Stupid? perhaps.
Irresponsible? Maybe.
NOT flexing your freedom...say what? Having a choice is always flexing your freedom, whether you, or I, agree.
USDoT cooks the books
- Thread starter jimpeel
- Start date
Stupid? perhaps.
Irresponsible? Maybe.
NOT flexing your freedom...say what? Having a choice is always flexing your freedom, whether you, or I, agree.
randomJACKASS
Banned
It seems to me that jimpeel spends a lot of time compiling a lot of junk science articles that appear to make his case in an argument he wants so desperately to wage and win. Personally I do believe that the evidence for global warming does outweigh the evidence against. I also do not see why changing to renewable clean burning energy sources is a bad thing even if the global warming thing is a myth?!?!
It took about 10 minutes of searching to find out that this Richard Muller guy who wrote the first article jimpeel sites that "debunks" global warming is by a guy who works for a company that has contracts with the department of defense, which does little to bolster his credibility. Furthermore, the article he sites only shows Muller's issues with one part of the computer modeling methodology, and does not :"debunk" anything. It took 3 of those ten minutes to find this:
I would post a link to the above quote, but the software here prevents it until my 16th post. I will edit it in later.
Edit to include source article.
So I am not going to spend hours going through all jimpeel's "evidence", my point simply is that one can roam the internet and make a case for just about any nonsense they wish, and convince them self of anything they wish.
And jimpeel, sticking to ones false and flawed beliefs with the tenacity of a pit-bull's locked jaws on a piece of meat, isn't noble, or even remotely admirable, it's just foolish and dangerous. And before you go trying to prove me wrong again, consider that all the "evidence" pro global warming and con, is just theories. We have not had the technology long enough to be sure of anything yet, but isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution?
It took about 10 minutes of searching to find out that this Richard Muller guy who wrote the first article jimpeel sites that "debunks" global warming is by a guy who works for a company that has contracts with the department of defense, which does little to bolster his credibility. Furthermore, the article he sites only shows Muller's issues with one part of the computer modeling methodology, and does not :"debunk" anything. It took 3 of those ten minutes to find this:
Christian Science Monitor said:
I would post a link to the above quote, but the software here prevents it until my 16th post. I will edit it in later.
Edit to include source article.
So I am not going to spend hours going through all jimpeel's "evidence", my point simply is that one can roam the internet and make a case for just about any nonsense they wish, and convince them self of anything they wish.
And jimpeel, sticking to ones false and flawed beliefs with the tenacity of a pit-bull's locked jaws on a piece of meat, isn't noble, or even remotely admirable, it's just foolish and dangerous. And before you go trying to prove me wrong again, consider that all the "evidence" pro global warming and con, is just theories. We have not had the technology long enough to be sure of anything yet, but isn't it prudent to err on the side of caution?
spike
New Member
No having a choice is not always flexing your freedom. I have a choice whether to burn down my neighbors house or not to. Choosing to burn it down is hardly flexing my freedom. When your choices affect other people it changes things Gonz.
If you dump a bunch of waste in a river it could affect the health of others, when you litter in a park it makes it not as nice for other people or they have to pick up after you.
Having the government interfere with legal commerce by forcing non-governemental entities to comply with mandates are costing you & I, the consumer, far more that it would if the gov't stepped out of the way by not overstepping its authority, and allowed free trade to tak ecare of this.
example - Telling GM they must create vehicles with an average MPG of 30+ sounds lovely. However, the Ameican people want large cars, SUVs & pick-up trucks. So, GM must either make cars they can't sell, or dumb down the cars they can, which will stop them from selling or face huge fines from the government. When gas was four bucks, large vehicles quit selling. When it droped back under $3.00, they stated selling again.
Let the market decide.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Yet you do the same and consider yourself "wise" and "safe".
I'll take the historical theory over the immediate theory every time. Periods of warming and cooling are historic and undeniable. The immediate theory is that this period is dangerous to all living things while ignoring all of those other periods wher nothing terrible happened.
By the way, did I mention that they took the computer models which predict all of this catastrophic global warming and programmed them for years that have already happened and they could not "predict" weather changes which have already happened? So how can you trust them to predict weather changes which are yet to happen?
On global warming? No, and hell no, in that order.
History has proven that periods of global warming have not caused any long or short term damage to the planet or its inhabitants. Crops were grown in far northern latitudes which cannot be grown there today. The growing seasons would be longer and crop yields greater.
Global cooling, on the other hand, does cause long and short term damage to the Earth and its inhabitants and is a far more dangerous event. Crops would be limited as well as the growing seasons. Literally billions would die of starvation.
So the possibly real threat looms while you and your ilk rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. You worry about something that would bring prosperity and ignore that which would bring death and destruction.
Has it yet occurred to you that the term "global warming" has now been changed to the more politically correct newspeak "climate change" now that the Earth has not warmed for a decade? Note that the following links are NOT from junkscience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7329799.stm
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/
In the mean time, you ignore the fact that global warming is occurring on other planets where man has never set foot.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece
If it were Al gore saying the following, you would bow at his feet and call him a prophet yet one of the premiere atmospheric scientists on the planet says it and he is a "foolish and dangerous".
.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
So just watch the four videos at the bottom of the post and tell me what you think.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Ok you are right jimpeel, I shall never question that again.....
Is that what you wanted?
Is that what you wanted?
randomJACKASS
Banned
People just love heroin as a painkiller, (the best opiate painkiller known to man). I bet it would sell real well if we let the market decide! That would be yet another boon for the wonderful and benevolent drug companies.
Felons are the type of people with the biggest desire to purchase assault rifles, it's a damn shame we don't open up that market for gun companies! After all the consitutution doesn't say anything about who should be able to bear arms, and look how put upon those gun companies already are with all thos unfair laws!
spike
New Member
I think you may be on to him. Good work.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
No. I want you to stop saying that anyone who disagrees with you is a fool and dangerous. This nation was founded on differing opinions and an adversarial form of government.
You claim that I am unwilling to consider the evidence from the other side of the equation and that makes me dangerously foolhardy. Well, I have considered the evidence from the other side and I have also considered the evidence from those who disagree. I have chosen to believe the side that disagrees because they have successfully hoisted their argument to my satisfaction.
Am I willing to change my opinion of things? Yes. Hydrogen power is a good example. I used to be a rabid proponent of hydrogen power for vehicles. Then, I read THIS ARTICLE which placed hydrogen out there using real numbers and the laws of physics.
There was also THIS ARTICLE and THIS ARTICLE which showed that the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor and how it has been ignored by the model makers. What do you get coming out of the tailpipes of all of those tens of millions of hydrogen powered cars? Water vapor.
Even THE PROPONENTS AGREE about water vapor.
The National Geographic did A PIECE ON WATER VAPOR as well.
Al Gore and his ilk tell us that we are wasteful carbon footprint purveyors while he flies around on corporate jets; uses 20 times the amount of electricity in his home -- that he is not at most of the time -- than the average American household; and is the founder of a company that rakes in millions a year from his, to me and tens of millions of others, unfounded premise.
Al Gore stated that we have but ten years to save the planet or we are all going to die. Rush Limbaugh started a countdown clock on January 27th, 2006 and we now have 7 years, 29 days, and 12 hours to live. Surely, Al Gore cannot be wrong about this -- right?
Extraterrestrial global warming is occurring on other planets in the solar system and the GW proponents want to ignore that. I guess that Mars Lander Project really got the temps rising up there. It must be the problem as it is the only mobile vehicle devised by humans up there.
You accuse me of closing my eyes yet you blindly accept what you are told at face value and start marching to the drumbeat never considering that you, and other proponents, might just be wrong. You are willing to spend trillions on something that has tenuous roots in the scientific community and is not accepted as "settled science" by a vast array of noted scientists and climatologists.
How about we settle here:
I will continue to believe that GW is a hoax and a Hegelian Dialectic invented by those who wish to assume complete power over our lives and for their own monetary gain.
You continue to believe that GW is factual, is occurring, and that those who discovered it are totally and completely trustworthy; and they have only your, and the Earth's, best interests at heart, their data is accurate, complete, inarguable, and any treasure spent on its elimination will be funds well spent.
Agreed?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Heroin is the leftover waste of processing Opium into Morphine which is the best opiate painkiller known to man.
Heroin is classified, medically, as an analgesic.
Heroin didn't even have a name until the late 1800s when Dr. Bayer, of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, started selling it as a patent medicine for the cure of the common cold. Heroin remains the best Rhinovirus cure known to man to this day and can cure a common cold in a day.
In 1955 you could drive into a gas station, fill your tank, buy a firearm and ammunition, and drive on down the road with no paperwork or background check. You could buy a firearm through the mail, no paperwork no background check.
That's the way it was up until the Kennedy assassination and GCA '68. That was the way the free market and the Constitution was supposed to work. Then came the lawmakers and they screwed it all up and people like you bought into it under the guise of safety.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Sorry jimpeel I know you know all, what was I thinking?!?
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Facts are facts.
randomJACKASS
Banned
Again I bow to your superior supreme omnipotence!
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
Aw, shucks, you can just call me Jim.
randomJACKASS
Banned
I just think it's telling that the very guy who's article you use first to "debunk" doesn't believe as you do, and it is a belief. As I've said we have not had enough technology long enough to know anything for sure. I know you would like to tell me what I believe but I don't believe as you want me to. I believe the evidence for GW is a stronger case, but that is subject to change because unlike you I don't have an insatiable need to be right and prove it, and my mind is open to new facts that we may discover on the matter.
And even if I did believe that the GW thing was a hoax I would still believe in erring on the side of caution. Recycling, and keeping the environment clean are no bad things, no matter what.
And even if I did believe that the GW thing was a hoax I would still believe in erring on the side of caution. Recycling, and keeping the environment clean are no bad things, no matter what.
HELL YEA!!!!
Let's ruin lives because we think perhaps something could happen, maybe.
jimpeel
Well-Known Member
I have given you numerous links to factual information from reliable scientific sources and you take one thing from all of it and say that "my guy" says it isn't so. David Deming is a good guy and I have personally communicated with him in the past on other matters unrelated to GW.
Your intractability on this matter proves that you have not done any research on the opposition belief even when it is presented to you. Regardless of the facts to the contrary, your mind is made up. The following quote of yours proves that.
Perhaps you should change your handle to "Useful_Idiot" if that is the way your thought processes work.
A study done some years ago showed that it is cheaper, cleaner, and produces less pollution to mine the Bauxite, ship it, refine it into aluminum, and create a new soda can than to recycle the existing cans.
Recycled newspaper creates vast pools of waste acid which is yet to be found useful at any level so it sits there polluting the environment and killing everything which falls into it. Google -- acid pits "newspaper recycling" -- and see what you get.
spike
New Member
Imagine if only a single word of that had anything to do with the point.
Again, imagine if you'd actually addressed what he was saying.
spike
New Member
Actually that quote proves the exact opposite of what you think it does. It pretty clearly says that his mind isn't made up but he still believes in acting responsibly with regards to the environment. You're the one showing complete intractibility on the matter regardless of the facts to the contrary.
In fact your so obsessed with this that you setup a straw man just so you could change the subject to GW when that wasn't what anyone else was disussing.
That would better fit you Jimbo.
Denialists scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Sorry Jim, you're wrong again. Seems like you rail against any type of actions that involve responsibility with regards to the environment but it's just looking like laziness at this point.
The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing the benefits of recycling and showing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space -- all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
http://environment.about.com/od/recycling/a/benefit_vs_cost.htm