Bold political leadership!

Started by Harvey Birdman, June 22, 2007, 09:02:17 am

Previous topic - Next topic

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 03:34:51 pm
I was replying to calico, sorry was that directed at me? I'm so confused at the moment... ???

No it wasn't.  ;)

Will

ah wonderful. Now your discussion can recommence.
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:54:08 pm
The only reason we went there was because of the nukes.  I was there.  This was Bush's reason for going over there, since he couldn't pull the "Al Queda" card.

That is not true. Nukes where not the only reason. The reasons were the inteligence pointing toward his pursuit of WMDs, including nukes, his ties to terrorism, and his refusal to obey UN sanctions. Saddam was not at war with Al Queda. Al Queda  memebers had met with Iraqi officails several times, there is evidence that suggest Iraq was supplying jihadist groups with training manuals and other supplies and there had been discussions between Iraqi officials and Al Queda members about opening a training camp in Iraq, possibily in Bagdad.

nvseal

Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 03:58:07 pm
Any government can be screwed and a democracy can be screwed as easily as any other form of government.  There is no "free market" in the U.S.  It's nearly (almost all) monopolized by a handful of wealthy, including the media.  That doesn't mean that everyone in the U.S. is evil, but with businessmen in the White House they aren't looking out for anyone but themselves. 


That is not my point. Yes, governments can be screwed - that is what environmentalist are trying to do to ours. What environmentalist want to do is "screw-up" our government by implementing communism. To screw up capitalism the only real option is to change it to something else. You can't screw up communism; it's already a mess. My point is that one is naturally better than the other and so the comparison of each is not moot because they are not equal.

Will

July 09, 2007, 05:15:36 pm #34 Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 05:22:12 pm by Will
opopopop keep it with in the confounds of the topic, please edit your post to add something referring to global waring or a midrid of other topics previously stated. Thank and please come again   :).

Edit: "Guest      05:11:39 PM     Nothing, or nothing you can see" ow But now I'm curious.  :(
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 04:03:05 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam - do a search for heavy siltation.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y1997E/y1997e1c.htm - we get our oxygen (fresh air) from trees
http://www.worldwildlife.org/endangered/ - a list


After all of the "raping" of forest have we started to lose oxygen? Really, have oxygen levels actually decreased at even a measurable level? Are people starting to die or even getting close to dieing? No.

None of that constitutes destroying the earth. Changing? Yes. Destroying? No. Besides, the things you mention are contained. That is, they are not global shifts.
Note: I'm not against stewardship (endangered species for example). I also do not deny that man has the ability to alter the environment in localized areas, sometimes in drastic ways. But then again, that's not what I started talking about, which was global climate change.

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 05:15:36 pm
opopopop keep it with in the confounds of the topic, please edit your post to add something referring to global waring or a midrid of other topics previously stated. Thank and please come again   :).

Edit: "Guest      05:11:39 PM     Nothing, or nothing you can see" ow But now I'm curious.  :(


When I first mentioned it (communism vs. capitalism), it was within the context of global climate change (see first post), however, it has apperently become slightly detached. An important thing to answer nontheless though.

Will

well frankly there is that entire thing with the CFC and that hole in the Ozone but apparently that is slowly recovering which is good. I think there are global changes but Al Gore did stretch the true in some areas of his movie and told the straight truth about some things too. This is just my opinion but from what I've seen just happening around my area there are major global effects, whether completely causes by us or not at all is what is debatable. For example last year it was two warm for bears to hibernate (up here in New Hampshire) thats pretty bad, the thing about localized change is true but since most of our pollution comes from the west there is an effect over very large regions of the globe.

Thanks for explaining the communism thing though (takes off dictator hat)
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 05:39:57 pm
well frankly there is that entire thing with the CFC and that hole in the Ozone but apparently that is slowly recovering which is good. I think there are global changes but Al Gore did stretch the true in some areas of his movie and told the straight truth about some things too. This is just my opinion but from what I've seen just happening around my area there are major global effects, whether completely causes by us or not at all is what is debatable. For example last year it was two warm for bears to hibernate (up here in New Hampshire) thats pretty bad, the thing about localized change is true but since most of our pollution comes from the west there is an effect over very large regions of the globe.

Thanks for explaining the communism thing though (takes off dictator hat)


Can you provide a scientific link between the temperature in New Hampshire and western civilization? Or are you rather assuming a connection?

Will

Scientific maybe give me a little bit I'll find the report again I think its somewhere on the NH.gov website archive, hold on I'll look.


Edit: my god we need to make a new site....
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

July 09, 2007, 05:57:06 pm #40 Last Edit: July 10, 2007, 01:11:35 pm by nvseal
Quote from: calico on July 09, 2007, 04:11:50 pm
Gore's film isn't based upon junk science.

But, have you seen it?  He uses facts and he doesn't lie about the facts.

As far as what we're contributing to the atmosphere, I'm certain cars aren't as bad as those smoke stacks I see blowing up shit every day or how about the nuclear testing - what does that do to our atmosphere?  Are you kidding me that we can just blow up little miniature explosions like on the sun (sun spots) and it doesn't affect the Earth's thin atmosphere? 

Air / water pollution and nuclear explosions are exact examples of man destroying the Earth.  Does this mean that there won't be an Earth left?  No, I don't believe so.  Does it mean that human life and well being will be a rare commodity on the Earth, if we don't pull our heads out of our fairy tales?  I believe it does.

Semantics shouldn't enter into this argument.  A simple question of "Are we destroying the Earth by polluting it and blowing it up?" is enough.  We could be spending our time and energy on something valuable rather than ruining what we touch.  But, who really cares?


Quote from: nvseal on July 09, 2007, 03:07:57 pm
Gore's film (among other things) is covered in junk science and shady connections - which is what I said in my first post. Even scientists who agree with his basic thesis (global warming is manmade) disagree with his evidence.



Some of his facts are correct, not all. Read the article I posted in my first post. His conclusions are wrong. I have already addressed this. Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

How many nuclear explosions have there been around the world and when was the last time there was one? Smoke stacks are localized. Though the spread out they do not change the global climate. If anything, there would cause a localized fluctation that the climate would fix naturally. The climate is not a living organism, you cannot poison it with pollution.

Semantics is important. Buzz words are difficult, confusing little things that destroy reasonable thought. Definition is a part of argument. It makes sure we are both talking about the same thing.

Some good articles.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/01/24/minority_view
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/heresy.html

Will

Oh I read it, it has a lot of really good point many of which I agreed with. But here is what my quick search turned up, I followed a link in the archive and it took me a a summery about an article in the local newspaper, not as creditable as I originally thought (though, to its credit its a pretty conservative newspaper and any coverage about the topic is pretty amazing). I did dig up a NOAA newsletter though taking about the abnormally warm winter: here http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm . Yea so basically my information for the bears is apparently just an assumption but I do know that we to get pollution from the west, which means Chicago and the like though not California or anything that far away.
Edit: el nino interesting...
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

July 09, 2007, 06:04:53 pm #42 Last Edit: July 09, 2007, 06:15:53 pm by nvseal
Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:03:01 pm
Oh I read it, it has a lot of really good point many of which I agreed with. But here is what my quick search turned up, I followed a link in the archive and it took me a a summery about an article in the local newspaper, not as creditable as I originally thought (though, to its credit its a pretty conservative newspaper and any coverage about the topic is pretty amazing). I did dig up a NOAA newsletter though taking about the abnormally warm winter: here http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2772.htm . Yea so basically my information for the bears is apparently just an assumption but I do know that we to get pollution from the west, which means Chicago and the like though not California or anything that far away.
Edit: el nino interesting...


Sorry, I was asking Calico if he read it.  :) However, you bring up an interesting point which I touched on in my first post. The abnormally warm winter. Global Warming alarmist grab onto these type of reports and wave them around screaming the end of the world while usually never going much deeper into just how abnormal. There are many issues with these types of responses. Abnormal,for example, does not mean "never happened before." There have been warm periods and cold periods throughout all earth history. Abnormal is a relative term. So the question is abnormal for what? The past 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years? Moreover, what if the next winter is normal again? If global warming was to blame shouldn't the next winter be warmer? Also, this past year there were record lows all across the western United States. Did the global warming alarmist address these? No. In fact, I think they blamed global warming.

Will

Well they showed us a chart in Biology class that showed that we are a lot higher then any other time in history (that they have been able to see) I think we have surpassed the other points in time with abnormal highs. This is not to say it necessarily our fault but there is something defiantly different about the time we are in. At any rate I know the ski industry didn't do too well last year (my uncle is a salesman)
The world is round... so you have to use spherical projection.

nvseal

Quote from: Will on July 09, 2007, 06:22:22 pm
Well they showed us a chart in Biology class that showed that we are a lot higher then any other time in history (that they have been able to see) I think we have surpassed the other points in time with abnormal highs. This is not to say it necessarily our fault but there is something defiantly different about the time we are in. At any rate I know the ski industry didn't do too well last year (my uncle is a salesman)


Do you go to public school?