen the effects myself of rapid, Human-induced Global Warming, I've understood the science that has led, uh, virtually every scientist on the planet to acknowledge it as being real, rapid and needing attention last year.
I also understand the Deniers, and who they're manipulated by, and why, and I also understand the simple citizen who doesn't have a clue and is baffled by either vastly complicated formula and the sheer stubbornness of science NOT to jump to conclusions, and the plethora of sly spin pumped out by the Deniers.
It's not a simple issue, and it's also not a "religion", although I'm sure some people take it waaaaaay OTT.
Then again, the destruction of all life on the planet may have this effect...
Seriously, once you understand what a simple 5 ° C temperature increase, on average, can do to the incredible fine strand we walk the existence tightrope on on this planet, you begin to understand why a degree becomes important.
The science is not conclusive about AGW, but then, science by it's nature is never conclusive. But the science that has caused the alarm is accurate and is valid.
Maybe this will help you understand better. It helped me.
Feel free to present as much proof as you want or can to back up why you think the way you do, because maybe we've all missed something.
Deny the Denial by being informed.
Le Kiwi, I appreciate your civility and will take the time to review the information in the links you provided. As a former AGW Believer, then Skeptic, it is the methods and tactics of the fanatic believers who didn't even have good sound reason to believe (in my opinion) who really pushed me into being a Denier.
Your are so typical, bush again? Really? So he's ruled the world for like what...200 years ?
You sure are a big talker on that thar intrawebs. Still living with mommy huh.
Rob.. They're right around the corner talking the same shit and signed up as alternatives to reason for 2012. People(not fanatics!) are still upset because STILL, the assholes who brought so much decline and loss are still there! Saying the same turd things. They would reverse the good yet again, thats all they know.
Maybe, if the right had taken that last election loss with dignity and a smidgen of humility, they'd have come back smarter and stronger but no..sigh.
Then why did the bankers and CEOs vote Obama into office? Your logic is deeply flawed.
heheheheh...hehehehehe
Not much one can do with that.
You've got to be getting your world view from Faux News. Last night the ding-a-ling pundit was claiming that global warming was a scam to socialize America...
Dangerous and ignorant. She also claimed that other countries wanted to "knock America down" to gain some kind of advantage. She wasnt talking Iran though....
The web of lies from the right is soo huge now that the logic is drowned in a sea of contradictions, forgotten claims, ignored realities and sheer craziness as glue. The spider forgot he is in a web. All the qualities of a mentally ill human being or a corrupt corporation are present in this tangled web and that is their source of pride.... unbelievable.
'The problem with Socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money'
I know you've seen that one before, but it rings so true. Let us hard working fools keep our Capitolism and go somewhere else. If you give them enough handouts your free-loading friends will follow you there.
Yet most of the wealthy people are Liberals, and Liberals make up some of the richest people on the planet, so, fatally, your argument falls on it's fat, drunk, red-neck Connedservative face.
"..And here is another thing: On average, Republicans are poorer than Democrats! Just go figure. When it comes to economics, it should be pretty simple. There are two basic political attitudes, and you would expect them to correlate with how rich a person is: you would expect both the rich and the poor to vote their pocketbook. The rich would vote for lower taxes and for the government to butt out, i.e. Republican, conservative. The poor would vote for more re-distribution of wealth, more government services, i.e. Democratic, liberal. But, lo and behold, it’s the opposite! Even though there is a lot of overlap, the statistics are clear: The average income of the 100 million or so Republicans is LOWER than that of the 150 million or so Democrats!
This oddity can be explained, of course. The first thing we should understand is the enormous regional variation in democratic and republican support. There are red states and there are blue states. And as it so happens, “blue America,” (E.g the East Coast and my beloved Left Coast) is more urban and richer than “red America,” and it is also way more liberal. And as we all know, the Deep South has become the bastion of Republicanism. And of course the Deep South is the country’s poorest region. The other red states are mostly in the Rocky Mountains and in the Midwest - again, rural, poor, and culturally conservative. So at the aggregate level, richer states are more democratic and poorer states are more republican.
In an article titled, “Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state,” (Quarterly Journal of Political Science, Sept. 2007), Andrew Gelman et.al. Reconcile the facts I just mentioned with our common-sense expectation that poorer folks should be voting Democratic: Indeed, within states, that is precisely what happens. Furthermore, the authors write, the “slope (statistical jargon for “relationship”) is steepest in poor, rural areas. That is, in poor rural areas, the poor are much more likely to vote for the Republican candidate.” In other words, the authors, write, “income matters more in “red America” than in “blue America...For example, in rich states such as Connecticut, income has a very low correlation with vote preference.”
But I get back to my starting point: Overall, it is America’s poor who elect people like George W. Bush, and America’s (somewhat) rich(er) who elect people like Obama. And we just saw one reason for this: the poorest regions are also those that are the most conservative - culturally (red states).
In addition, consider the following factors:
1. Education: Those with a college education are more liberal than those without.
2. The stars of popular culture (Hollywood, pro athletes) are both rich and liberal.
3. Public employees at the managerial level, politicians, lawyers, all make good money, and of course they are overwhemingly Democrats (think of Marxist university presidents making over a million a year).
4. Brainwashing: Republicans, the media and other opinion leaders have been able to divert people’s attention away from economics and towards cultural issues - abortion, gay issues, religion, flag waving, race, etc. Smokescreens, you might say. Come to think of it, this is related to #1: It’s easier to brainwash dumb and uneducated people.
So here you have it: At the local level, Americans may vote their pocket book interests, but as a nation, they frequently do the opposite. As a result, it’s the little old flag-waving ladies in tennis shoes who live on $20,000 a year, who help Wall Street to perpetuate the plutocracy which is so unfair to them. Isn’t this aggravating?"
You're merely happy-clapping to the Limbo and Beck Reich-wing propaganda nonsense that "Teh Librulz am got hands out", whereas the Liberal (whatever you think a "Liberal" is...) mantra is "Give a person a fish, you'll feed them for a day, teach a person to fish, you'll feed them until they over-fish. Educate them, and they'll look after the resource and maintain a sustainable society."
The Connedservative mantra is "It's MA dayam fish an' ah ams keepin' it. Git yor hands offa MA fish, or I'll SHOOT ya'll dead !!"
Why do you think Liberals are big on education ? Why are most professors "Liberal" ?
Because we despise ignorance and stupidity, which just happen to be prime requisites for the "Connedservative base".
A bit off the warming topic, but an interesting OP.
Le Kiwi, I appreciate your civility and will take the time to review the information in the links you provided. As a former AGW Believer, then Skeptic, it is the methods and tactics of the fanatic believers who didn't even have good sound reason to believe (in my opinion) who really pushed me into being a Denier.
Yeah, I can understand that. The hypocrisy of some who are on the AGW bandwagon is also aggravating, as are those who yearn for a "décroissancetotal" or "Un-growth" also get up my nose.
I was quite happy burning fuel as efficiently as I could riding as fast as I could go around in circles on high-powered, loud motorcycles, and I really don't want to stop doing it.
There is a terrific propaganda war on, and in one of those articles, there was a great report on why the science risks losing, and also why someone like Al Gore was needed to touch the voting public.
I think I have seen enough and understood enough about the climate to understand what's happening, and the very real risk it poses, on a multitude of fronts.
Something I thought quite interesting was this guys switch back over to sanity.
See what you think of this.
I was quite happy burning fuel as efficiently as I could riding as fast as I could go around in circles on high-powered, loud motorcycles, and I really don't want to stop doing it.
Looking at alternatives is a great start. Gotta have open eyes for that though.
Actually, this is such a good article that I'll give you Deniers the link, especially for you, Nero.
Pour yourself a stiff one, ignore the burning of Rome for a while, and seriously, read it and think.
HEY!
Anyone else having a problem with slow-loading pages on Zilla?
I don't even feel like logging on when it takes forever. WTF! It's been like this for several days.
__________________ "...let us not ignore the truth among ourselves, that we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down."
David Ben-Gurion (the father of Israel) "When fascism comes to America it will be draped in a flag and holding a cross." Sinclair Lewis I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all.
After reviewing the above two articles I can only say: 1) The first link describes the nut cases of the right wing, of which the left wing has an equal share. I don't consider myself a member of either party so smear the republicans all you want, I won't take offense . 2) The second link doesn't povide any more sound evidence that AGW is real than it is false, a quote from the first page goes:
'The climate is warming. It is almost certain this is caused by emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. Nobody has come up with an alternative explanation that stands up. If the present warming trend continues, nasty things will probably start happening to humans within the next century, possibly the next decade.'
Yes I read the whole thing and the author goes on to admit that almost and probably offer the deniers enough wiggle room to justify their positions and that science is only the best guess of the best minds. My problem is that I'm not in favor of wasting resources on a gamble (especially in a time of recession). It goes on to give examples of ice melting (ice melts, water freezes) and temperatures rising (they rise and they fall). If this article has changed even a skeptic's mind I would be surprised. Thanks for the links anyway.
For the record I work for a company who would definitely benefit from the trillions of dollars that will be spent upgrading coal fired power plants and building new 'green' power plants if/when new laws are passed capping CO2 output. We're building a new natural gas fired plant out West right now. I win either way but it still bothers me to no end.
HEY!
Anyone else having a problem with slow-loading pages on Zilla?
I don't even feel like logging on when it takes forever. WTF! It's been like this for several days.
Must be your machine as it works fine here. Dump your browser cache.
Updated December 15, 2009 Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up
London Times
The former vice president said new research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years, but the scientist his estimate was based on denies the timeline.
Dec. 14: Former Vice President Al Gore speaks at the U.N. Climate summit in Copenhagen. (AP)
There are many kinds of truth. Al Gore was hit by an inconvenient one yesterday.
The former vice president, who became an unlikely figurehead for the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," became entangled in a new climate change row.
Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Gore told the conference: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
However, the climatologist whose work Gore was relying upon dropped the former vice president in the water with an icy blast.
"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr. Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."
Gore's office later admitted that the 75 percent figure was one used by Dr. Maslowski as a "ballpark figure" several years ago in a conversation with Gore.
The embarrassing error cast another shadow over the conference after the controversy over the hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, which appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to strengthen their argument that human activities were causing global warming. Continue reading at The Times of London
Updated December 15, 2009 Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up
If I've told you once I've told you a MILLION times that if you want to make a strong point sometimes you have to exaggerate things and blow them out of proportion.
HEY!
Anyone else having a problem with slow-loading pages on Zilla?
I don't even feel like logging on when it takes forever. WTF! It's been like this for several days.
Global Slowing, dude.
__________________ ...Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water......
If I've told you once I've told you a MILLION times that if you want to make a strong point sometimes you have to exaggerate things and blow them out of proportion.
That would be why right wing science sucks donkey jewels...
Looking at alternatives is a great start. Gotta have open eyes for that though.
. 2) The second link doesn't povide any more sound evidence that AGW is real than it is false, a quote from the first page goes:
Linear Mode
