Quick! Everbody go out and start your cars,,,
POSTED BY: Hero
UPDATED: Monday, March 3, 2025 17:27
VIEWED: 12359
PAGE 9 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Avenge, please don't knock yourself out here talking to these numbskulls. They've spent years here shooting down global warming with incorrect facts and crappy reasoning. You're not the only browncoat to understand what's going on, or to try to talk reason with them. But you're just not going to convince these folks of anything. Best to save the effort for someone who might listen. Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.
No offense, Auraptor, Finn, et al....
"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary
Beliving global warming to be bunk is definately not a partisan thing. I fight with Rap and Finn quite a lot in here, but I don't buy into the global warming myth at all.
Whatever propoganda it takes to get the idiot proles to stop sucking on Middle East tit is fine with me though.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't mind admitting I'm wrong when I'm wrong.
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.
But I haven't seen any proof that you guys are right. I'm not a global warming atheist. I am a GW agnostic. Show me some proof, then we can talk.
The first proof anyone can show me is the standard deviation for the average annual global surface temperature. I have asked for this repeatedly in RWED, and then I've asked all over the internet. Strangely, no one seems to know this basic calculation tha comes with all averages. And even more strangely, no one seems to mind buying the whole-kit-and-kaboodle WITHOUT knowing this basic calculation.
Here is something global warming "believers" (like it's a religion) need to ask themselves. Why is it that they always talk about the CHANGE in average temp? Take any GW article, and ALL the numbers are about the CHANGE in average temp. They almost never talk about the average temps themselves. Why is that?
Talking about CHANGE assumes a constant for the average temp, which then gets represented as a Big Ol' Zero. Look at all the GW charts. You have zigzag lines that start below Zero and go above Zero. Everything in GW discussions assumes this Zero is correctly identified. Without talking about the average temps themselves, it draws away scrutiny on how the average was calculated to begin with, how accurate is that calculation, and how MUCH change is required before it is statistically significant.
Is there an accurate measure of the average annual global temperature to begin with?
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Temperatures.htm
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/is_there_an_average_global_tem_
1.html
--------------------------
There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
--Mark Twain
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Sickdude:
Believe me, they'll never get tired of being wrong.
No offense, Auraptor, Finn, et al....
"Your gratuitous jello awaits." - Dr. Helen Magnus, Sanctuary
No offense taken, but why would you state that I never tire of being wrong ? You think I'm merely taking this position to be contrarian ? That I'm 'bucking the trend' for the sake of being different? Nope, the fact of the matter is, I' don't see the evidence showing anything out of the ordinary when it comes to the claims of the global warming zealots. How old are you ? By that, I mean to say, how long have you been on this planet ? What is your perspective of how the climate "should be " ? Our recent snapshot of history in the past 100, 500, 10,000 yrs is just that, a thin slice of this planet's history. Our climate has always been in flux, long before the industrial revolution, long before man. So to so boldly state that we're screwing up what " normal " weather should be like, is utterly ridiculous.
Oceans rise and fall. Glaciers advance and receed. We know this to be a undeniable fact, and yet somehow, someone's decided that the state of things as they are NOW, is " normal ",or would be if mankind would stop screwing things up, that nature chose to have it that way for eternity. Sorry, not how it works. There's far too much ignorance of the Earth's history, coupled w/ the arrogance that mankind is sooooo powerful that we alone can alter the entire planet's climate w/ out even trying.
Not so fast, my friend.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Anti,
I really have come to respect your usually very thought provoking rebuttals. It's nice to hear we can have reasonable debates across the aisle.
thats very nice of you to say, thank you. i respect that your honost and admit your 'liberal' leanings, it makes it easier to debate the contrasts in our ideologies
Quote:
Well the problem with saying people have the right to live as they want is that if someone else is pollutes the environment, they don't give you the right to your freedom. I completely agree with freedom so long as it does not affect another persons freedom, i.e. I don't eat meat and would like for everyone to stop, but it is legal and while I would like for people to stop it does not infringe upon my freedoms to not eat them or protect them if they are on my property, just as you owning a gun and shooting it on your own property is none of my business. However if you start taking potshots at the creatures on my property expressly knowing that it is against my wishes then you affect my personal freedom to live as I wish to. If it were a simple matter of you stay over there and I'll stay over here I would agree, but environmental issues affect a global population, therefore protecting everyone's right to live as they choose becomes and issue of limiting an individuals right to affect another persons, unless of course you resort to violence which I'd really rather not have to do.
i thought you might find this interesting, its a response given to a similar scenario by Ron Paul, in an interview with John Stossel(about 5 min). id be curious your response to it(or the whole interview for that matter)
i would like to respond to some of your other comments, but ill have to get back to you
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I like most of the talk, however Ron Paul's voting record on the environment is terrible. For someone who is worried about pollution he is not at all worried about drilling in ANWR or offshore. Also I find his positions hypocritical in some cases. Aside form that he may want to actually learn what a bullet can do to a pressurized cabin. Safer if there was a pilot accessible gas system to incapacitate anyone on board along with a personal protective system such as a rubber bullet weapon. So he talks very pretty, unfortunately he protects big business at the expense of the little person far too much and it seems as though he is pandering to try and get votes.
When there are no heroes where will we turn?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You have to take it in context though.
If the US Constitution does not explicitly authorise Congress to do something, he *HAS* to vote No - even if the rest of the planet thinks it's a good idea.
Folk have become so used to Congressfolk violating that document willy-nilly that when it's violated in their favor they cheer for it, not realising that this just further erodes the poor tattered thing even now that it's just a mostly-ignored shell of itself.
The Government does not have any authority over certain things, it most explicitly does NOT, and to usurp it is a Constitutional Violation no matter how strongly someone feels about it, barring an actual amendment of the document itself.
He may not even personally, morally, agree with how he votes, but if the Constitution does not expressly authorise the Gov to do something - that's a no-no, and he WILL vote No, even if he believes the action is morally correct, because that is his DUTY as a member of Congress, something the rest of them seem to have forgotten.
This is a guy who does his duty to the best of his understanding of the Constitution and it's meanings regardless of his personal feelings on the matter at hand and sometimes even despite them, who does the job by the rules, instead of bending them, remaking them to his favor, or throwing them out the window like everyone else does.
I respect that, I respect it a whole hell of a lot, how many people could you give such power, and a set of limits no one else seems to give a damn about, and they would not follow the crowd over the line ?
Not very bloody many, that I assure you.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Don't get me wrong I am sure he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean you get to say you're for environmentalism and that you don't want someone polluting upstream, but that you support drilling in ANWR or offshore. They are two polar opposite ways of doing things. If it against the constitution to protect the welfare of our citizen's then I think its time for a different reader. I like Ralph Nader and agree with a lot of his policies, but that doesn't mean I would vote someone who is a pacifist into government. Thats like having Simon on prisoner duty and then giving the prisoner a gun, just isn't kosher. I am sure that the founding fathers really did not mean for the constitution to leave no power in the hands of the president. Keep in mind they started some of the organizations that Paul would like to get rid of.
When there are no heroes where will we turn?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
If it against the constitution to protect the welfare of our citizen's then I think its time for a different reader.
I disagree, wholeheartedly, that is awful steep slope smothered in crisco, and it's exactly what got us INTO this mess.
"For your own good" is the very worst of all possible tyrannies.
Quote:
I am sure that the founding fathers really did not mean for the constitution to leave no power in the hands of the president.
Well, you could try reading it.
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt
And if you fail to understand the meaning or reasoning behind any of the terms, conditions or statements...
Try reading the arguments that were the anvil on which this steel was forged.
The Federalist Papers.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html
The Anti-Federalist Papers.
http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/index.html
For the record, the Bill of Rights was created to pacify and encourage the consent of the Anti-Federalists, whom history has proven absolutely correct on almost *every single point*.
Bit of a shame the Federalists won the day, given that it has lead us here.
All of the abuses, usurpations, and exploitations we have suffered at the hands of our own Government today were called, chapter and verse, as far back as 1788.
Anyhows, ignoring and defying the Constitution when it becomes "inconvenient" renders the entire document and it's purpose void - and is exactly what lead to us the disastrous nadir in which we find ourselves today.
By that light, I cannot possibly support the idea of compounding the foolishness by ignoring and defying it some more.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahem...
The jurisdiction of the public welfare falls under congress. The can even levy taxes to make sure that the public welfare is served.
Oh and according to the constitution there should be no national guard and the disbanding of the air force should commence immediately because there is no provision for it, as well as all armed forces because they should only be called up for two years.
Also
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and
Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United
States
and really by the original constitution that includes the bill of rights, our current president has violated the bill of rights
Been a few years since I've read it word for word, however as the document was meant to be an elastic document, a literal reading makes our country impossible to govern effectively, nor would we have any roads, public schools, standing army, national guard, etc...
So, based upon reading the constitution yes I believe that for the public welfare, companies should use technologies currently available to protect the health and welfare of the population.
so I am not for a massive government, but I feel it is well within the rights of the government to enforce and demand basic protection of environmental policies from companies that choose to do business in the United States.
When there are no heroes where will we turn?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, it was not whatever meant as an "Elastic Document" and that perception only came about via years of Judicial Malpractice by the Supreme Court reinterpreting obvious things to mean the exact opposite - it was meant to be iron-clad save for amendment, and the States to do the things not expressly authorised to the Fed.
And believe me, I am all in favor of returning to it's original principles, and well aware of the simple fact that we are NOT supposed to have a standing army.
Constitutionally, the FedGov has no authority over environmental issues unless specific laws are passed regarding them, in compliance with the Constitution and it's processes.
This means that yes, some of those laws are entirely valid - as well the individual States, under the document, theoretically retain their sovereignity on those issues as well and can set and enforce polices themselves as it's not expressly a Federal Power.
But again, once you start playing into stuff like "Public Welfare" - you run into problems of definition supposed to be the Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, a duty they have by their own actions abysmally failed, subverted, and even used to usurp authority on behalf of the Executive.
When you open the door to bending rules in YOUR favor, you open to it the other side bending it in THEIRS, do you not see ?
And they have more money, and more lobbyists than you do.
If yer gonna do it, do it by the book, or just toss the thing into the nearest bin and be done with it - but you cannot pick and choose, it doesn't work that way, and was never intended to, which is why I posted those links.
I would say take your concerns to your state officials, and if you wish to broaden the scope then lean on your Congressperson to *introduce* legislation to address those issues, that's why we have them in the first place.
Not meanin to bust your chops, just sayin there's a way to go about it - unless you're interested in diving in with us Anarchists, that is.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME