 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Global Warming
I admit, he may have replied.
But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say we are accelerating global greenhouse effect. There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a scientist. Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll. When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it. Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized resources and energy passive buildings. Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush canceled. Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that. It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and space. That's called reality. He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were originally told the troops would be home in a few months. What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age". Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global warming? That Bush questions it? It requires strong action now. Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are his friends. I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I apologize. The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status. If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise. He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of natural resources, and seeing the world as one. Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since he's a change agent? Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
See
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun...glob-warm.html Is global warming man made. From the hippies at Stanford. Here are two that disagree http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-gwn081203.php Beach Runner wrote: > I admit, he may have replied. > But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in > temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the > world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say > we are accelerating global greenhouse effect. > > There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a > scientist. > > Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll. > > When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's > of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I > missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it. > > Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush > reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be > preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized > resources and energy passive buildings. > > Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush > canceled. > > Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that. > It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and > space. That's called reality. > > He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were > originally told the troops would be home in a few months. > > What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in > big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in > a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age". > > Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global > warming? That Bush questions it? > > It requires strong action now. > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating > the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy > rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are > his friends. > > I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar > caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me > for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I > apologize. > > > The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse > gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore > had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could > compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status. > > If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do > it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called > me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise. > > > He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A > brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of > natural resources, and seeing the world as one. > > Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in > the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments > are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since > he's a change agent? > > > > Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0219-01.htm
which I will post The Final Proof: Global Warming is a Man-Made Disaster by Steve Connor Scientists have found the first unequivocal link between man-made greenhouse gases and a dramatic heating of the Earth's oceans. The researchers - many funded by the US government - have seen what they describe as a "stunning" correlation between a rise in ocean temperature over the past 40 years and pollution of the atmosphere. The study destroys a central argument of global warming skeptics within the Bush administration - that climate change could be a natural phenomenon. It should convince George Bush to drop his objections to the Kyoto treaty on climate change, the scientists say. Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego and a leading member of the team, said: "We've got a serious problem. The debate is no longer: 'Is there a global warming signal?' The debate now is what are we going to do about it?" The findings are crucial because much of the evidence of a warmer world has until now been from air temperatures, but it is the oceans that are the driving force behind the Earth's climate. Dr Barnett said: "Over the past 40 years there has been considerable warming of the planetary system and approximately 90 per cent of that warming has gone directly into the oceans." He told the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington: "We defined a 'fingerprint' of ocean warming. Each of the oceans warmed differently at different depths and constitutes a fingerprint which you can look for. We had several computer simulations, for instance one for natural variability: could the climate system just do this on its own? The answer was no. "We looked at the possibility that solar changes or volcanic effects could have caused the warming - not a chance. What just absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming." America produces a quarter of the world's greenhouse gases, yet under President Bush it is one of the few developed nations not to have signed the Kyoto treaty to limit emissions. The President's advisers have argued that the science of global warming is full of uncertainties and change might be a natural phenomenon. Dr Barnett said that position was untenable because it was now clear from the latest study, which is yet to be published, that man-made greenhouse gases had caused vast amounts of heat to be soaked up by the oceans. "It's a good time for nations that are not part of Kyoto to re-evaluate their positions and see if it would be to their advantage to join," he said. The study involved scientists from the US Department of Energy, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as the Met Office's Hadley Center. They analyzed more than 7 million recordings of ocean temperature from around the world, along with about 2 million readings of sea salinity, and compared the rise in temperatures at different depths to predictions made by two computer simulations of global warming. "Two models, one from here and one from England, got the observed warming almost exactly. In fact we were stunned by the degree of similarity," Dr Barnett said. "The models are right. So when a politician stands up and says 'the uncertainty in all these simulations start to question whether we can believe in these models', that argument is no longer tenable." Typical ocean temperatures have increased since 1960 by between 0.5C and 1C, depending largely on depth. DR Barnett said: "The real key is the amount of energy that has gone into the oceans. If we could mine the energy that has gone in over the past 40 years we could run the state of California for 200,000 years... It's come from greenhouse warming." Because the global climate is largely driven by the heat locked up in the oceans, a rise in sea temperatures could have devastating effects for many parts of the world. Ruth Curry, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said that warming could alter important warm-water currents such as the Gulf Stream, as melting glaciers poured massive volumes of fresh water into the North Atlantic. "These changes are happening and they are expected to amplify. It's a certainty that these changes will put serious strains on the ecosystems of the planet," DR Curry said. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...489955,00.html More proof that global warming is man made. http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p1354.htm argue against it in the presitigous "The Brownsville Herald" http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm from the Association of British Drivers.... Hardly an objective source. http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVF...ouse_data.html Well worth the objective read it. It's from the Wall Street Journal, the radical right wing organizations:-) Known causes of global climate change, like cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output, are the primary causes of climate cycles measured over the last half million years. However, secondary greenhouse effects stemming from changes in the ability of a warming atmosphere to support greater concentrations of gases like water vapor and carbon dioxide also appear to play a significant role. As demonstrated in the data above, of all Earth's greenhouse gases, water vapor is by far the dominant player. The ability of humans to influence greenhouse water vapor is negligible. As such, individuals and groups whose agenda it is to require that human beings are the cause of global warming must discount or ignore the effects of water vapor to preserve their arguments, citing numbers similar to those in Table 4b . If political correctness and staying out of trouble aren't high priorities for you, go ahead and ask them how water vapor was handled in their models or statistics. Chances are, it wasn't! Of course this came from biased sources/ Beach Runner wrote: > I admit, he may have replied. > But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in > temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the > world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say > we are accelerating global greenhouse effect. > > There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a > scientist. > > Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll. > > When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's > of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I > missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it. > > Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush > reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be > preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized > resources and energy passive buildings. > > Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush > canceled. > > Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that. > It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and > space. That's called reality. > > He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were > originally told the troops would be home in a few months. > > What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in > big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in > a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age". > > Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global > warming? That Bush questions it? > > It requires strong action now. > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating > the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy > rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are > his friends. > > I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar > caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me > for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I > apologize. > > > The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse > gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore > had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could > compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status. > > If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do > it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called > me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise. > > > He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A > brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of > natural resources, and seeing the world as one. > > Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in > the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments > are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since > he's a change agent? > > > > Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote: > I admit, he may have replied. > But the Republican Governor of Alaska is saying this quick increase in > temperature is devastating. He ignores such comments. And points to the > world "dispute". Name a group of independent scientists that don't say > we are accelerating global greenhouse effect. > > There is one I can point to. Michael Chritner (sp). Not really a > scientist. > > Most of the ones are on Bush's payroll. > > When I pointed out that his cabinet member quit over the deregulation's > of environmental laws, his statement was she was a liberal. Maybe I > missed a reply with substance, and concede that possibility but I doubt it. > > Global Warming is a disaster that Glinton and Gore were working on. Bush > reversed all their work to protect the oil industry. We should be > preparing for a new kind of future. Based on trains, centralized > resources and energy passive buildings. > > Hybrid technology does not meet the objects already in place that Bush > canceled. > > Hybrids could be very fuel efficient. The Prious demonstrated that. > It would mean American's would be forced to give up some performance and > space. That's called reality. > > He declared the Iraq war over. In fact the insurgency grows. We were > originally told the troops would be home in a few months. > > What's his answer to the governor to the state of Alaska? Alaska is in > big trouble. Houses are collapsing as the temperature rose 8 degrees in > a short period. This is far to fast a change to compare to the "ice age". > > Or the vast independent majority of scientists that predict global > warming? That Bush questions it? > > It requires strong action now. > > > Don't get me wrong, I'm against terrorism, yet Bush continues placating > the Saudis because they have oil. How about wind and solar energy > rebates? Why won't he do that? Because he's in the oil business as are > his friends. > > I documented several models that show Britain will freeze when polar > caps melt. He was unaware of such a possibility. He should thank me > for bringing them to his attention. If he did, with my news reader, I > apologize. > > > The fact is the US contributes far more than it's share of greenhouse > gasses. Shy did he cancel the great legislature that Clinton and Gore > had in effect. If they were in effect maybe Detroit's cars could > compete, and Detroit auto company's bonds wouldn't be junk status. > > If he chooses to have a meaningful, NON INSULTING discussion we can do > it. Usually his answers attack the person, as he has repeatedly called > me stupid. Objective data prove otherwise. > > > He calls "Change Agents" radicals. Carl Sagon was a change agent. A > brilliant scientist he called for change regarding energy, the use of > natural resources, and seeing the world as one. > > Bush wants to change social security in such a way as to put money in > the hands of businesses. That's being a change agent. The arguments > are worth examining. The risk is very real. Is Bush a radical since > he's a change agent? > > http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/198.htm sponsored by Automotive society of Britain. http://www.countercurrents.org/cc-borenstein190205.htm On the other hand, independent researchers wrote New measurements from the world's oceans, announced Thursday, give the most compelling evidence yet that man-made global warming is under way and hint at a more dramatic and sudden climate change in the future. Two different sets of ocean readings presented at the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advance of Science solidify the scientific underpinnings of global warming and point to an increased chance for a much-feared side effect that was popularized and fictionalized in last year's movie "The Day After Tomorrow," in which global warming triggers a new ice age in the Northern Hemisphere. "The debate is no longer whether there is a global warming signal," Tim Barnett, a marine physicist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography who analyzed 9 million ocean-temperature and salinity readings. "The debate is what are we going to do about it." The new data show that the world's oceans have heated up just as predicted in global-warming computer models, and, more ominously, that massive amounts of fresh water from melting Arctic ice are seeping into the Atlantic Ocean, threatening to trigger a climate crisis. What scientists have found could cause parts of the Eastern United States to cool by several degrees, according to new calculations announced by Ruth Curry, a scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The same worst-case "Day After Tomorrow"-type scenario is one that a 2003 Pentagon analysis said "would challenge United States' national security in ways that should be considered immediately." A 2002 National Academy of Sciences study worried about it, too. Curry found that between 1965 and 1995, about 4,800 cubic miles of fresh water - more water than is in Lake Superior, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario and Lake Huron combined - melted from the Arctic region and poured into the normally salty northern Atlantic. If it continues, the increased influx of fresh water eventually could shut down the great ocean conveyor belt, which helps regulate air and water temperatures, abruptly changing the climate around the Atlantic and elsewhere. The conveyor belt, which is a system of currents, moves water in multiple directions from the Greenland coast all the way to Australia and back. It depends on heavier salt water sinking to pull warm water from the tropics to higher latitudes. Climate scientists fear that if polar ice continues to melt, the resulting lower salinity in the Atlantic would shut down the conveyor belt, something that happened once about 8,200 years ago, Curry said. Early calculations show that it would take another 4,300 cubic miles of fresh water from the Arctic to trigger a shutdown of the conveyer belt, Curry said. If the thaw continues at current rates, the shutdown scenario would occur in about two decades. What's worrisome, Curry said, is that the Greenland ice, which hadn't been melting with the rest of the Arctic, is starting to thaw. "We are taking the first steps" toward this scenario, Curry said in a news conference. "The system is moving in that direction." Curry said abrupt climate change was "just possible" but not necessarily likely. While Curry was speculating on the future, the new ocean data from Scripps reveal how global warming already has changed the Earth. Seven million temperature readings and 2 million salinity readings collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration created the best "fingerprint" of man-made global warming ever, Scripps' Barnett said. From 1969 to 1999, surface ocean temperatures rose about two-thirds of a degree Fahrenheit, while temperatures hundreds of feet deeper hadn't warmed as much. The readings are nearly exactly what computer models of global warming say they should be, Barnett said. If the global warming were the result of natural variability or increased sun activity, the temperature and salinity changes would be very different from the ones seen in the NOAA data, Barnett said. "The evidence really is overwhelming," Barnett said. © 2005 KR Washington Bureau and wire service source One can do their own research, and except for a few, all the independent science journals, often published in places like the Wall Street Journal point to human causes for change than might have existed with other data. I agree Kyoto was flawed, as it excluded many nations. At this point it is clear that the vast majority of indpendent scientists point to man made causes. Please research yourself, and see if it is funded by groups such as the British automotive society. Look for research such as was published by Stanford. My typing is going to heck, so that will he all for now. > > Bob |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> http://www.commondreams.... From their "about us" page: Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for internet *activism*. IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> http://www.commondreams.... > > > From their "about us" page: > > Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization > working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote > *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we > are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet > as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for > internet *activism*. > > IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. > > <...> hat is correct. If IF the many models that say global warming are correct, and there is no doubt there are many models, than radical chance is necessary. If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people as yourself. We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication for back pain from a 90 mph car accident (Yes, I was hit on a residential street) and make some minor mistake then. It doesn't change the substance. You've still ignored the vast majority of my quotes from major scientific organization or the Republican governor of Alaska who sees the effects of global warming while you bury your head in the sand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
For more evice from MIRT and NOA (the governmenal organization) hardly
radical organizations http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/business/...01054309990002 Global Warming Making Hurricanes Stronger By JOSEPH B.VERRENGIA, AP Is global warming making hurricanes more ferocious? New research suggests the answer is yes. Scientists call the findings both surprising and "alarming" because they suggest global warming is influencing storms now - rather than in the distant future. However, the research doesn't suggest global warming is generating more hurricanes and typhoons. The analysis by climatologist Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows for the first time that major storms spinning in both the Atlantic and the Pacific since the 1970s have increased in duration and intensity by about 50 percent. These trends are closely linked to increases in the average temperatures of the ocean surface and also correspond to increases in global average atmospheric temperatures during the same period. "When I look at these results at face value, they are rather alarming," said research meteorologist Tom Knutson. "These are very big changes." Knutson, who wasn't involved in the study, works in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J. Emanuel reached his conclusions by analyzing data collected from actual storms rather than using computer models to predict future storm behavior. Before this study, most researchers believed global warming's contribution to powerful hurricanes was too slight to accurately measure. Most forecasts don't have climate change making a real difference in tropical storms until 2050 or later. But some scientists questioned Emanuel's methods. For example, the MIT researcher did not consider wind speed information from some powerful storms in the 1950s and 1960s because the details of those storms are inconsistent. Researchers are using new methods to analyze those storms and others going back as far as 1851. If early storms turn out to be more powerful than originally thought, Emmanuel's findings on global warming's influence on recent tropical storms might not hold up, they said. "I'm not convinced that it's happening," said Christopher W. Landsea, another research meteorologist with NOAA, who works at a different lab, the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. Landsea is a director of the historical hurricane reanalysis. "His conclusions are contingent on a very large bias removal that is large or larger than the global warming signal itself," Landsea said. Details of Emanuel's study appear Sunday in the online version of the journal Nature. Theories and computer simulations indicate that global warming should generate an increase in storm intensity, in part because warmer temperatures would heat up the surface of the oceans. Especially in the Atlantic and Caribbean basins, pools of warming seawater provide energy for storms as they swirl and grow over the open oceans. Emanuel analyzed records of storm measurements made by aircraft and satellites since the 1950s. He found the amount of energy released in these storms in both the North Atlantic and the North Pacific oceans has increased, especially since the mid-1970s. In the Atlantic, the sea surface temperatures show a pronounced upward trend. The same is true in the North Pacific, though the data there is more variable, he said. "This is the first time I have been convinced we are seeing a signal in the actual hurricane data," Emanuel said in an e-mail exchange. "The total energy dissipated by hurricanes turns out to be well correlated with tropical sea surface temperatures," he said. "The large upswing in the past decade is unprecedented and probably reflects the effects of global warming." This year marked the first time on record that the Atlantic spawned four named storms by early July, as well as the earliest category 4 storm on record. Hurricanes are ranked on an intensity scale of 1 to 5. In the past decade, the southeastern United States and the Caribbean basin have been pummeled by the most active hurricane cycle on record. Forecasters expect the stormy trend to continue for another 20 years or more. Even without global warming, hurricane cycles tend to be a consequence of natural salinity and temperature changes in the Atlantic's deep current circulation that shift back and forth every 40 to 60 years. Since the 1970s, hurricanes have caused more property damage and casualties. Researchers disagree over whether this destructiveness is a consequence of the storms' growing intensity or the population boom along vulnerable coastlines. "The damage and casualties produced by more intense storms could increase considerably in the future," Emanuel said. NOAA's Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/ Beach Runner wrote: > > > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>> http://www.commondreams.... >> >> >> >> From their "about us" page: >> >> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >> internet *activism*. >> >> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. >> >> <...> > > hat is correct. If IF the many models that say global warming are > correct, and there is no doubt there are many models, than radical > chance is necessary. > > If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they > are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people > as yourself. We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even > see it. > > So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication for > back pain from a 90 mph car accident (Yes, I was hit on a residential > street) and make some minor mistake then. It doesn't change the substance. > > You've still ignored the vast majority of my quotes from major > scientific organization or the Republican governor of Alaska who sees > the effects of global warming while you bury your head in the sand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> http://www.commondreams.... >> >> From their "about us" page: >> >> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >> internet *activism*. >> >> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. >> >> <...> > > hat is correct. If IF the many models SOME models... > that say global warming are correct, There's no indication that they are. > and there is no doubt there are many models, SOME models. > than radical chance is necessary. Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT necessary. > If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they > are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative people > as yourself. Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate RADICAL change). > We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even > see it. Neither can most studies. http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html Etc. > So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. > You've still ignored No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview. That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. > Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. Another strawman. > Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy. > that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your radical worldview? http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance
http://ucsaction.org/campaign/7_05_nissan_hyundai/ Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we want and deserve. Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving it your own personal voice. Here are some questions that may help you quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai vehicle? * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for their "virtually emission-free" ad? * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? Tell me more Subject: Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, (Edit Letter Below) I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. For example, the Auto Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 false advertising complaints. Now the Alliance is purportedly focused on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution from autos among its top agenda items. Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American consumer. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, [Your name] [Your address] usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>> http://www.commondreams.... >>> >>> >>> From their "about us" page: >>> >>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >>> internet *activism*. >>> >>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. >>> >>> <...> >> >> >> hat is correct. If IF the many models > > > SOME models... > >> that say global warming are correct, > > > There's no indication that they are. > >> and there is no doubt there are many models, > > > SOME models. > >> than radical chance is necessary. > > > Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT necessary. > >> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, they >> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative >> people as yourself. > > > Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical > change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the "radical > change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such change is > unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut problem (and > certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate RADICAL change). > >> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. > > > Neither can most studies. > > http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm > http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html > http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 > http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html > > Etc. > >> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication > > > Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. > >> You've still ignored > > > No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims > which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human > beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of your > irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific discovery. > And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want to do: require > every human being to adopt your political worldview. That's ALL this is > about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not anti-environment. http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ > Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid > models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. > However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their > “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile > Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two > companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most > of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include > blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning > California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. > Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that > the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles > will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a > group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we > want and deserve. They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect. > Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving > it your own personal voice. Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've written. > Here are some questions that may help you > quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: > > * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? > * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai > vehicle? > * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? > * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and > filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for > their "virtually emission-free" ad? > * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a > "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? > > Tell me more > > > Subject: > > Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, > > (Edit Letter Below) > > I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid > vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient > car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will > help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that > the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the > Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger > segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. > > I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many > of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you > to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and > deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle > pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. Bullshit. > For example, the Auto > Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually > emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 > false advertising complaints. None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them. > Now the Alliance is purportedly focused > on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning > California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution > from autos among its top agenda items. > > Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever > environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your > hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A > clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, > give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely > "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the > environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American > consumer. > > I look forward to your reply. > > Sincerely, > [Your name] Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders." BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below. > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>>>> http://www.commondreams.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From their "about us" page: >>>> >>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >>>> internet *activism*. >>>> >>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. >>>> >>>> <...> >>> >>> >>> >>> hat is correct. If IF the many models >> >> >> >> SOME models... >> >>> that say global warming are correct, >> >> >> >> There's no indication that they are. >> >>> and there is no doubt there are many models, >> >> >> >> SOME models. >> >>> than radical chance is necessary. >> >> >> >> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT >> necessary. >> >>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, >>> they >>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative >>> people as yourself. >> >> >> >> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical >> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the >> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such >> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut >> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate >> RADICAL change). >> >>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. >> >> >> >> Neither can most studies. >> >> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm >> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html >> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 >> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html >> >> Etc. >> >>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication >> >> >> >> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. >> >>> You've still ignored >> >> >> >> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims >> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human >> beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of >> your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific >> discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want >> to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview. >> That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been >> exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance > > > You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter > without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not > anti-environment. > > http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ Look who finances them you dolt. Includes ads by our friends at Mitsubishi that brought us the Zero. They want to use hybrids without sacrificing "performance". Guess what? Global warming is real and changes are needed. We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. You ignore MIT and NOA and only use a few organizations that agree with you. I call MIT and NOA MUCH more authoritative. The effects of Global Warmings are either an incredible coincidence or just happening while we pump greenhouse gas into the air. Seems the secondary is much more probable. The time to take action against global warming is now instead of sticking your head in the sand. > >> Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid >> models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. >> However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their >> “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile >> Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two >> companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most >> of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include >> blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning >> California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. >> Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that >> the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles >> will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a >> group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we >> want and deserve. > > > They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing > freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect. > >> Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving >> it your own personal voice. > > > Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've > written. > >> Here are some questions that may help you >> quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: >> >> * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? >> * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai >> vehicle? >> * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? >> * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and >> filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for >> their "virtually emission-free" ad? >> * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a >> "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? >> >> Tell me more >> >> >> Subject: >> >> Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, >> >> (Edit Letter Below) >> >> I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid >> vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient >> car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will >> help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that >> the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the >> Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger >> segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. >> >> I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many >> of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you >> to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and >> deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle >> pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. > > > Bullshit. > >> For example, the Auto >> Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually >> emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 >> false advertising complaints. > > > None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them. > >> Now the Alliance is purportedly focused >> on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning >> California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution >> from autos among its top agenda items. >> >> Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever >> environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your >> hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A >> clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, >> give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely >> "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the >> environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American >> consumer. >> >> I look forward to your reply. >> >> Sincerely, >> [Your name] > > > Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders." > > BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below. > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> Beach Runner wrote: >>> >>>>>> http://www.commondreams.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From their "about us" page: >>>>> >>>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >>>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >>>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >>>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >>>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >>>>> internet *activism*. >>>>> >>>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. >>>>> >>>>> <...> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> hat is correct. If IF the many models >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SOME models... >>> >>>> that say global warming are correct, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There's no indication that they are. >>> >>>> and there is no doubt there are many models, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SOME models. >>> >>>> than radical chance is necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT >>> necessary. >>> >>>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, >>>> they >>>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative >>>> people as yourself. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical >>> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the >>> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such >>> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut >>> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate >>> RADICAL change). >>> >>>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Neither can most studies. >>> >>> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm >>> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html >>> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 >>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html >>> >>> Etc. >>> >>>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. >>> >>>> You've still ignored >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims >>> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human >>> beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of >>> your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific >>> discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want >>> to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview. >>> That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been >>> exposed. Hardly, Zealot that uses MIT and MOA as such support. You're the man with your head in the head in the sand. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. > > > Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. > You only respond to the radical right stick your head up your ass and ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, people without agendas except science, >> Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. > > > Another strawman. > >> Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business > > > Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan economy. Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse! > >> that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. > > > Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate the > nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with your > radical worldview? Hardly. > > http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm I read your minotiry URL. It ignores the expert opinions of NOA and MIT and other expert organizations. What are their agendas? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance > Which is paid for by Mittsubishi amonst other's you dolt! > > You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter > without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not > anti-environment. > > http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ > >> Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid >> models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. >> However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their >> “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile >> Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two >> companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most >> of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include >> blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning >> California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. >> Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that >> the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles >> will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a >> group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we >> want and deserve. > > > They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing > freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect. > >> Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving >> it your own personal voice. > > > Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've > written. > >> Here are some questions that may help you >> quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: >> >> * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? >> * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai >> vehicle? >> * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? >> * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and >> filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for >> their "virtually emission-free" ad? >> * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a >> "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? >> >> Tell me more >> >> >> Subject: >> >> Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, >> >> (Edit Letter Below) >> >> I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid >> vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient >> car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will >> help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that >> the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the >> Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger >> segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. >> >> I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many >> of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you >> to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and >> deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle >> pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. > > > Bullshit. > >> For example, the Auto >> Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually >> emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 >> false advertising complaints. > > > None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them. > >> Now the Alliance is purportedly focused >> on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning >> California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution >> from autos among its top agenda items. >> >> Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever >> environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your >> hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A >> clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, >> give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely >> "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the >> environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American >> consumer. >> >> I look forward to your reply. >> >> Sincerely, >> [Your name] > > > Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders." > > BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below. > >> usual suspect wrote: >> >>> Beach Runner wrote: >>> Yes I have, I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for by Mittsubisi and friends, and you ignore the responsible organizations such as MIT and NOA amongst other's. You find a fringe scientist that supports your contention. Big deal. Global warming is real. >>>>>> http://www.commondreams.... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> From their "about us" page: >>>>> >>>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >>>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >>>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >>>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >>>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >>>>> internet *activism*. >>>>> >>>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. Ben Franklin would be considered a liberal for example. When change is needed, then you need it. Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be expressed? It's liberals that exposed things like the toxic love canal and Nixon's election scandle. Thank God I live in a country that can have liberals who express their views and conservatives. You actions insult every liberal organization that is doing good. Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large. So expect to find liberals here. We are here. In fact the majority of the nation voted for a liberal candidate in 2000 and should have been president. We'd be a lot better off now. >>>>> >>>>> <...> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> hat is correct. If IF the many models >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SOME models... >>> >>>> that say global warming are correct, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> There's no indication that they are. >>> >>>> and there is no doubt there are many models, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SOME models. >>> >>>> than radical chance is necessary. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT >>> necessary. >>> >>>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of course, >>>> they >>>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative >>>> people as yourself. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical >>> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the >>> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such >>> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut >>> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate >>> RADICAL change). >>> >>>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Neither can most studies. >>> >>> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm >>> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html >>> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 >>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html >>> >>> Etc. >>> >>>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. >>> >>>> You've still ignored >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims >>> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other human >>> beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the basis of >>> your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by scientific >>> discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely what you want >>> to do: require every human being to adopt your political worldview. >>> That's ALL this is about. You're an authoritarian zealot. You've been >>> exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. >> >> Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. > > You only respond to the radical right Oxymoron. Radicalism refers to the far left, and you're the one calling for RADICAL change in light of QUESTIONABLE data. > stick your head up your ass I don't care to look like you. > and ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, You're appealing to authority. I sincerely question the reliability of arguments made by your sources, particularly since the data are admittedly flimsy. Too bad you're uncritical where it suits your leftist agenda. > people without agendas except science, Ipse dixit. I've shown you a poll of scientists and references to other polls which show that scientists are evenly split on the issue of global warming and whether human activity is causing it to escalate. Evenly divided, you twit. The data do not make a convincing case for global warming. We should NOT formulate policy on the basis of unanswered questions. We should NOT abandon our way of life to practice your austere brand of socialism simply because you pick and choose your sources. >>> Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. >> >> Another strawman. >> >>> Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business >> >> Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan >> economy. > > Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse! It's not GLOBAL change, twit, it's LOCALIZED and I showed you why. >>> that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. >> >> Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate >> the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with >> your radical worldview? > > Hardly. No, you moron, that's precisely what's at stake here. The truth about global warming hysteria can be summed up like this, "Capitalism is the problem and socialism is the solution." >> http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm > > I read your minotiry URL. You can't spell to save your life. > It ignores No, it includes data from the very sources you use and other sources to show that the "problem" isn't as clear-cut as you suggest. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Nissan & Hyundai: Just say "no" to Auto Alliance > > Which is paid for by Mittsubishi Oh, the horror! >> You've gone to a leftwing website and produced an activism form letter >> without understanding the real issue at hand. The Auto Alliance is not >> anti-environment. >> >> http://www.autoalliance.org/environment/ >> >>> Automakers Nissan and Hyundai will be introducing their first hybrid >>> models in 2006, helping to expand this important emerging market. >>> However, just as these automakers are seeking to establish their >>> “green credentials” with hybrids, the Alliance of Automobile >>> Manufacturers (a.k.a. the Auto Alliance) is courting these two >>> companies. The Auto Alliance is the lobbyist group representing most >>> of the major automobile manufacturers. Its stated priorities include >>> blocking any increase in fuel economy standards, and overturning >>> California’s breakthrough global warming regulations on vehicles. >>> Please contact the CEOs of Nissan and Hyundai and let them know that >>> the reputation they are trying to develop with these hybrid vehicles >>> will be severely damaged by associating with the Auto Alliance, a >>> group pushing to keep American drivers out of the cleaner cars we >>> want and deserve. >> >> They're not trying to keep anyone out of any cars: they favor allowing >> freedom of choice, something you authoritarian leftists don't respect. >> >>> Personalize your letter: Increase the impact of your action by giving >>> it your own personal voice. >> >> Hahaha. They know that most of you morons will just send what they've >> written. >> >>> Here are some questions that may help you >>> quickly and easily increase your letter's resonance: >>> >>> * Are you in the market for a new car? Will you be in 2006? >>> * Do you own, or have you owned, either a Nissan or Hyundai >>> vehicle? >>> * Are you a current hybrid vehicle owner? >>> * Were you one of the over 20,000 people who took action and >>> filed a false advertising complaint against the Auto Alliance for >>> their "virtually emission-free" ad? >>> * Do you live on the West Coast and are currently being denied a >>> "clean air corridor?" because of the Auto Alliance's activities? >>> >>> Tell me more >>> >>> >>> Subject: >>> >>> Dear Mr. Ghosn and Mr. Cosmai, >>> >>> (Edit Letter Below) >>> >>> I am writing to applaud your planned 2006 introductions of hybrid >>> vehicles. As a consumer interested in cleaner, more fuel-efficient >>> car options, I am pleased that the Altima and Accent hybrids will >>> help push forward this emerging clean vehicle market. The fact that >>> the Altima hybrid will be assembled in the United States, and the >>> Accent hybrid may help make hybrid technology affordable to a larger >>> segment of the driving public are both very exciting developments. >>> >>> I have also read, however, that the DC-based lobbyist group for many >>> of the major automakers, the Auto Alliance, is courting both of you >>> to join its ranks. The Auto Alliance has continually used fear and >>> deception to prevent any meaningful improvements in vehicle >>> pollution, safety, and fuel economy standards. >> >> Bullshit. >> >>> For example, the Auto >>> Alliance recently ran advertisements calling today's autos "virtually >>> emission-free" -- deceptive language that resulted in over 20,000 >>> false advertising complaints. >> >> None of which has resulted in adverse actions against them. >> >>> Now the Alliance is purportedly focused >>> on preventing higher fuel economy standards and overturning >>> California's breakthrough regulations on global warming pollution >>> from autos among its top agenda items. >>> >>> Your association with this group would severely undermine whatever >>> environmentally-friendly reputation you hope to develop through your >>> hybrid models, not to mention my interest as a potential customer. A >>> clear, public "no thank you" to this lobbyist group would, in turn, >>> give an indication that your hybrid models are not merely >>> "greenwashing," but a genuine step toward addressing the >>> environmental, public health, and gas saving needs of the American >>> consumer. >>> >>> I look forward to your reply. >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> [Your name] >> >> Just sign it "another mindnumb activist following marching orders." >> >> BTW, note that you failed to address any points I made below. >> >>> usual suspect wrote: >>> >>>> Beach Runner wrote: >>>> > > Yes I have, No, you ignored every ****ing point. You can't stick to one issue at a time, and I've patiently dealt with every lie you've posted. You said hybrids don't get better mileage, I showed you that you're full of shit. You whine that this is a vegan group and then post bullshit about global warming, and whine even louder when shown that your beliefs are predicated on the POLITICS of the issue rather than the SCIENCE of it. > I've pointed out your "non profit organization" is paid for > by Mittsubisi and friends, Big ****ing deal. Auto Alliance aren't out to pollute. Go look at their website, dipshit. Take a look at what they have to say about "global climate change" and see if you can honestly object to what they have to say. Your activist form letter above is from a group which wants government to micromanage every ****ing aspect of our lives and thereby minimize the choices consumers have. Why do you support and work with authoritarian zealots? http://www.autoalliance.org/environm...balclimate.php > and you ignore the responsible organizations > such as MIT and NOA amongst other's. I don't ignore them; I disagree with conclusions reached from ambiguous results (at best) or results which don't even support the conclusions, predictions, or proposed solutions. > You find a fringe scientist that > supports your contention. Not fringe. As I've patiently shown your sorry ass too many times now, scientists are EVENLY DIVIDED over global warming. That's because the data are very unconvincing. The question then is, Why should we make radical changes if the "problem" isn't even clear-cut? > Big deal. It's a big deal to advocate "radical change" as you have, you dumb ass. You need to be a lot more convincing than you have been by merely parroting activist groups or by simply saying: > Global warming is real. That's an *unproven* assertion, and I've provided you with sufficient sources. >>>>>>> http://www.commondreams.... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> From their "about us" page: >>>>>> >>>>>> Common Dreams is a national non-profit citizens' organization >>>>>> working to bring *progressive* Americans together to promote >>>>>> *progressive* visions for America's future. Founded in 1997, we >>>>>> are committed to being on the cutting-edge of using the internet >>>>>> as a political organizing tool - and creating new models for >>>>>> internet *activism*. >>>>>> >>>>>> IOW, they admit they're *liberal* activists. > > There is nothing wrong with being a liberal. There's something wrong about advocating RADICAL CHANGE, you authoritarian zealot, without good reason. > Ben Franklin would be considered a liberal for example. Not in today's terminology. Don't compare apples to oranges, dumb ass. > When change is needed, then you need it. WTF?! You've yet to establish that ANY change is needed. > Or do you favor a nation that only allows conservative views to be > expressed? Look who's talking -- the bumbling twit who objects to anyone countering his distortions, lies, and vegan flim-flam. I've never told YOU to go away or to shut up; I've only told you to tell the truth or I'll correct you. And that's just what I've done, you benighted piece of shit. <...> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> hat is correct. If IF the many models >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> SOME models... >>>> >>>>> that say global warming are correct, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There's no indication that they are. >>>> >>>>> and there is no doubt there are many models, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> SOME models. >>>> >>>>> than radical chance is necessary. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Radical chance? You twit, you mean radical change. And it is NOT >>>> necessary. >>>> >>>>> If things were business as usual, it wouldn't matter, but of >>>>> course, they >>>>> are not business as usual except to the really blind conservative >>>>> people as yourself. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Spoken as the elite leftist snob you really are. You want "radical >>>> change" on the basis of inconclusive evidence. Why? Because the >>>> "radical change" you advocate is consistent with your POLITICS. Such >>>> change is unwarranted by the SCIENCE, which doesn't show a clear-cut >>>> problem (and certainly not of the magnitude that would necessitate >>>> RADICAL change). >>>> >>>>> We are in the midst of a global change and you can't even see it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Neither can most studies. >>>> >>>> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm >>>> http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html >>>> http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294 >>>> http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/gccour...2/seedsci.html >>>> >>>> Etc. >>>> >>>>> So you can correct some spelling or typos when I take medication Your Prozac should make you more coherent. Tell your doctor to increase your dosage. >>>> Your drug abuse is your own problem, not mine. >>>> >>>>> You've still ignored >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No, you ****. I've addressed the substance of your "radical" claims >>>> which you claim necessitate radical change. I don't think other >>>> human beings should be subjected to your radical politics on the >>>> basis of your irrational concerns which aren't substantiated by >>>> scientific discovery. And at the end of the day, that's precisely >>>> what you want to do: require every human being to adopt your >>>> political worldview. That's ALL this is about. You're an >>>> authoritarian zealot. You've been exposed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
<...> > We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
<...> > Yes, the VEGAN movement is a liberal movement by and large. It is entirely *RADICAL* -- far beyond being merely "liberal." |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote: > > > usual suspect wrote: > >> Beach Runner wrote: >> >>> The Evidence Mounts are MIT and NOA radical left wing organizations. >> >> >> >> Strawman. You cannot deal with what I've actually written, can you. >> > > You only respond to the radical right stick your head up your ass and > ignore reliable arguments brought by people like MIT and NOA, people > without agendas except science, > >>> Like the Republican Governor of Alaska. >> >> >> >> Another strawman. >> >>> Global Change is very obvious to all but those in the oil business >> >> >> >> Funny that, Boob. Oil exploration is a cornerstone of the Alaskan >> economy. > > > Except when they see that global change is causing their homes to collapse! > >> >>> that will make a quick buck and sacrifice our futures. >> >> >> >> Blowhard leftwing hyperbole. Why does your side routinely exaggerate >> the nature of the "problem" and offer only solutions compatible with >> your radical worldview? > > Hardly. > >> >> http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...0130-5881r.htm > > Oh, MR. Mann's opinion, not that he denies global warming, simply we should do more research is less valid than MIT or NOA? Hardly. > I read your minotiry URL. It ignores the expert opinions of NOA and > MIT and other expert organizations. What are their agendas? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > <...> > >> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. > > > You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben > Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the greater > good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously objected and > resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your own sacrifices. > I refuse to sacrifice for your good. I'm not a Marxist, MANY believe we must take strong action against greenhouse gasses. I went to funded by corporate source web sites so what do you expect? They will support their corporate sponsors. I make a few typos. Insult me for it. NASA, NOA, MIT, the Union of Concerned Scientists. Go to http://www.climatehotmap.org/ which so clear early warning signs. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...ming/index.cfm well documented, or http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/default.asp http://www.envirolink.org/ Or the US government site, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html Go to right wing sponsored by car companies with vested interests and you think they are right? Give me a break. Go join a radical right wing organization where you belong. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. >> >> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben >> Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the >> greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously >> objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your >> own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good. > > I'm not a Marxist, You're a Marxist and a liar. > MANY believe we must take strong action Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm > I make a few typos. Insult me for it. Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups with
a stake in the ground, Like Mitsubishi, the very real number of independent scientists warn we must take strong action. That's Marxist? Hardly. We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. Many independent scientists, MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming. You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi and say big deal. I'd rather have independent sites. Insult me some more if it makes you happy. It doesn't change the reality. usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. >>> >>> >>> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say Ben >>> Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the >>> greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously >>> objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make your >>> own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good. >> >> >> I'm not a Marxist, > > > You're a Marxist and a liar. > >> MANY believe we must take strong action > > > Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. > http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm > >> I make a few typos. Insult me for it. > > > Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
> Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend? > ...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must > take strong action. That's Marxist? Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The number of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a percentage of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller percentage of all scientists. The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good." > Hardly. You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist. > We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your position that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a problem -- and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of whether human activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the extent to which human activity plays a role in global warming or the extent to which changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You have predictions, prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that there's a problem or that altering my behavior will have any affect on it. Until science has clear answers, go **** yourself. > Many independent scientists, About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them. > MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming. NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901 > You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi No, funded by a cross-section of car makers. > and say big deal. I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say about the issue. http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67 http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887 http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851 Etc. > Insult me some more Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better? >>>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say >>>> Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of the >>>> greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously >>>> objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make >>>> your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good. >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not a Marxist, >> >> >> >> You're a Marxist and a liar. >> >>> MANY believe we must take strong action >> >> >> >> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. >> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm >> >>> I make a few typos. Insult me for it. >> >> >> >> Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
usual suspect wrote: > Beach Runner wrote: > >> Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups > > > Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are > EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human > activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend? > >> ...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must >> take strong action. That's Marxist? > > > Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who > believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the > number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are > evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The number > of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a percentage > of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller percentage of > all scientists. > > The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take > radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are > made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your > pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for > what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good." > >> Hardly. > > > You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist. > >> We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. > > > Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which > contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your position > that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a problem -- > and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of whether human > activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the extent to which > human activity plays a role in global warming or the extent to which > changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You have predictions, > prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that there's a problem or > that altering my behavior will have any affect on it. Until science has > clear answers, go **** yourself. > >> Many independent scientists, > > > About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them. > >> MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming. > > > NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists. As a statement they do. > > http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901 > >> You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi > > > No, funded by a cross-section of car makers. > With a Mittsubishi emblem. They are the car makers. Hardly free minded. >> and say big deal. > > > I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say > about the issue. > > http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67 > http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887 > http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851 > > Etc. > >> Insult me some more > > > Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better? > > >>>>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say >>>>> Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of >>>>> the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've strenuously >>>>> objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I shall. You make >>>>> your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for your good. >>>> >>>> >>>> Many sites predict horrendous consequences. And you won't even consider them. You're closed minded. You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests. That's stupid. Chose INDEPENDENT groups. >>>> >>>> I'm not a Marxist, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> You're a Marxist and a liar. >>> >>>> MANY believe we must take strong action >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. >>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm >>> >>>> I make a few typos. Insult me for it. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now? Marx know knothing about global warming. In fact, the former Communist nations have horrendous polutions. But still the US produces the most greenhouse gasses. An anology is wrong. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Beach Runner wrote:
>>> Even if the few scientists, most of which are subsidized by groups >> >> Ipse dixit and unproven. I showed you, dumb ass, that scientists are >> EVENLY DIVIDED on the notion of global warming being a result of human >> activities. What part of EVENLY DIVIDED do you not comprehend? >> >>> ...the very real number of independent scientists warn we must >>> take strong action. That's Marxist? >> >> Yes -- and you're both overestimating the number of scientists who >> believe humans are responsible for global warming and overstating the >> number of those who "warn we must take strong action." Scientists are >> evenly divided on whether humans have even caused a problem. The >> number of scientists who believe we should make radical change is a >> percentage of those who believe it's a human problem -- or a smaller >> percentage of all scientists. >> >> The fact remains: this is an issue at which you leftists want to take >> radical *POLITICAL* action before clear *SCIENTIFIC* assessments are >> made. You leftist nutjobs want to replace FREE ENTERPRISE with your >> pathetic version of a Marxist Utopia. You would eliminate freedom for >> what YOU (and YOU ALONE) call "the greater good." >> >>> Hardly. >> >> You ARE a Marxist. You're an authoritarian leftist. >> >>> We stand a strong change of terrible consequences. >> >> Strong chance? That's entirely UNPROVEN. There are many data which >> contradict your claims of cataclysm. I just disagree with your >> position that we need to act before knowing (a) IF there is really a >> problem -- and remember, scientists are EVENLY SPLIT on the issue of >> whether human activity is to blame for global warming -- and (b) the >> extent to which human activity plays a role in global warming or the >> extent to which changing our behavior will reverse global warming. You >> have predictions, prophecy. I demand SCIENCE before I'll consent that >> there's a problem or that altering my behavior will have any affect on >> it. Until science has clear answers, go **** yourself. >> >>> Many independent scientists, >> >> About half of them, and the other half disagrees with them. >> >>> MIT, NOA, NASA all agree on Global warming. >> >> NOAA. They do not all agree, nor do all their scientists. > > As a statement they do. No, you bumbling twit. Read the link below. It's from a NOAA scientist who withdrew from a conference because of the same kind of politicization of the issue you find so appealing. >> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901 >> >>> You pull a site funded by Mitsubishi >> >> No, funded by a cross-section of car makers. > > With a Mittsubishi emblem. Cool. So the **** what? > They are the car makers. So the **** what? They breathe the same air you do, drink the same water you do, and have to live on the same planet you do. They've taken responsible actions to reduce emissions. They also don't want YOU to tell them what to make because YOUR ideas aren't what OTHER CONSUMERS want. > Hardly free minded. You're an elitist asshole, Boob. You're the one who's not free-minded. You object to the choices consumers have because you think you know better than the market and the suppliers in at least this instance (and I'm pretty sure you'd deny others any choices in the other areas of their lives). >>> and say big deal. >> >> I say "big deal" on the basis of what a variety of sources have to say >> about the issue. >> >> http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=67 >> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=887 >> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=851 >> >> Etc. >> >>> Insult me some more >> >> Sure. Scatterbrains. Dipshit. ****. Asshole. Is that better? >> >>>>>>> We may need to sacrifice some performance for the greater good. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You're a Marxist authoritarian zealot who has the audacity to say >>>>>> Ben Franklin would be on your side. **** you and your version of >>>>>> the greater good -- notions which our Founders would've >>>>>> strenuously objected and resisted to their deaths, just as I >>>>>> shall. You make your own sacrifices. I refuse to sacrifice for >>>>>> your good. >>>>> > Many sites predict horrendous consequences. Many more don't. The objective ones tell us that science has NOT reached a consensus on the nature of the problem, or even if there is one. YOU want to make radical change despite that fact. I refuse to without more evidence. > And you won't even consider them. I have considered them. The science isn't established that there is a problem, or that human activities are the reason. There's no evidence, either, that altering human activity will "fix" the problem (if one exists). I object to radical change on the basis of what you feel. > You're closed minded. No, bumbling twit, I'm open-minded. I'm waiting for scientists to reach a consensus before I advocate people make expensive, radical changes that may not even fix the problem. You want people to adopt your leftist ideology (i.e., that there is a problem which needs to be fixed) and embrace leftist policies (i.e., give up their capitalism for your socialism). Scientists are EVENLY SPLIT -- a point which seems to go right over your FLAT HEAD -- on the issue of whether human activity plays any role in global warming. You're the one with the closed mind on this issue. > You're more influenced by groups funded by special interests. I'm influenced by the *science*. Scientists are NOT in accord that human activity plays a role, or that altering human activity will "solve" anything. > That's stupid. YOU are stupid, bumbling twit. > Chose INDEPENDENT groups. Choose, moron. And I'm already being independent in my assessment of the situation. That's why I observe the fact that scientists are split and choose to wait for consensus on the issue. You, otoh, have made up your lone flickering braincell and have decided that your politics supercede the science and everyone's freedom. I say, **** you! >>>>> I'm not a Marxist, >>>> >>>> You're a Marxist and a liar. >>>> >>>>> MANY believe we must take strong action >>>> >>>> Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. >>>> http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/pop.htm >>>> >>>>> I make a few typos. Insult me for it. >>>> >>>> Gladly. Dickhead. Moron. Loser. ****. Happy now? > > Marx know knothing about global warming. He was full of hot air, and so are you. > In fact, the former Communist > nations have horrendous polutions. Then why are you pushing their politics upon everyone? > But still the US produces the most > greenhouse gasses. So what? > An anology is wrong. Only when you try to make one, twit. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming | General Cooking | |||
| Global warming. | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming and what you can do to against it | General Cooking | |||
| Global Warming | Vegan | |||
Linear Mode
