Bush accused of censorship.

Locked

“From melting glaciers to warmer oceans, we are close to the point of no return.”

“If you’ve ever been troubled by the grim global-warming scenarios that have been bubbling at the margins of serious public attention all these years, there’s good news: you don’t have to wait any longer to see whether or not there’s really anything to it all.”

“The Canadian winter that just ended was the warmest on record. Last year in Greenland, where the summers are now milder than they’ve been in 100,000 years, glaciers shed an amount of water into arctic seas more than twice the annual flow of th eNile River, tripling the yearly loss of Greenlands glaciers from 10 years ago. There are robins on Baffin island now, and the people of Pangunirtung are seeing thunder for the first time and walruses, on melting ice floes, are starving to death.

If you drive from Vancouver to Williams Lake, you will have the privilege of travelling to the epicentre of a thing no human being has ever witnessed. It’s North America’s largest insect infestation in the history of North Anerica’s great forests. Briotish Columbia’s mountain pine beetles, without cold winters to stop them, have devoured their way across a landscape roughly the size of the United Kingdom.”

“You will find yourself following the Frqaser River, where millions of salmon are now routinely dying on their homeward migrations in lethally warm water. In 6 of the past 15 years, the waters have surpassed the fatal 18 degree threshhold. Two years ago tributaries such as the Nicola and the Clearwater rivers, summer temperatures were already exceeding 25 degrees.”

“Everything is different now, everywhere. Oru winters are now 4 degrees warmer than they were a century ago, and up and down the BC coast, cedars are literally dying of thirst.”

Since 1921, the pacific ocean has been warming at a rate of 1 degree a year, which doesn’t sound lik emuch but 10 degrees in the other direction separates us from the deep freeze of the ice age.

“18 months ago, Canada surpassed Saudi Arabia to become the primary supplier of fossil fuels to the United States. Around the same time, the administration of President G.W. Bush, himself an oil man, aqdopted a strict policy of censorship to see to it that no federal official, not even James Hanson, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, would candidly and honestly explain all those grim global-warming stories.”

It had been Hansen’s habit to be very clear that the shrinking of Greenland’s glaciers and the increased atmospheric loading of carbon dioxide, as well as the growing acidity of the world’s oceans, are all part of a story that begins with the burning of fossil fuels. Hasen had begun to warn that without a reduction in “greenhouse gas” emissions, the planet would soon pass a ‘tipping point’of sorts, where there will be no turning back. Of course, he was quickly silenced by G.W.Bush.

…”What the Bush administration has been especially adamant in censoring is teh research U.S. federal scientists have been doing in teh area of ‘impacts and response strategies’. Mainly the strange events unfolding in British Columbia.”

In order to have a real understanding of how the Earth has been effected in real examples, you would need to address the federal agency known as the Canadian Climate Inpacts and Adaptation and Research Network (C-CAIRN), which concentrates on the impacts and response strategies the White House doesn’t want to hear about.”

And if you were to ask such questions of Robin Sydneysmith, C-Cairn’s B.C.coordinator, as I did teh other day, this is the answer you would get: “I’m not supposed to talk about it.”

Why would G.W.Bush or the Bush administration censor facts from reaching the mainstream American Public?

Why wouldn’t G.W.Bush and his administration attempt to educate Americans and improve on the wasteful burning of fossil fuels?

Why would they not be interested in acting in America’s best interests?

Because it is not in their own best interests, so they censor what Americans are allowed to know and that keeps the peace and discounts the global warming threats. They focus on the more radical ‘Chicken little’s’ of the world that make extreme claims, it’s easy to discount those guys.

But with the war, and other issues regarding global relations, you were all well informed of course. Methinks American should start turning to international news and reading international papers, your own news is slanted and controlled in so many ways it’s not funny.

While on the subject of ranting, Canadians were shown the return of a Canadian soldier killed in Kandahar, where Canada is now engaging in major battle as they work to keep it secure, they showed his wife crying as his casket was marched to the hearse by military personells and we all had a momnent to realize the reality of what is really happening in the Middle East. It’s too bad America censors this type of news also and makes you believe it is not appropriate to show citizens what they are going through in the Middle East. The wife of the soldier was interviewed and said she thought it was great that her husband received a hero’s welcome when he returned, and was not just part of a quiet stats count.

Topic

What are you talking about?

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

You claim that President Bush is “censoring” these things from people? Are you serious? Why then, does EVERYBODY hear about these things AND MORE all the time.

This crap you come-up with about Bush “censoring” everything is ludicrous.

Besides, man-caused global warming is a farce based on junk science.

The duped speaks again

In reply to What are you talking about?

First of all, I quoted part of an article printed in local news about an Australian’s book. (if it’s Australian it MUST be crap!) yeah I know your extremely narrow train of thought quite well now.

Your problem is, Max, you simply don’t know when to question your own government and when to believe them; half of it is bull and the other half is sh*t.

Second of all, I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt you would reply with such comments. You are far too prepdictable when it comes to your defense of Bush and your fantastic government that does no wrong in the world.

Thridly, scientific FACT is not junk science. It is called fact, nothin gbut FACT. Are you possibly suggesting that these phenomenon are NOT increased by mans burning of fossil fuels? Provide alternate FACTS to support such a weak claim? (NOT from within America but from some other source in the world.) When scientists tht work for the government conclude such theories, they are generally basedon more than just their belief in one person’s system of government or one persons suggestion.

If someone was once allowed to speak on something and the White House had requested they no longer provide that information puiblicly, then the White House has in turn censored that person. You know very well that the US government has heavily censored war reports dating back to WWI. Why is it so unbelievable that they would censor anything else? They have and do censor what you are allowed to see, that is undeniable, they even admit to it. Now all of a sudden it’s unheard of and impossible? If you had a reasonable ‘thought process’, you would be dangerous!

I’m not quite sure what your definition of censorship would be but it sure isn’t what the rest of us consider censorship.

Censorship

In reply to The duped speaks again

You [b]could[/b] take that another way: If censorship [b]is[/b] occurring, then what we are hearing must be false 🙂

So what you are saying

In reply to Censorship

Is that all the reports that GW is a farce are false? I agree.

I see the effects here, I don’t know if it it as apparent there though.

We don’t ‘hear’ as much as we ‘see’.

Well it’s

In reply to Censorship

Like this every thing I say is true but what I say now is false but I never tell a lie so is what I say true or false?

“This statement is a lie.”

In reply to Well it’s

Close your eyes and try to figure out whether that is true or false. Tell me how long it takes to get dizzy!

😀

Are you by any chance

In reply to Well it’s

the last guy I went out with? You sure sound like him!! 😀

I hope not!

In reply to Are you by any chance

The last girl I went out with was my wife in the 70’s. But yes I am a big conspiracy fan and love to promote it any way I can.
Did you know that George Bush is an alien?

Wow!

In reply to I hope not!

Does that mean that he can deport himself, or is he a further reaching alien than that and will have to transport himself!!

Uhh

In reply to Well it’s

Yeah … like you said.

You just lost your argument

In reply to The duped speaks again

Specifically, by demanding that global warming is scientific fact. It is not scientific fact, the science is still very much in dispute, and yet you’re treating it like a Revealed Doctrine. Nope, it’s based on science. The temperature trends are very slight, and no one yet knows whether the trend is a line that will keep going straight up or a curve that will head back down at some point.

If it’s so warm there in BC, then you just need to get Al Gore to come give a speech on global warming. Every time he gives one of those speeches, the weather turns remarkably cold!

I’ve been beating that drum for years

In reply to You just lost your argument

Every time someone claims that man-caused global warming is a “fact”, I correct them, just like you did, telling them that it’s far from being a proven fact. I even support my objection by pointing out the reputable people, sometimes by name and position, who ALSO dispute the myth. But it falls on deaf ears. They place their “faith” in what they want to believe.

They usually retort in one of two ways.

1. They demand that I “prove” it is not happening.

2. They claim that it’s a close enough probability to err on the side of caution, and act as though it’s true.

On the first objection, of course, we can’t prove such a negative.

On the second objection, no it’s not a close enough probability to err on the side of caution, especially when considering the all-encompasing considerations and demands being made — and by whom. In fact, in my opinion, this is when my “consider the source” trumps all else. (The “source” being fear-mongering politicians, global collectivist advocates, and environmental political activists.)

In Oz’s case, they’ll be a third retort, and that’s to suggest that pollution, in general, kills thousands, maybe millions, of people every year. He’ll call that an undeniable fact. (He loves to make-up his own facts.) Therefore, since it will help anyway, we should act as though it’s true. Then he’ll blame President Bush, The United States, and California for whatever is chapping his ass that day.

But thanks for chiming it.

Just to set the record straight

In reply to I’ve been beating that drum for years

Max, nobody is saying that man-caused global warming is a fact. Please show me where I said that. I said, the Earth’s natural cooling and warming phase (yes we have proof there was an ice age and it has been warming ever since)is most likely affected by our emissions as we KNOW our emissions form new gases in the atmosphere and some don’t break down in to harmless gases. We are creating our own atmosphere cocktail.

As far as a resolution, I am speaking of PEOPLE making small changes and sacrifices in the way they waste resources. Kinda like going on a resource diet, heaven forbid an American diet!
So it’ snot such a far fetched idea to err on teh side of caution, IF it’s an error of course. Can we afford to be wrong and spead up the Earth’s cycle? Nope.

On how people are being killed by our emissions every year. Well that my friend, is MEDICAL fact. Not theory or lefty BS, the autopsy proves it.

CO replaces oxygen in the bloodstream, eventually causing suffocation. Deny that please. Mild CO poisoning is kinda like the flu, but exposure to higher levels creates long term sickness and/or death. In 1993 there were 703 deaths in the USA attributed to CO poisoning, mainly from portable stoves, heaters in homes and vehicle emissions.

Most vehicle emissions related sickness is found in city workers, traffic police, roadside newstand agents etc. When I was in alternate fuels school in the 90’s, the figure was well over 1400 recorded deaths in the USA.

This figure rises annually, and that’s also why it is so important to not only have a smoke detector in your home but a CO detector too.

Sp you can BELIEVE what you choose to believe, but believe me when I say, CO is killing thousands of people each year, well over a thousand a year in teh USA alone. Take a city such as London England for example, and you should be able to comprehend that with a dense population (not stupid dense) they are even more affected by CO in the streets.

Did you guys grow up in a cave or s all of this really new? Is there SO much propaganda threown at you now that you just don’t know what to believe anymore and as a result don’t believe anything unless the president says so? (which is pretty laughable anyway)

[b]Effects of Carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) Saturation COHb Saturation (%) Symptoms[/b]

0-10 None.

10-20 Tension in forehead, dilation of skin vessels.

20-30 Headache and pulsating temples.

30-40 Severe headache, weariness, dizziness, weakened sight, nausea, vomiting, prostration.

40-50 Severe headache, plus increased breathing and pulse rates, asphyxiation and prostration.

50-60 Same as above, plus coma, convulsions, Cheyne-Stokes respiration.

60-70 Coma, convulsions, weak respiration and pulse. Death is possible.

70-80 Slowing and stopping of breathing, death within hours.

80-90 Death in less than 1 hour.

90-100 Death within a few minutes.

THose would be called FACTS, not heresay or lefty BS, that is a FACT a medical and scientific FACT.

I’m sorry the president hasn’t declared it fact yet, I am sure you would all jump on board and start humping trees if he did.

My reply in a new thread – see link within

In reply to Just to set the record straight

.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193451&messageID=1998466

By the way, will you please spare me the silly comments, such as, [i]”I’m sorry the president hasn’t declared it fact yet, I am sure you would all jump on board and start humping trees if he did.”[/i]

I think for myself, Oz, and you know it. And if you can’t engage in a discussion with me without resorting to such nonsense, then I’m not interested in taking this (or anything) any further. I’m really tired of it.

Sorry for speaking below your mental level then

In reply to My reply in a new thread – see link within

I understand that you consider yourself far more educated and above most others here, for that I apologize for any light hearted banter that you may not have welcomed into your world.

For someone claiming to have a sense of humour, you certainly didnt pick up on the jest.

Below Maxwell Edison’s mental level? No such thing!

In reply to My reply in a new thread – see link within

:p

They wouldn’t really do that, would they?

In reply to Just to set the record straight

I really like trees! Hugging I can tolerate, but humping? Not my trees they don’t!!

Can you present a competing hypothesis?

In reply to You just lost your argument

You describe the temperature trends as “very slight,” but have you computed the number of BTUs required for these temperature trends to exist in a mass the size of Earth? I haven’t computed them yet, but a sustained increase in average temperature over years or decades of even just 1/10th of 1 degree, times all the mass on the planet, including land, sea and air, is not “slight”! If the measured trends do not correspond closely to measurable (measured?) increases in solar output, it is rational to look for other sources of heat input. If those are not found, it is rational to accept that measured increases in atmospheric CO2, emitted by humans’ industry, autos and livestock, are directly responsible, [b]then[/b] to decide whether the magnitudes are sufficient to warrant changes in energy sources (and food — don’t eat beef).

Censorship – By all the lefty liars

In reply to What are you talking about?

“Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.”

“”There has been a change in how we’re expected to interact with the press,” said Pieter Tans, who measures greenhouse gases linked to global warming and has worked at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder for two decades. He added that although he often “ignores the rules” the administration has instituted, when it comes to his colleagues, “some people feel intimidated — I see that.”

“Once in 2002, Milly said, Interior officials declined to issue a news release on grounds that it would cause “great problems with the department.” In November 2005, they agreed to issue a release on a different climate-related paper, Milly said, but “purged key words from the releases, including ‘global warming,’ ‘warming climate’ and ‘climate change.’ ”

“Several times, however, agency officials have tried to alter what these scientists tell the media. When Tans was helping to organize the Seventh International Carbon Dioxide Conference near Boulder last fall, his lab director told him participants could not use the term “climate change” in conference paper’s titles and abstracts. Tans and others disregarded that advice.”

“As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn’t want you to hear but he’s going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world’s leading researcher on global warming. He’s the head of NASA’s top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn’t hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows. ”

So what, Max, it’s a big conspiracy to accuse the White House of censoring scientific reports? Even those from NASA? My God, when do you pull your head out of the sand?!?

Your right our

In reply to What are you talking about?

Government would never tell us some thing that is not true! They would never try to stop images of things that might hurt the way the people view or change our idea of what is going on. This never happened in any war, any major action in our government.

Sorry but I have seen too much and read too much to agree with you.
You should not just dismiss every thing that you have read with out reading other places and looking for yourself.
Stay the way you are but look around not just at US sites, and look at the real facts. Go to the earth sites and look up global warming.
Just trying to get you to see what a lot of others see.

You’re right

In reply to Your right our

Our press would never tell us some thing that is not true! They would never try to stop images of things that might help the way the people view or change our idea of what is going on. They would neve slant the way they tell something to guide the public in the direction of their slant. They would never deliberately [b]not[/b] report something because of the way it might make the public feel. That never happens, does it?

He’s talking about “Hot Air And Free Speech” (TomPaine.com)

In reply to What are you talking about?

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/18/hot_air_and_free_speech.php

Hmm, the title reminds me of Maxwell Edison and Oz_Media, respectively.

STILL looking for a 1st Edition of “Earth in the Balance”

In reply to What are you talking about?

… where Al Gore went on for a couple hundred pages about global cooling …

Here’s the whole story

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

If i had known it was posted I could have saved myself typing all that crap out!!!

http://www.straight.com/content.cfm?id=17132

It’s easier than

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

that for locals to see the effects.
Vancouver is a rainforest climate, yet we are having water restrictions placed on us due to a lack of water?

That alone should be a clear indication that there is something wrong with the climate.

There have been recent studies that show another source of Global Warming, and this one is a natural cause. Every indicator that geologists can find says that the Earth’s magnetic poles are starting a reversal, this means that for a few hundred years there will be no magnetic field around the earth, protecting us from solar radiation, causing incredible amounts of heat to be generated, droughts and firestorms. exactly how severe they can’t yet predict, but we have to start doing something to reverse the effects our technology has had or it may sterilise the earth’s surface.

reversal?

In reply to It’s easier than

Dang it, now I have to go out and read something again! X-( You could at least have linked to a readers digest version or something…..

By the way, that avitar is no NOT you!

reversal

In reply to reversal?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/reversals.html

a video and nova story on it.

TV show called magnetic storm is what this is from.

Thanks, Jaqui

In reply to reversal

Graphics help. I’ve watched the changes for years. It’s good to have affirmation, even if I don’t like what it affirms.

We shut down our own watersheds ot appease California

In reply to It’s easier than

remember the water restriction last year? We had two completely full watersheds at Capilano, but they were ‘being saved’ to provide Hydro to California as promised.

Now look at it, in order to provide the system California wants us to have (to reduce their droughts) we are tearing up the North Shore to join the Seymour and Capilano watersheds together.

So far, two slides, 6 homes lost, 4 lives.
Forget DAMN Yankees, it’s more like
” ‘kin Californians!”

Sorry but I am on a pissed of at America bit for a while, I have ot go south again (just Seattle and Olympia) this weekend nd I ‘kin HATE going there these days.

Bunch of backwards, hicktown, piss-ants in that make me glad to be foreign! Some of teh people are okay, but the law enforcement and border security are a force to be laughed at.

Speaking of security, when I was off to Montreal a couple of weeks ago, I had a small keychain Swiss Army knife on me. Airport security said I could take it into the US (international flight) but not on a domestic flight?!

So while Americans are saying Canada has lax security, they will allow me to enter with a knife? But they (Americans) have the most paranoid and completely retarded border security.

I can go hack Yankees but I can’t carve a frog? I can live with that I guess. 🙂

Just you wait

In reply to It’s easier than

When you see that glacier coming and it knocks down [b]all[/b] of those trees, your water problems will be over 🙂

What glacier?

In reply to Just you wait

The rate the glaciers are melting they won’t be an issue for that much longer anyway.

Actually, a gruellin ghike I used to do in my teens woul dtake me over top of the North Shore Mountains and you can see a really cool glacier field right there. They are MILLIONS of years old and you can just stand there and gaze in awe. What a cool place to be!

They sneak up on you.

In reply to What glacier?

“The rate the glaciers are melting they won’t be an issue for that much longer anyway.”

That’s what the wooly mammoth said to the mastadon 🙂

Denial

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

ain’t just a river in Egypt. One lie has to be told to cover the next one. People in this country have no real clue often of what life is really like. They live inside their TV sets and believe anything that is stated in the U.S. media.
I refused to speak out politically for a lot of years because I wasn’t registered to vote and didn’t have the information I would need to make a mature decision. My own life was overly hectic as I dealt with family that was living the “American dream.” My parents woke up before they died, and that helped a lot. I was always considered the “strange one” because I questioned things.
When my eyes tell me one thing and my ears hear another I understand that there are a lot of lies in life. Having survived an overwhelming number of them, I grin a lot now…only because it’s a joy to be sane, not because of what I see happening in and to the world.
I saw 9/11 coming…not the specifics of it, but I saw what was heading our way because I was one of the “uniformed” citizens who did her own research and because the Internet reaches all over the globe.
The advantage of being a joyful person is that people talk around me as if I were a child, and I learn a lot about the people. I just keep smiling. I love sanity.
I registered to vote in the last major election. I can open my mouth now. I’ve paid attention for a long time. No booze, no drugs, no TV…a clear mind.
It’s all a matter of input/output.

It’s all a matter of input/output.

In reply to Denial

G.I.G.O. Garbage In Garbage Out

old term for IT, not often used anymore as the US government doesn’t like beig reminded that they are guilty of the G.O. part. ]:)

& the G.I. part

In reply to It’s all a matter of input/output.

As purveyors of public misinformation, deceptively named “public education”, the government is responsible for garbage in, and for the garbage out.

I totally agree!

In reply to & the G.I. part

I had one school principal call the cops on me and claim that I had no right to be in the school. The cops, though were great…they stopped by my house the next day to tell me I did one heck of a fine job telling the man off.
Public education here is not good. I tell anyone who wants to stand still to listen. One teacher told my son, “I am your mother now because you are with me more hours a day.”
I could rant on this for a few years…tons more.
“nuf said.

One thing that totally amazes me. . .

In reply to I totally agree!

…is looking at the number of people who are extremely critical of government, but yet they espouse bigger and more intrusive government as a solution to solve their problems.

Look around, they show themselves all over these threads.

I’m critical of government, probably more than most. But I support knocking it down a few notches — about 70 per percent of its notches.

And on “global warming”

In reply to I totally agree!

One of the primary reasons I’m extremely skeptical is that almost all of the people crying the warnings in droves are not scientists, but politicians, governments, and political activists.

Draw the line

In reply to And on “global warming”

It’s very true that many of those people you have mentioned have some rather radical members that spoil it for everyone else with some valid information to share.

It’s also very true that some of those people are extremely observant and educated on that of which they speak.

Take David Suzuki for example, now yes he is most definitely a right wing focused person, but he is also known to be a very logical, reasonable and intensely educated ‘scientist’ within his field.

One cannot easily dismiss his findings and observations, no matter how much you may disagree with his political views.

It’s a matter of knwing where to draw the line, so far there has been absolutely NO compelling evidence that global warming is not occuring at an increasing rate, there are infinite amounts of undeniable evidence from knowledgable sources that it is increasing due to fossil fuel emissions.

Spending so much time in the heart of BC’s forests for the last 20 years, I have seen the changes first hand at an alarmingly rapid rate. It is something everyone talks about when in the wilderness here, you really notice these slight changes that just don’t get recognized in the city.

So, just as with the fight against terroriosm since 9/11, do you wait and see what happens or do you take action while you can?

It’s not like we are talking about immense personal sacrifices, just simple and reasonable daily routine adjustments that reduce our own emissions. The ‘One tonne challenge’ that they aren’t suppoesed to talk about anymore.

Will it cost business and manufacturing plants a lot of money?

Sure… but so the f’ what, it’s called progress; we aren’t cavemen, why act like them? And if it were for a new robotic technology to increase production, no price would be to dear for those deep pockets.

The part that I have difficulty with is that you are appear to be such an environmentally aware person, you are very aware of what’s around you. You have also participated in scouting for menay years, I just don’t see how this isn’t a lifestyle you embed into the young men you mentor.

I am not condemning you for your views, I am just having a hard time figuring out why you are so stubborn to such a bold reality.

What would it take for you to see the light and be saved, Max!?

I just wanna see you HEALED, my son!HEALED IN THE NAME OF OZMEDIA!!! GOD LOVES YOU, AMEN!!! OOOOOOOWEEEEE!! PRAISE THE LORD!

Oz, there may be hope for you

In reply to Draw the line

Hell, there may even be hope for me 🙂 but max is so far beyond anyone’s aid it is no longer funny. I think GWB himself has a better chance of rehabilitation and making himself a [b]useful[/b] member of society than max.

All we can do is hope max burns himself out quickly, the only way to combat ignorance ingrained that deeply is to ignore it yourself.

I have no problem with the left or right side of the political spectrum, as long as they don?t stray too far because every now and then they [b]both[/b] need some sense slapped into them.

on Max

In reply to Draw the line

Well you made a couple of good point and a common observation where I have been proven wrong myself.

First of all, yes the left can be just as extreme and far fetched as the right can be to the right.
Personally I don’t buy either side verbatim. Even Max, has said that I am actually farther right focused (in a business sense) than most people would credit me for. I have also been called a lefty looney, socialist, fascist and every other name TR peers can conjur.

I find, for the most part, I am quite centered though.

Max, on the other hand, is very right wing focused. However, no matter how vehemently he supports Republicans, he still does not agree with ALL right wing purposes though, in fact he opposes many policies from the rights.

Max is built on a firm set of ‘core values’ (his favorite word besides disingenious). Now this may, as you claim, be an issue of being too old for change and being set in your ways, I often agree. But Max s not encourageable, he has shown, from time to time if you look really hard, that he can actually see a new viewpoint. He may not reach out for it, but he may quietly acept it and then he will do a lot of personal study to either confirm his own convictions or raise personal awareness. I try not to sell him too short these days, while he can be pig headed and very stubborn (no, thats me) he also tends to offer very well thought out views. If they differ from mine, which they often do, I can accept them easier now becaue I know he has reached his conclusion based on study and not peer pressure.

This one bugs be though, it suits the character he portays here, but I don’t think it reflects his real personality at all.

Max has me baffled this time. I just don’t know why he would be closed minded to this issue or why he has chosen to dismiss such fact that is undeniable. It isn’t just because he supports Bush, because he really doesn’t support all of GW’s policies.

It’s a headwrecker and I’d love to find out where the pickle really is.

I guess I still havent gotten over

In reply to Draw the line

the time max tried to accuse me of treason. Oh well.

Global warming in general is a bit of a headf*ck. It essentially says that life as we know it will come to an end. It is a difficult subject for anyone to take head on.

On Oz_Media

In reply to Draw the line

Oz, I loved the post. I see some of those things a bit differently, but I loved it, nonetheless. In fact, I don’t really disagree with any of it (but I might have worded it a bit differently).

Let me dwell on your final question, however. I’ll try to figure out a way to answer it. I’ll post it in a fresh thread so you can reply.

mjwx

In reply to Draw the line

Life as we know it ends many times as we grow. We change our perception, and life around us changes. Hang in and don’t let it overwhelm you. Breathe in breathe out. Laugh as often as possible. Celebrate the little things. I have known how to tie my shoes for many years! Life changed for me once I learned that.

I’m “pretty? Sure!” that Maxwell accused me of treason, mjwx.

In reply to Draw the line

I remember that you were on the same “straight line” for max message level, but it was my over-the-top remark that Maxwell called treasonous, not yours, & I’ve gotten over it. I also remember that you made good points, so please, don’t hold back because of a remark that wasn’t intended for you anyway!

For Abs: TOTALLY off topic

In reply to Draw the line

It doesn’t matter to me if you are pretty….I like your yellow car! It’s all about the car! ROFL 😡

Writer, thanks for the advice

In reply to Draw the line

I do try to see past my own bigotry and I do enjoy a good laugh. People don?t spend enough time laughing which reminds me the Melbourne comedy festival road show is coming soon.

Abs, Max accused me of treason as well, until I reminded him that I am an Aussie and treason is an
internal crime. I kind of meant my comment as half-joking, a snide kind of burying the hatchet.

I try not to take anything too seriously. A peice of advice I’d like to pass on.

To: Absolutely – I don’t mince words

In reply to Draw the line

.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193451&messageID=1997424

I want it to be perfectly clear what I think of you.

Now Max

In reply to Draw the line

regarding your comments to Absolutely.

Why on earth would you want to ADVERTISE the fact that you need to wash your mouth out with soap and water?

But jardinier

In reply to Draw the line

I didn’t “say” those words that would warrant such mouth-scrubbing, did I?

After all, I didn’t say #$&*^, or ********, or !$*******(^&)#, or #&*(!*****, or any of those other words.

All I said was pompous, jerk-off, know-it-all, traitor, pond scum, lowest form of life, and miserable low-life.

And I was being kind!

I mean, for Pete’s sake, you’d hear worse on television — especially British television.

As for my email comment, you’d have to test it before you rushed to judgement, wouldn’t you?

Canadian TV

In reply to Draw the line

We get The Osbournes uncut, we get Trailer Park Boys (makes Ozzy look like a scholar)etc.

Canadian TV allows for quite a bit these days actually, they can and do say prety much anything. Which isn’t so bad really, at least the words flow and aren’t all chopped and bleeped up. Soft porn, violence, coarse and suggestive language etc. We are CANADIAN! (okay, dumb commercial)

But British television is

In reply to Draw the line

At least entertaining. Hmm 36 more law and order clones? I dind’t even like the original.

Just another misconception by North Americans

In reply to Draw the line

They think British TV is full of swearing T%A etc. and Canadian TV is so heavily regulated and censored.

It’s actually the other way around. Looking back over time, Monty Pythons AND Benny Hill had very shorts runs in England, they lived on because they shown in Canada. Benny Hill still has runs in Canada.

Canadian TV has raised my eyebrows more than once, had me checking the station to see who was broadcasting it.

But as far as Americans are concerned, they have teh FREE and OPEN news, Canada and England have heavily regilated and censored socialist news.

Oh well, one day (perhaps even in our lifetime) an American will travel around our flat planet and see for himself. What a scary day that will be! the problem is, while they DO travel, they just don’t go back.

Except

In reply to And on “global warming”

[b]your[/b] government.

Follow the money, Maxwell

Follow the money…

I am happy some one

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

Likes to see the real world and not what our happy news people show us. Oh sure we see bad news, killers, rapist etc. But when you try to talk about what our government is doing or say to drill in Alaska is a bad idea. You get dumb looks every body knows we need oil and it will not hurt the environment. We need to keep using coal and not join the other nations trying to stop emissions. This kind of thing happens in ten-year intervals.
Well the ice cap dose not melt in ten year intervals, there are polar bears drowning because the ice flows are disappearing.
Boy am I in trouble now 🙂

Why? Well, one major reason could be because…

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

…censoring this information can slash down a sizable slice of the oil company’s record profits. Yes, I am well aware of all the scientific research that supports global warming and the administration’s efforts to keep them away from the American public. Unfortunately, many people will still believe just about anything from our government.

Ok the world

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

Is as we know it is ending. Send me your money, your computers and any thing else you want to save. And I will keep it untill the world gets back to normal! I will update and keep your stuff in good shape and give you an IOU for it. The only things I will not take are small people, kids the little people. Also bills I have enough of my own so I do not need any more. And wifes I have my own so do not try to include yours mine is all I need!
Next send me all your login’s and passwords so I can send them back to you after the big bang.
You should do it now because it can happen any time.

Missing the point?

In reply to Ok the world

Nobody is saying the world is ending, the world will go on long after we leave it that’s for damn sure. Based on the ‘life’ of the Earth, mankind has occupied such a small sliver of time that our existence is a mere blink of an eye.

If we all started to accept responsibility for th ewasteful use of the resources we leech from the Earth, then there are far more lives saved other than humans.

Despite the fact that our emissions kill thousands every year (regardless of global warming, just street level pollution is killing thousands) we are eliminating other forms of life, causing many of natures creatures to see an expedited demise.

Yes, Max is right in that the Earth has been naturally warming and cooling since the before the dawn of time. What many have failed to accept, mainly due to pure ignorance, is that we are noticably and scientifically expediating the process with our emissions.

More on censoring

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

I find it interesting that you “claim” America censors “this”, Bush censors “that”, and so on. However, upon further review, if Americans are indeed exposed to “this and that”, and we do see and/or read about “this and that”, the very things you claim are being censored, how is it that it’s being “censored”?

There are only two possibilities.

1. You are really full of B.S., either intentionally or otherwise.

2. What YOU see and read about America and/or Bush censoring all this stuff is, in itself, “censored” and/or altered to make you believe something that isn’t true.

You have never told me anything that I didn’t already know and/or haven’t already seen or heard about. So how is it that you are privy to this alleged “censored” information, but it’s all old news to me?

In regards to these “global warming” zealots (Hansen, for example), we’re literally inundated with the stuff. Oh, but wait, these people who are speaking out about it are, somehow, being censored from speaking out about it. Okay, whatever you say. It’s just a silly claim, but one, for some strange reason, you continue to make.

Disclaimer: Of course the government censors some things, such as (and especially) information from the war front. However, in the name of national security and/or to maintain some semblance of geopolitical stability, that’s the way it must be. But the government, in no way, censors information that does not originate from within its own departments. (And even then, considering our different branches of government, with one branch having absolutely no control over the other, especially considering the different political parties involved, almost everything is made common knowledge.)

One thing, for example, that I’m pretty sure the government is censoring, is information about the weapons of mass destruction that were known to be in Iraq. (After all, they didn’t just disappear into thin air!) I believe this is not only the case with weapons themselves and their whereabouts, but also with information in regards to other nations being complicit in helping Saddam with those efforts. And I also suspect that information about the oil-for-food scandal that undermined stability and the rule of international law is, in some respects, also being withheld in the name of geopolitical stability. And if these things are indeed the case, it’s rather ironic to realize that it would be in the Bush administration’s self political interest to release it, they continue to take heat in that regard, but they put national security and stability above self-interest. (And yes, of course it’s pure speculation on my part. Unless, of course, a person might place some credence in what retired General Michael DeLong has suggested in his book, Inside CENTCOM.)

In conclusion, Oz, tell me something that I don’t know, and tell me about things I haven’t already heard about, and then you can make your silly censor claims. Until then, you really are looking foolish by making such claims.

I’m pretty sure

In reply to More on censoring

that it was all about oil, Maxwell…but being pretty sure is only being pretty sure. (I’m pretty? Sure!)

The Bushes are oil men. Allowing Iraq to control oil interest would be a mass destruction to their personal economy.

But…that’s only my pretty sure opinion.

Government is about money now…world wide.
Credit cards = debit
Debit cards = actual cash value

Things are backward now, Maxwell.
Other countries own us and gain the profits from businesses set up here. Then we send to other countries for cheap labor and more profits leave the country.

Someone heard: Buy American back in the 70’s and 80’s and they left the n off and thought it sounded like a good idea.

But all of that is only my opinion.

for starters, my dear

In reply to I’m pretty sure

can you, in your own words, and without doing a web search, explain to me how Bush or his family has profited from the oil, based on the Iraq war? How much of an increase in [b]profit[/b] has the Bush family had since GWB took office?

Oil wise, how are WE better off without Saddam in charge of oil.

The “Buy American” slogan ran aground when the union members meant it ONLY for the products THEY made. I know several Union people, and they do ALL their shopping in ANTI-Union store, BorgMart.

Why did we see off-shoring of our businesses? Look at the money grab the US government was doing to the US companies, and you will see what started FORCING companies out of the US.

It is ok to believe what you believe, I just wonder what it is based on.

I loved the “my dear’ but

In reply to for starters, my dear

when we talk politics or get into any other debate, feel free to forget 😡 😀
This is an exericse of intellect.
Right now I wish I had never registered to vote, because until I was a registered voter I kept my mouth shut, accepting that, if I wasn’t going to get involved as the government allows me, I had no right to complain.

What’s my opinion based upon? Well, I’m “old” and watched things change. I remember reading Time Magazine as other countries bought one company after another. I understood why it was happening, jd; I simply felt really sad.

In 1977 I cut up my credit cards and paid everyone off. I watched for nearly 20 years as people put themselves into debt only to file bankruptcy.

I watched life change around me. I watched respect fly out the window. I have been laughed at and scorned for many years because I stood by my personal values. I’m now on the very bottom of the economic “food chain”, but those values are still intact.

As for oil…it’s basic retail. If you can knock out the competition, you can name your price. Ask Bill Gates. Only things haven’t gone quite as Bush thought they would.

War is “good” for the economy. It kills off young people, creates jobs for those left at home, pulls the nation together against some outside force, etc. etc. (I don’t ascribe to this…it’s just what ‘is”)

I was willing to stay neutral until the last election. Bush got into office in a way that appalled me personally. I decided then that I would use my citizenship rights, even if all I had was my own opinion to base my vote upon.
the generation before me spoiled their kids and gave them what they felt the depression had “robbed” them of. Those kids went on a buying binge and never learned how to stretch a dollar or wait to buy what they wanted until they had the money to do so. The next generation began to live as their parents and then paused to consider, and now the next generation is upon us and those kids don’t have much of a world or mentors to follow.

I rebelled, and wound up behind the eight ball. I refused to do as my peers did. I’m not sorry.
Being true to self is important to me.

Was not a debate, so the “Dear” still fits! :D

In reply to I loved the “my dear’ but

I was not challenging you or trying to beat you up. This is just my first chance to see you in a political debate, and wanted a bases to understand where you are coming from. HOW you have come to where you are, not where you are. Plenty of time for that later.

I am just too beat down right now to care enough to join in the political chest beating.

Now, after trying to clerify my intent and objectives, if you feel there is something you might add or change to help me understand the “why”, I would be delighted to read it.

Clerify what and how Bush got into office that appalled you so.

I generally am a logic based person, not prone to emotion as justification for things. As such, I ask for someone to back up what they say with some kind of facts, but I am not looking to debate you, but understand you. What you feel, provided you know WHY you feel that way, is just fine.

And I am a big advicator of personal responsiblity, just as you are.

Whew! (place relieved emoticon here)

In reply to Was not a debate, so the “Dear” still fits! :D

I wasn’t at all satisfied with the recount after the election, and didn’t trust what occurred in Florida with his brother as govenor there. I had absolutely no faith in his ability to lead and saw him as a puppet, but I wasn’t registered to vote so I kept my mouth shut. I also did not have enough knowledge about the other candidate, and didn’t know if he was any better. That ballot business irked me a LOT. I waited four years and prayed for the man (Which is what I do for whomever is elected to office) and decided to vote against him no matter who else was running.
I still pray for the man. I don’t have to like him or agree with him and his policies. I’ll be glad when he’s out of office, so that I can put a final AMEN to his name!

how GWB has personally profitted from the Iraq war

In reply to for starters, my dear

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=190290&start=0

Maxwell’s pet George could not have convinced anybody that [b]he[/b] was part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions or “energy dependence”, except that the war helps distract from the fact that none of the technologies in the article linked above are new and puts the issues in a different context. Picture George making the same statements without a war in Iraq, and he sounds a lot like Al Gore claiming credit for the Internet, doesn’t he?

but

In reply to how GWB has personally profitted from the Iraq war

is this what Beth has based her opinion on?

I was not attacking nor defending, just asking someone that made a statement, what it was based on.

While you giving me a link to a link may answer part of the question (maybe or maybe not, will follow link in a bit) it does not explain how Beths beliefs were formed.

Thanks anyways.

face

In reply to but

It’s up to Beth to “explain how Beths (sic) beliefs were formed” if she cares to do so. I wouldn’t bother explaining myself to the likes of jdclyde, myself. I wasn’t trying to explain a thing about Beth, just to say “you’re full of s#it, jdclyde.”

You’re full of s#it, jdclyde.

Maybe, maybe not

In reply to face

but that doesn’t make you any more valid or change the fact that in responding to that post that asked something very specific of someone specific, in trying to respond you WERE trying to explain beths beliefs.

That or you just weren’t paying attention too closely to the question in the first place.

Either way, looks like you got some of that same sh!t on yourself while you were slinging it around.

Glad that I am an important enough part of your posting that you had to not only jump in and try to answer someone elses questions, but had to follow up on it as well. Get tired of playing with Max?

What exactly was the point of the last post then? Are you now to the point of making a personal attack? What a shame. Thats ok. Don’t explain yourself.

I WAS NOT “trying to explain Beths (sic) beliefs”, JACKASS!

In reply to face

I responded to a false assertion made in a public forum, jackass. The assertion that George Walker Bush has not profited in any way from the current war in Iraq is false. He has profited personally, professionally, from the opportunity to lead the country in time of war, and to enjoy the status as “Commander in Chief” that has been very helpful to the popularity of many previous Presidents. The fact that his approval ratings are now in the vicinity of 30% just proves that he is, was, and always will be a moron, destined for failure.

http://tinyurl.com/6a6g4

Feeling lucky?

Is it love?

In reply to face

As I clearly addressed my first post to “My Dear”, does this mean your hoping for a closer relationship with me? Sorry, I like girls. ;\ I really am flattered though!

[i]AB: I responded to a false assertion made in a public forum, jackass. [/i]

What assertion was made? I never claimed that he made or didn’t make any profits. I DID ask what Beth understood as the answer for the following.

[i]”can you, in your own words, and without doing a web search, explain to me how Bush or his family has profited from the oil, based on the Iraq war? How much of an increase in profit has the Bush family had since GWB took office?”[/i]

What assertion was made again? She made a startment and I wanted to know WHY she would say it. True, she never did give a valid reason for saying anything that she did say, but I kind of expected that (although I had hoped otherwise).

So, are the recent personal attacks and name calling like the boys in the school yard that punch a girl because they like them? :0 You really need to get out more often……

I’ll make this clear enough that even jdclyde can understand.

In reply to face

“oneamazingwriter” made a statemtent.

“jdclyde” challenged that statement.

Any challenge of a statement is an assertion: that the truth is contrary to the challenged statement.

“jdclyde” challenged the statement that George Walker Bush has profitted from starting a war with Iraq. I responded to that, not to anything else between him and “oneamazingwriter”.

AB, sounds like you are #6

In reply to face

Main Entry: chal?lenge
[i]
1 : to demand as due or deserved : REQUIRE
2 : to order to halt and prove identity 3 : to dispute especially as being unjust, invalid, or outmoded : IMPUGN
4 : to question formally the legality or legal qualifications of
5 a : to confront or defy boldly : DARE b : to call out to duel or combat c : to invite into competition
[b]6 : to arouse or stimulate [/b]especially by presenting with difficulties
7 : to administer a physiological and especially an immunologic challenge to (an organism or cell)
intransitive senses
1 : to make or present a challenge
2 : to take legal exception
[/i][b]
You seem to be getting aroused by me? :0
you will also see (provided you look) that nothing I said to Beth qualified as a CHALLENGE.

also notice that Challenge is NOT an assertion
[/b]
[i]Main Entry: as?sert
1 : to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively
2 a : to demonstrate the existence of.[/i]

[b]I had not challenged Beth on her statement, just asked for clerification. I made no assertion of any point, either for or against her post. Asking for clerification of someones point of view is NEITHER a challenge nor an assertion, which by the way turn out to NOT be the same thing.

Now, you can attack me personally again about this, but that won’t make you right. Instead, your just making yourself look rather silly.

Oh, I know. You can always try “I know you are, but what am I?” That would fit right into the tone of your last few posts towards me.

In short, I can not be your gay lover and you will just have to move on without me. I like girls. :^0

Bush benefitted personally, professionally, from war with Iraq.

In reply to face

Although he later frittered away his gained popularity, his incompetence was always a guarantee that history will remember him as a cynical joke on us all, if it remembers him at all.

You did challenge that assertion. You have evaded defense of your position, and very childishly. Care to step to the plate, sucka?

jdclyde: “Now, you can attack me personally again about this…”

Well said. Let’s talk about something relevant instead of exchanging insults as if we’re both the children of irresponsible parents.

Oil wise, how are WE better off without Saddam in charge of oil.

In reply to for starters, my dear

Saddam was the thorn in Bush’s side when the US has requested repeatedly how they want to purchase oil from Iraq. They were not able to, as Saddam said NO GO, so they were left buying it from smaller countries who DID have trade agreements with Iraq (The Oil For Food Program) and then resold it to America.

This was all aired and proven before you came on board, it was in that massive US Embassy’s Report to Congress that made the US look no beter than any other for exploiting th eprogram. Funny enough, more than 40 pages were quickly removed from that document after it was first posted on The White House site, now it has barely a mention f US or holding off goods bound for Iraq etc.

The US has a great gain from removing Saddam, Iraq will now be at America’s side, the oil will flow (especially now that Halliburton has done SO much work after their amazing contract acquisition that others were better suited for in many cases).

Remeber , Bush FAILED miserably in the oil business, his main supporters need to be won back. What better way to do it? Get the contracts for Haliburton and the oil flowing to America again, why would the petro dollar POSSIBLY lose out to the EuroDollar then? It’s no different than any other distribution business.

Two things

In reply to I’m pretty sure

One:

Which comment(s) of mine were you addressing?

Two:

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193542&start=0

Over my head, but doing the dog paddle…

In reply to Two things

“One thing, for example, that I’m pretty sure the government is censoring, is information about the weapons of mass destruction that were known to be in Iraq.”

was the comment that I addressed in using the term “pretty sure”.

I’m not in your league at all, Maxwell. I will study the link you gave me, but I will also continue to state my own simplistic “opinions” because, as I stated they are opinions.

I speak and write the way I do, just as you speak and write the way you do. But even as a little leaguer, I have opinions, and they are never going to develop into anything more if I don’t get my feet wet in some of these debates.

I know that it’s the custom here for people to state the sources of their information. I don’t necessarily believe all of the sources. I look at life, form opinions and make decisions.

I wasn’t a cynic when I was younger. I have learned to be one in recent years. Doubting, for me, is a most healthy habit to acquire.

moron: censoring, but Hansen fought it & won

In reply to More on censoring

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/04/18/hot_air_and_free_speech.php

clever: agree with and prove the initial post

In reply to moron: censoring, but Hansen fought it & won

“censoring, but …”

So it’s NOT censoring then. Uh…..ooookay then.

exactly my intent

In reply to clever: agree with and prove the initial post

I do agree with your post, Oz, and I was trying to prove that the intent of NASA’s policy as well as NOAA’s, and probably other government departments, has been to downplay any scientific evidence gathered by those departments, that tend to support global warming. The fact that Hansen was ultimately able to make his statement publicly does not change the fact that the departments attempted to censor him.

If only “successful” attempts to censor are wrong, as Maxwell Edison is trying to claim, then we will never have any legitimate (to him) complaints, because if we know it happened, voila, it cannot be censorship by that twisted “definition”.

Messenger, Max, Messenger

In reply to More on censoring

I was reciting a news report. I changed my original title (which was quite bland) to draw on your weakness, which it did very well as you tok a whole 10 minutes to be the first poster against it.

Anyway, you are once again shooting the messenger, shall we say you are being quite disingenious? 🙂

Max, when someone is hushed or told to stop a pulbication with certain specific text included, that is called censorship. This is APPRENTLY exactly what has happened here. Even when David Suzuki’s ‘Save a tonne’ campaign was picked up by CIARN, they were apprently told not to use that title, by The White House or so they CLAIM anyway (damn liars! Why can’t everyone just tell God’s honest truth like the Republican Party always does!).

The interesting part though, is that whilst you claim to have not heard nothing new, you still have not offered any rebuttal to the main comment regarding global warming’s inevitability and ho wit is expedited by mankind’s wasteful use of fossil fuels. Before we listen to peopl eranting about reverting to cavemen again, we are not talking about stopping industry but just being more responsible and aware. We need to take steps to reduce our emissions, how can you contest such a simple and factual theory?

Your only rebuttal is to comment on Bush not censoring people and how you feel I must be silly to make such claims, that I didn’t make to begin with.

Do better, Max, or accept the fact that WE are responsible for what happens to our planet. You are a BIG advocate of personal responsibility, now lets see you support your beliefs.

Do you let Scouts trash a campsite and leave garbage everywhere? No. they leave it cleaner than when they got there and they should be making concious efforts to ensure that if they damage a riverbank it is repaired etc. When it comes to global warming, yes it is inevitable, but we are expediting the process. A forest will eventually be trashed by mankind, whether in this decade or the next. We still do our best to NOT be the ones who do it ourselves though.

If people were more responsible for their actions, we would not be having this discussion.

Oz, the word is DISINGENUOUS

In reply to Messenger, Max, Messenger

and it means [b]:having secret motives; dishonest; insincere.[/b]

It is a particularly NASTY word, which I heard for the first time in my life (at the tender age of 62) when Max didn’t like a story that was published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

After some deliberation and research, it was found that the story was quite valid, and all Max was left to complain about was the heading.

I talk to my neighbour, Pam (aged 62), about all my day-to-day trivia, including much of what goes on at TR.

A couple of weeks ago she was very excited: “I heard the word on TV !! Disengenuous.” It was the first time in her life that she had encountered the word.

So please, it has nothing whatsoever to do with “genius.”

Okay, spelling bee is down the hall.

In reply to Oz, the word is DISINGENUOUS

I’ve actually heard and used it many times myself. Yes I understand its meaning.

You arr correct though, the way I spelled it does change the pronounciation to geenEOS from jenUOS.

Same root as Genuine

In reply to Oz, the word is DISINGENUOUS

So someone who is disingenuous can be considered as not being real.

It’s become a very popular word. Although many folks think it means “not smart”.

Good concise definition, Jules

I’m glad “my word” is catching on

In reply to Same root as Genuine

I will admit, as Julian suggested, that I do use it a lot. But it so aptly describes so many people in the political realm, whether they be politicians (especially Democrats), news media pundits (who are almost all Democrats), or the regular, every-day partisan Democrats, not unlike the ones we see around here, spewing the same [i]disingenuous[/i] crap the former two groups start.

But I’m glad my [i]favorite[/i] word is catching on. I’ve been using it for years.

Max, I hate to tell you this, but…

In reply to I’m glad “my word” is catching on

the first time I heard it, it was used by Mario Cuomo. I’m guessing not one of your favorite people. 😀

Now you didn’t really think. . . . . .

In reply to Max, I hate to tell you this, but…

….I was laying claim to being the first one to use it and/or create it, were you?

I didn’t think so.

I couldn’t tell you when I first heard it and/or started to use it.

Wouldn’t it be interesting, however, to try to create a new word and make it catch-on? I remember a story from years ago when someone, on a bet, did just that. He was a newscaster, and he used it repeatedly until it DID become a common word. I forgot what the word is. (Or perhaps that’s just an urban legend that I’ve been sucked into believing!)

On Mario Cuomo, actually, he IS one of my favorite people to _____________________ .

Oh, I never meant to imply

In reply to Max, I hate to tell you this, but…

that you were laying claim to “developing” the word. Sorry if I came across that way. I just wanted to lump you into the same sentence with Mario and see what the reaction was.

As far as the urban legend goes, do some research on that. Sounds like a pretty good story. I searched Snopes a little bit, but I got nothing.

New words are being created continually

In reply to Max, I hate to tell you this, but…

Perhaps someone would offer to undertake the task of compiling a list of all new words created for the Information Technology industry. Many of the terms are, of necessity, acronyms, but they are used in the same manner as complete words.

What I find disquieting is that many common words, after being used repeatedly in the wrong context, take on a meaning quite different to the original.

The task of a lexicographer is to ascertain the most common usage of particular words, and thus after a period of time, the corrupted meaning becomes the accepted meaning.

An amusing example is the term “Platonic” to describe non-sexual love. It has not yet reached the dictionaries, but for at least two decades, younger people have replaced it with the word “Plutonic.”

Plutonic Friendship

In reply to Max, I hate to tell you this, but…

Woo-boy, I guess that means love doggie-style 😉

(And for the impure out there, I am referring to a love borne out of unquestioning loyalty and affection, just as Pluto has for Mickey.)

Is Julian being “disingenuous” or just forgetful?

In reply to Oz, the word is DISINGENUOUS

His recollection of that event is not entirely accurate. Julian left out, either intentionally or unintentionally, the “real story” that led us to find the article in the first place. Moreover, he misrepresented, again, either intentionally or unintentionally, what the headline and the story really did say.

Not to worry, however; I will gladly fill-in the blanks, mistruths, and omissions.

It happened as follows:

(I’m paraphrasing and condensing the actual discussion, of course.)

Julian made a comment in one of these off-topic political discussions that President Bush wanted to [i][b]”rule the world”. [/i][/b]

Yes, those were his exact words, “rule the world”.

What a silly thing to say, I replied back to him. (I did, perhaps, use different words and/or a stronger tone.)

Yes he does, said Julian.

No he doesn’t, said Maxwell

Yes he does ….. No he doesn’t ….. Yes he does ….. No he doesn’t ….. Yes he does ….. No he doesn’t …..

Yes he does, said Julian, and I know it to be true because I read it in my local newspaper.

The challenge was on, but Maxwell was up to the task. I put all my Internet search skills to work, and sure enough, Julian did indeed read that very thing in his newspaper.

It was a Sydney Morning Herald headline that read, “[b][i]Bush: how I’ll rule the world”[/b][/i]

The story, in the first three lines, went on to say, [i]”The Bush Administration has spelt out its determination to enforce America’s global domination, insisting it will allow no other power to challenge its military and economic supremacy. In a 33-page document, published overnight Sydney time, President George Bush says the US will never allow its military might to be challenged the way it was during the Cold War. It says ‘the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago’.”[/i]

Not only was the headline grossly suggestive and entirely misleading, but the article misquotes the very document it references. The quote, [i]”the President has no intention of allowing any foreign power to catch up with the huge lead the United States has opened since the fall of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago”[/i], appears nowhere in that document.

See the SMH story for yourself; and see the document to which it refers.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/20/1032054963259.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf

Julian not only revealed that he based his discussion opinion and comments on a mere headline, but he also showed how gullible he was to believe that headline AND the misleading story that followed. And now Julian says that, “it was found that the story was quite valid, and all Max was left to complain about was the heading.”

How untrue is that? The proof is in the links to that very story!

So Julian, are you being disingenuous or just forgetful? (You really didn’t think I would let this one pass, did you?)

Julian is laughing his head off

In reply to Is Julian being “disingenuous” or just forgetful?

because you cannot see what an idiot you are. If you could step outside your mental cocoon for a moment, and read what others are saying to you, you will see that you have become the resident court jester at TR, because most comments directed at you are lampoons.

As for your “recollection” of the discussion between us, it is woefully inaccurate as it omits the most significant comments that I made, and with which you found yourself obliged to agree at the time.

Indeed you WERE finally left with only the headline to criticise.

It does not concern me in the least that the “misquote” was a paraphrase of part of the content of the White House document. Obviously the document is far too long and complex to extract a precise quote that properly expresses the intent of the document.

I would say: “Get a life,” but your persistent stupidity has developed a life of its own.

Well done, Julian

In reply to Julian is laughing his head off

Welcome to the gutter!

Oh, shove your “upon further review” up your “in conclusion”.

In reply to More on censoring

Maxwell Edison: “However, upon further review, if Americans are indeed exposed to “this and that”, and we do see and/or read about “this and that”, the very things you claim are being censored, how is it that it’s being “censored”?”

Absolutely: Please explain your thoughts about the phrase “It’s only wrong if you get caught.” Then, compare and contrast those thoughts to your own question about censorship, which I quoted above, please.

Why would I want to play your warped game?

In reply to Oh, shove your “upon further review” up your “in conclusion”.

Absolutely: Please explain your thoughts about the phrase “It’s only wrong if you get caught.”

Those are your words, not mine. It’s up to YOU to explain them, not me.

Get bent.

You really DO have a problem, dude.

I’m not playing any game, hypocrite.

In reply to Why would I want to play your warped game?

My thoughts about the phrase “It’s only wrong if you get caught”: this is the belief of a person unable to turn concrete observations into abstractions, because it has no independent cerebral ability. This type of person only responds to punishment, and is unable to feel any pride in acting morally for the sake of doing the right thing.

My only problem, “Maxwell Edison”, is and always has been, that I share Earth with so many hypocrites.

I’m sure

In reply to I’m not playing any game, hypocrite.

we can get a collection started… to buy you your own planet!

By the way, for reference to those who may not know

In reply to Oh, shove your “upon further review” up your “in conclusion”.

Mr. Pompous, jerk-off, know-it-all, known as “Absolutely”, in a previous discussion, freely and gleefully admitted that he wished the 9-11 terrorists had succeeded in killing the President of the United States. He’s a traitor of the worst kind. He’s pond scum. He’s the lowest form of life one could possibly imagine. He’s a miserable low-life who was, by his own admission, scarred as a child. However, if you want to know what I REALLY think of him, send me an email. The words I would have to use are inappropriate for this forum.

limited intellect, limited vocabulary

In reply to By the way, for reference to those who may not know

Maxwell Edison: “However, if you want to know what I REALLY think of him, send me an email. The words I would have to use are inappropriate for this forum.”

Thou Shalt Not Get Caught

In reply to Oh, shove your “upon further review” up your “in conclusion”.

is the only commandment that some people ever follow, Absolutely. It’s the 12 year-old-conscience, and very few get passed it. People are usually only as honest as they have to be to get by among their fellow men. Some of us decide we will pull our own covers and get as honest as we can, but it usually takes some personal crisis for that to come about. Luckily, I have had my share of such things. 🙂 When we pull our own covers there are times that we are ostracized as a result. I have listened for years to people tell me, “You can’t say that!” Since I tend to speak of myself and my own life experience, I have often wondered who those people thought would stop me from speaking my truth. So far no one has stopped me.
Self honesty is like an onion. We peel off a layer and say, “This is who I really am,” then we notice an edge sticking out and we peel again, and come to the same conclusion. At this point in my life I say, “This is who I am today, check with me tomorrow to see who I am then.” But at no time does anyone have any right to say, “You cannot be who you are!” I R who I say I R. 🙂
P.S. I liked your post.

–

In reply to Thou Shalt Not Get Caught

.

–

In reply to Thou Shalt Not Get Caught

disregard. I changed my mind.

What did you get in exchange?

In reply to –

:p

But BETH!

In reply to Thou Shalt Not Get Caught

not everyone likes onions.

How about cake?

Cake has layers and everybody LOVES CAKE! ]:)

Let them eat cake!

In reply to But BETH!

But, the harsher reality is that we are onions. No sugar coated frosting here, jd.

(That’s my analogy, and I’m sticking to it!) :^0

Edit: I REFUSE to take more emoticon lessons!

Sorry

In reply to Let them eat cake!

going to have to get out my copy of SHREK, as that was the only part of the dialog I could remember! ;\

That’s nothing: Bush accused of TREASON!

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

He (& “Attorney” General Gonzalez claim the right to tap my phone without the permission of a judge.

Amendment 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

But George W. Bush instructed the NSA to tap suspects [b]without[/b] even submitting evidence of suspicion to FISA courts, the [b]only[/b] party in the World legally authorized to permit such wiretaps. There is no way around the fact that all participating parties to these illegal wiretaps are [b]felons[/b].

Worst case

In reply to That’s nothing: Bush accused of TREASON!

Rudy will pardon Bush from all crimes when he gets in office.

Your crying in your milk over nothing, because you KNOW that even if it WERE illegal, nothing will become of it. Look at the actual crimes Clinton did, with selling access to the White House, Campaign finance from foriegn nations (illegal), and selling of nuke secrets. We don’t even need to get into the Monica purgery and obstruction of justice. Or the Obstruction of justice in delaying the release of FBI files that just HAPPENED to be in the White House about WaterGate? Or even the theft of items from the White House as they left?

There has never been a Pres convicted of crimes that they were not pardoned for, and there never will be.

Kind of a professional curtesy.

Carter was the FIRST to break the standing rule of not speaking badly about a standing pres, but Carter always was a disgrace anyways. Notice that even Clinton has remained civil the whole time.

The same can not be said for insane former vice presidents.

OK then.

In reply to Worst case

As long as other presidents have gotten away with it, you don’t care, is that it? If GWB had come first, would you be willing to pardon Clinton?

I do KNOW that wiretapping without a warrant IS illegal. There is nothing hypothetical about that, nothing unclear about FISA and its requirements, and no gray area about the illegality of George Bush’s orders to tap phones in violation of FISA. He is a felon.

i am not a lawyer

In reply to OK then.

and I don’t play one on TV or TR.

I do know there are provisions for “war time” that allow exceptions to the rule. This was the arguement used, and we will just have to wait and see if anything comes of it.

Notice that Dems were not doing anything to STOP the taps, just complain about them and pound their chests a lot for the cameras.

They don’t care about you anymore than the rest of them, nor what you think. They all know the short memory that the mindless masses have.

Oh, one note. You are only a felon if you are CONVICTED of a felony. I am surprised that you didn’t know that. Bush has not been convicted of anything, and so is NOT a felon, no matter how much you whine about it being otherwise.

Not the first time other presidents used this, not the last. The power to do exactly this has been there a long time.

Neither am I.

In reply to i am not a lawyer

And I’ll consider that a de facto concession of my legal rights over YOUR dead body!

Sign seen at a recent anti-Bush rally

In reply to That’s nothing: Bush accused of TREASON!

‘Will someone please give Bush a BJ so we can impeach him.”

Someday, the “conservative” Republicans will get over Bill Clinton, but I’m not holding my breath.

Title reconsidered

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

Okay, my title was originally just a clip from the first sentence, it was a lead in to the article.

I decided, in a wicked moment [i]( I think I even sneered and rubbed my hands together while twiddling my handlebar moustache)[/i], to emphasize the Bush censorship quote in order to raise a little hell, and admittedly draw Max like a fly to….

Then after reading all the posts, I realized that the reason I felt compelled to type all that out was because I felt it was important to discuss it and that I had comlpetely diverted the real issue with my taunting title.

So let’s forget about pointing the finger for a minute and consider how serious fully understanding this issue really is.

The other night, while flicking channels, I stumbled on a nature show that was talking about polar bears and how they hunt seals in the Arctic.

They swim from shore out to floating ice sheets and hunt through the air holes the seals use. They are capable of swimming, get this, up to [b]100 MILES!!![/b][i] (Who’d a thunk it?)[/i]

Then they zoomed a helicopter camera in on a polar bear, swimming and struggling with exhaustion. As it was about to drown, they cut away.
The ice is meting to the point that the bears are slated to be virtually extinct before 2020. There simply isn’t ice floes close enough to shore anynore, bears will need to grow flippers and gills in order to exist. (for Monty Pythons fans, picture a goat with a snorkel and flippers, or a buffalo with an aqualung)

Yes, this is a natural phenomenon, yes it is inevitable. The issue is, there is so much FACT that our emisions are increasing the speed of this natural phenomenon, that we MUST take action to reduce our emissions.

If we end up being wrong? Oh well, we undoubtedly saved thousands of other forms of life from our pullution anyway.

Can we afford to play God and be wrong though? What a stupid chance to take, just out of pure laziness.

Sorry for length, it’s a very personal issue with me.

Two different issues here

In reply to Title reconsidered

one, is removing toxins from the environment.

two, global cooling/warming/shifts.

Because MANY of the people that push option two are quite crazy, they make many rational people discredit the whole idea.

Because these same crazy people are so blinded by what they in their medicated world see as so important, they combine the two in their minds and falsely assume that anyone that does not buy everything that is said about global cooling/warming/shifts, also doesn’t believe in keeping the environment clean for us to live in.

I know people that do not believe in man made cooling/warming/shifts, but they DO believe in keeping our water supply clean, our air clear, and toxins out of the food supply.

It makes sence to have cleaner burning cars, because I know I get a horrible headache when I get stuck in a traffic jam.

It makes sence to keep the water clean. I like to eat food, I like to see hot babes splashing around in the water, and I like to be able to have a splash of water in my scotch.

It makes sence to keep toxins out of the food chain, because we EAT animals from that food chain.

We don’t always believe the same things, but for the most part, we want the same thing. A healthy world to live in.

The problem ARE the crazy econuts. Stop using this, stop doing that. But when you come up with a solution, they find a problem with that too. Nuke plants would make a huge difference, but thanks to the crazies, we are still burning coal, oil and natural gas here. Blame the econut for this. It is completely their fault.

Environmentalists spend all kinds of money on their agenda. Why are THEY not coming up with ANY solutions to finding alternative energy sources? Where is the affordable electric car the econuts came up with? Where is the affordable container to bring groceries home in? If I use paper bags, I am “killing trees”, if I use plastic bags, I am poluting and creating a product that does not break down in the land fills.

Solutions. When will econuts provide a solution other than “stop doing everything”?

It should be personal to everyone. We all live here. (earth)

Not COMPLETELY so

In reply to Two different issues here

While I do agree that econuts CAN BE pretty radical, not all are. I don’t agree that it is econuts who are completely responsible for stopping Nuke plants. They would be built anyway, just as they are pushed aside when someone wants to build a new highway, nobody is going to stop Nuke plant production over some tree hugger protest.

But, lets not forget, just as there are left wing ‘econuts’ that protest life itself, there are right wing nutbags too. The right extreme is no less extreme than the left extreme. While the left says it’s all BS, the right says the sky is falling…..today.

What we need to do, just as in political elections, is filter the passion and the flames to find the reality. We DO have a problem, it IS occuring nobody contests that. We MAY be increasing it’s speed, in fact there is a HEAP of evidence on that, far mroe than again it.

Now what you claim are two different issues is what really annoys me the most.

People want to pretend they accept responsibility but refuse to se that it is imperative. Almost like saying, I’ll be good when it suits me best.

Yes, smog and emission pollutants are one isse and global warming is another BUT….the issue that the smog and emisison pollutants are INCREASING global warming effects is what needs to be adressed.

If one creates the other then they are one and the same in this case.

Our emissions cause street level pollution that is killing us and our natural suroundings, and plant/animal life of course. Our emissions are also shown to be a cause of increased global warming effects.

If one is related to the other, how can anyone say they are not willing to support one but feel responsible enough to support the other?

Just clean up your own emissions, a good start is the One Tonne Challenge. Now if we can keep ourselves and our environment in check, we just need ot get our industry to follow suite and we have made an effort, instead of arguing science. It’s like arguing the existence of God. We won’t know until we are gone.

A person doesn’t have to believe in God

In reply to Not COMPLETELY so

to be a good person.

You don’t have to believe in man induced global cooling/warming/shifts to believe that we should clean up the environment.

THAT was my point.

Even without global cooling/warming/shifts, we have enough reasons to want to clean up emissions.

And after our accident at Long Island, it was kind of the beginning of the end for nuke plants in the US. Too many people were scared of them, so no one would back them. If I am wrong, please inform me of the last nuke plant to be constructed in the US in the last 20 years?

Plants that were in the process of being built were converted over to coal.

So yes, this is the econuts fault. That and a scared, stupid population that was stupid enough to listen to them.

Yes, there are extemists all over the place, but I have never heard anyone saying we should go out and polute.

The relationship does not matter, if you get the same results. If it annoys you the WHY that people would want to clean up the environment, sorry, but I can’t help you there.

I want a clean earth, I do not believe MOST of the hype about global cooling/warming/shifts. I guess I should leave a ____ at the end for the next time they have to modify what is happening to remain “experts”.

Remember, “we need to sprinkle coal ash over the artic because the world is getting colder”? I do.

Nuclear

In reply to A person doesn’t have to believe in God

The nuclear accident was at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania.

I don’t believe any nuclear plants in construction were coverted to coal. I know from experience that you would not be able to use the building for that purpose without prohibitively expensive retrofits (you could reuse the turbines though). I would believe that some sites that may have been slated for a nuclear plant had a coal plant built on them, before the ground had been broken for the nuclear plant.

Canada did finish the plants in construction and completed a whole new complex of reactors (4) after Three Mile Island. AECL sold CANDU reactors to Korea and China. While Westinghouse in the US bids for contracts for reactors, it hasn’t built a reactor since 3 Mile Island. France is the big seller of reactors, though everyone partners these days.

Germany did cave to pressure from the Greens to shutdown its nuclears over time. Britain is not building any more of its existing type and not refurbing its old ones. But it may build next generation reactors.

Ontario committed to shutting down all its coal fired plants by 2007, which was perhaps a rash promise. They will announce shortly if new nuclear plants will be built in Ontario.

Coal kills more people in Canada than nukes – there is no denying that fact.

James

I will have to look it up

In reply to Nuclear

but that is exactly what they did. They retrofitted it to make it coal because it was unpopular to go with nuke. everyone was afraid and they caved in big time.

So again, I do blame the econuts.

You give econuts too much credit

In reply to I will have to look it up

Once again, to think that raving left wingers can convince an entire portion of your population to believe them, when they are completely wrong, is a laugh.

Obviously, they had good reason, some fact also, and the majority of the population felt it was enough to swap their choice.

People only flock like sheep when it’s an election or political support. Unless your state has more lefty loonies than anything else, ‘econuts’ would remain a minority and woul dnot be able to create a mjoity vote simply based on scared and stupid people.

They didn’t ote in favour of YOUR choice, if they did I suppoe they could say “Just because some righty in denial for his own personal gains said it was not an issue, then all the scared and stupid people voted for it.”

I don’t understand how you can see the other side as always wrong, when they simply can’t be wrong about everything, ALL the time, and insisting that your righty views are always right is just as ridiculous.

nuclear

In reply to Nuclear

“I don’t believe any nuclear plants in construction were coverted to coal.”

Zimmer, Southern Ohio, 1987

[added] … and yes, it [b]did[/b] cost a lot to convert it … the utility’s customers are [b]still[/b] paying for it!

ALMOST

In reply to nuclear

It was never a working plant. It was WAY over budget, WAY behind schedule and 97% complete but not operational.

There were problems from the start and finally (due to several factors including public pressure) they decided it would be better to coal fire. The new plant used the cooling tower from the nuke plant and many other aterials, but TECHNICALLY, it was never an operational nuke plant that was converted to a coal plant.

http://www.lynnwasnak.com/ZimmerReincarnation.pdf

That was the point OZ

In reply to nuclear

“plants in construction”.

Plants that were in the process of being built were stopped, retrofitted, and became coal instead.

Unique position

In reply to nuclear

I [b]lived[/b] less than 5 miles from the site. I drove by it every morning on my way to work. I sufferred half-hour trafic jams waiting for the sheriff to clear Rt. 52 of protesters. They scapegoated the contractor so they wouldn’t have to admit that they caved to the protesters. We used to have nearly the lowest electricity rates in the country. Now we’re among the highest. I reckon those protesters have cost me personally over $50,000 in the last 18 or so years. I shoulda floored it when I had the chance. It wouldn’t have hurt the car I had back then 🙂

(afterthought: I wonder how much less CO2 would be in the atmosphere if this plant had opened up as nuclear. 🙂 )

There you go

In reply to nuclear

Just as I see effects of a depleting world, you have seen effects of nuclear vs coal fired.

I am not vouching for or against nuke power here though. It hardly effects me at all, I live in a very energy efficient condo now. My electricity bill is about $17.00 every TWO months. 🙂

sad thing is

In reply to nuclear

as high as it is, it’s cheaper than the alternatives (I had an $1100 gas bill in December. (just bought a fixer-upper… no insulation… leaky windows… seventy year old furnace…)

I’m sorry OZ, but I thought it WAS part of…

In reply to nuclear

I’m sorry OZ, but I thought it WAS part of the conversation of conserving energy, finding alternatives to emitting the discharge from cars and energy plants as well as factories. Doesn’t it all add up?

Cleaner energy = less polution.

As you have often stated, your area provides much energy to CA. Obviously they don’t have the same $17 every two months bill that you do.

More efficient devices to run that run on the electricity is part of the problem as well, because that determines how much energy has to be “created” and sent down the line.

Of don’t you see burning coal as part of the problem of cleaning up the environment and helping slow down the man induced portions of GW?

I don’t get it

In reply to nuclear

I agree with you and you reply as if I hand’t. I agree with you again and you imply that I haven’t.

I AGREE.

As for coal, yes we need to reduce our hydrocarbon and CO and NOx emissions.

At my house we are allowed to burn two lumps at Christmas time.

Your starting to contradict yourself

In reply to A person doesn’t have to believe in God

I don’t know how many times I have explained it so simply. Whether or not GW is a real issue that we can influence either way, those same pollutants kill us, and our environment withotu question. Therefore is we do it for teh goo dof OURSELVES then we may find that over time the speed of global warming is reduced.

That’s why I can’t understad why people won’t suport clean emissions merely due to the questions of GW validity. We shoul dcleasn up for our own benefit if yo don’t buy into global warming, we have PROOF that it kills us as people are declared dead every year due to Carbon MONoxide emissions (carboxyhemoglobin sp?).

Now for your contradiction.

Firstly, I didn’t say nuke plants HAD been built at all. I just said that econuts are not the cause for their demise, econuts just don’t have that kind of power. They get unchained from tress and arrested when they hinder progress, a nuclear plant won’t shut down due to lefty protests.

So yes, this is the econuts fault. That and a scared, stupid population that was stupid enough to listen to them.

It’s the “scared and stupdpopulation” that supported it, without your scared and stupid population, the econuts would have failed, so it’s not THEIR fault, it’s those that believe them. And just because a great portion of you rpopulation supports their motives, it doesn’t make them wrong and you right anyway. In fact it seems your mindset woul dhave been the minority, otherwise the scared and stupid people would not have succeeded. Remember the democracy part, you may not like who’s elected or what democratic choices are made, but you cannot call them unfair or stupid, the majority wins…FAIRLY.

In closing you don’t believe in GW, you don’t really buy that our oceans are getting warmer (uh okay) you don’t believe that much needed ice floes are melting into nonexistence, you don’t believe that our rivers and streams are to warm now to sustain the same life they once did.

You don’t believe in the natural phenomenon that the Earh has ben constantly warming and cooling since the dawn of time. Furtherore you dont believe that the gases, (we are VERY familiar with and completely understand their properties) we emit are increasing the depletion of our atmosphere and therefore speeding up the natural effects of global warming.

How can someone possibly deny such undeniable fact? You either have not been exposed to thereality, beyond the lefty ranting on the TV, or you simply have your head in the sand.

Don’t look to radicals, don’t look to extremists (from the left OR the right) look at FACTS instead. They exist, you just have to accept and listen to them.

Did I stutter or something?

In reply to Your starting to contradict yourself

I clearly pointed out [i]”You don’t have to believe in [b]man induced[/b] global cooling/warming/shifts to believe that we should clean up the environment.”[/i]

GW does not have to be a part of the discussion to validate cleaner emissions, cleaner water, cleaner world. I have CLEARLY stated this.

Yes, it is a FACT that the world NATURALLY warms and cools. That FACT that it was all frozen show one big warming trend that can’t be denied.

How much of this is cause by MAN is very questionable, because there is lots of credible information out there saying that the evolving global theorys are BS. YOU can choose to believe or discount what you see fit.

Regardless, I have stated in EVERY post in this thread that I am for lower emissions and a cleaner world. May not give you the satisfaction of having it be for the reason you WANT, but you will get the same results.

No contradiction there.

Plenty of reports recently of the WORLD having COOLED over the last 8 years. Did Man cause that drop too?

Plenty of facts, but it seems that yours are just as prejudged as mine as you never question the ever changing theories that have been handed us over the last few decades by people that have a lot to gain by either getting huge grants to study this problem that THEY say exists, or politicians that will say X person is trying to intentionally destroy the world. blah blah blah.

You have repeatedly gone off on this censorship kick. We know no other country in the world would EVER try to control the press to make themselves look good. Very “Disingenuous” 😀 of you.

If the scientests don’t like the rules and regulations where they are working, they are free (like the rest of us) to seek employement somewhere else where they can express themselves as they feel they should be able to. Or don’t you believe that the same policies that a company uses would be the same in a government? Of course you don’t.

I am off to listen to my own facts. Have a nice night.

You must have blinked though

In reply to Did I stutter or something?

Or dozed off. I KNOW you are for personal responsibility and clean ir. I agree that people should accept that and forget about GW as a reason to be more responsible. I agreed with you and said I don’t understand how SOME PEOPLE…

But you still contradicted yourself, which was the topic of the post to begin with.

You blame the econuts for getting masses to follow them. Wouldn’t the problem be the masses that followed them and not the econuts?

I blame Bush for his deceptive practices, but that didnt get him elected, it was the masses that believed him that elected him.

It was the democratic system you have defended as a nation that caused the change here, not a couple of radical left wingers.

Now, listen VERY VERY CAREFULLY, as this is where you are completely off track.

You say you don’t know whether to believe that we are the cause for global warming and cooling. Wel the answer is NO, WE ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING A ‘NATURAL PHENOMENON, AND NOBODY IS CLAIMING WE ARE.

The issue is, we emit gases into teh atmoshpere. Most gases we emit are pretty much broken down into very harmless gases at high altitude, they break down and they become relatively harmless, this we KNOW.

SOME gases do not break down and in fact some can reach incredible altitude before they begin to do so, this we KNOW.

Science, scientists, people wih an interest, complete fools with an agenda (politicians) and many other people have taken time to study and show their findings. Some are incredible but many are credible and based on fact.

WHat FACTS do we absolutely know?
Some of the gases that enter the atmosphere create other harmful gases when they are mixed. Soem create unnatural patterns in weather and break down the gases we NEED in our atmosphere to protect us from the elements.

So…WE create gases that DO affect our atmosphere, not a guess, not just what I choose to believe but absolute 100% bonefide FACT. this isnt religion, we have the science to prove it. Just as we know the Earth is not flat, we know our emissions are breaking down our atmosphere’s natural makeup.

So stop going on about whether or not global warming and cooling is occuring, it IS and weKNOW it is. The issue is that some people can’t differentiate between THAT and the fact that ORU harmful emissions are expediating the process.

Simple, fact, not fiction, not belief, just fact.

My Reply

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

I never said that you, personally, have claimed that man-caused global warming is a proven fact; and actually, at this point in time, I’ll freely concede that you haven’t. But there are SO MANY people who DO make that assertion (I don’t really need to prove that, do I?), and I’m sure you might even make that concession in return.

I’m not opposed to cleaning up the environment, either. In fact, I’m all for it. But I’m pretty sure you’re not surprised to hear me say that. So why am I so opposed to the “solutions” proposed by the global-warming faithful, even though those solutions would benefit the off-shoot desire to clean-up the environment? Even if there are side-benefits, we shouldn’t capitulate to them.

If we make any concessions to these nut-jobs, it will only serve to legitimize their claim and lend credibility to both their argument and themselves. A false or unproven claim should never be legitimized, and extremist loony tunes should never be seen as credible. Not only would it be the wrong thing to do, but there’s always the “what next” question to consider. These people aren’t beating their drums to address “global warming”, per se, but to further advance some notion of a more collectivist society. If they’re running on a false platform, then their motives become automatically suspect — and they should be dismissed.

No. Never. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER should they be allowed to become even close to legitimate. They should be called-out and discredited for the fear-mongering demagogues that they are ….. and then we can move on. Show me a problem; accurately identify the problem; and I’ll work with anybody to solve that problem. But don’t do it by trying to pull the wool over my eyes.

As somewhat of an analogy, quite a few people think that the war in Iraq was started on a “lie” or “misleading evidence”, or whatever, even though the end-result benefits might have had some merit. In fact (although I don’t claim to speak for you), I think you may fall into that category somehow and/or someplace. So if you consider that kind of mind-set, it might be easier for you to see why I refuse to be led down ANY path when the reason is based on a lie. I don’t think the Iraq reasons were based on lies, and you’re certainly free to disagree. But it appears as though we are in agreement that the man-caused global warming claims are, in the very least, not based on conclusive truths. Speaking for myself, I’ll go a step further, and make the charge that those claims are even suspected of being down-right lies and intentional deceptions. I won’t be led down the man-caused global warming path for reasons that are based on inconclusive evidence at best, or lies and deceptions at worst.

As far as you pollution-caused deaths comments, for argument’s sake (or for the sake of avoiding one), okay, you might be right; in fact, I’ll concede that point as well. However, that must be kept in perspective by ALSO offering statistics on how many lives are SAVED by means of “pollution generating” technologies. As a small example, sure, that gas-burning, gas-hog of an Ambulance might be spewing lung-choking pollutants into the air, thereby contributing to one death over the life of that vehicle (or a fleet of those vehicles); but how many lives does it save as a result? How many hospitals are kept up and running, saving thousands and millions of lives every year, because of that coal-burning power plant? Look at it on balance, or don’t look at it at all.

In conclusion, If you find an organization that’s dedicated to cleaning up the environment WITHOUT advancing the silly notion of man-caused global warming, and WITHOUT being in the primary business of advancing any kind of political agenda, then I’ll be the first in line to support them. In fact, under the right circumstances, I’d even agree to START such an organization, even with YOU as a partner. But I won’t base it on lies, deceptions, and manipulation. If you find an organization that’s dedicated to becoming less dependent on foreign oil exports (or better yet, totally independent from them), again, WITHOUT advancing the silly notion of man-caused global warming, and WITHOUT being in the primary business of advancing any kind of political agenda, then I’ll be the first in line to support them as well. I’ll support efforts to develop energy sources that get us away from burning oil and coal for anything and everything, but NOT when those causes are really political agendas in disguise.

That should be a pretty clear and easy to understand position. If not, ask for clarification, and I’ll be glad to indulge you.

Fair points

In reply to My Reply

That’s fair but i see some radical exaggerations in your own reply too.

Nobody is sayng that we don’t NEED vehicles on teh road. CLEANER vehicles, such as those found in California, Canada, Germany, Hungary, England etc. are preferred. Now that’s one of those SMALL sacrifices I was referring to before.
Ambulance, yes it is needed, as are police cars, firetrucks etc.

Driving your $80K gas pig SUV to the corner store is NOT needed, it’s the difference between use for need and simple excess that is the problem.

Radicals are on both sides of teh fence. Just as we cannot cater to the radicals and legitimize their claims, we can still cater to the logical and justify their want to reduce personal emissions and clean up wasyeful factory emissions.

Before the war in Iraq, there were reknecks galore running around saying KILL ALL THE MUSLIMS!! Well you and I knew that wasn’t the issue. So by going to war, are you now legitimizing THEIR claims or are we to realize that there are OTHER reasons that the war began?

You seem to see everything that’s wrong with the farthest left but not that the exact same happens on the farthest right. As always, due to some extremists nothing is believed at all. It is OUR job as somewhat intelligent people, to pick the pieces out that are valid and ignore the rest, just not all of it because it is related to the rest.

Bush is too busy these days

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

With the war in Iraq, high oil and gas prices, Iran, illegal immigration and border control, port control, scandals; how much do you think he wants to address something that isn’t going to happen on his watch? Whatever happened to . . .

The Bush Administration’s treatment of Dr. Hansen is just more of the same – secrets and lies. Shut-ups. Subversive tactics. Misinformation and deceit. What I resent most is that we aren’t being told how serious the situation is NOW by the Bush Administration. Why not?

I saw the effects of global warming on 60 Minutes that showed the melting glaciers. This story was compelling for me http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minutes/main1323169.shtml.

I don’t believe anything I read or see until I’ve heard it from several sources. Cable and Internet news are the greatest. Even mainstream TV – CBS, ABC and NBC in the US report on some real controversial subjects. There is no love lost between the media and our government lately.

In the end, all I have to do is look outside. Look at the weather all over the world. The tsunami. Hurricane Katrina. I could go on.

Mainstream, I don’t think the real horror of the war in Iraq is shown. Its available though for those that want to know.

Please tell me

In reply to Bush is too busy these days

that you don’t think the environment had ANYTHING to do with the tsunami.

Shifting earth plates (which is going on all the time) are not affected by ANYTHING that is being talked about for the global cooling/warming/shifts, and there isn’t anything that can be done to stop them.

As for media, I personally try to listen to a range of media. I start with “mainstream” and then when I hear about something I check at both ends of the spectrum to see what each “side” has to say about it.

I usually get more to discredit a story by listening to one side or the other based on how the support the story, more than I am convinced by a convincing story. It is easier to spot the lies and go with what is left rather than try to spot the truth and decide.

But that is just me. I get silly that way. 😀

Bad choice of disaster

In reply to Please tell me

No JD, I don’t believe, at this time at least, that the tsunami was caused by global warming. I’m not totally ruling it out though, because facts can change as more becomes known about the effects of global warming.

I just saw this article on Yahoo http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_sc/warming_temperatures

I’m no scientist, but if the temperatures on the surface of the Earth are higher than in the air, the temperature within the Earth could be higher too causing physical changes within the Earth; maybe affecting plate movement. Just a thought.

I think that there’s alot of news to read from different sources and I read all of them, but I have to go with my gut feeling in the end.

YOU’RE NOT RULING IT OUT???????

In reply to Bad choice of disaster

IT WAS AN EARTHQUAKE, YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!

AN EARTHQUAKE!

I’m amazed

In reply to Bad choice of disaster

I never thought I’d be exposed to such ignorance and stupidity.

Well, although on the other side of the divide from Maxwell

In reply to Bad choice of disaster

I really do have problems with idea that we can affect plate tectonics by our actions. Bits of Wales and the North East of England occasionally collapse into old coal workings but for someone – anyone – to state that we can do anything to shift seven hundred miles of faultline a distance of fifteen feet rather gives the lie to the idea that we have science on “our” side.

This is the sort of frantic disaster-mongering that gives Maxwell and other sceptics such easy ammunition.

Neil

Don’t you hate it, Neil……

In reply to Well, although on the other side of the divide from Maxwell

…when we agree?

I think that AmericanVoter should simply say, [i]”Okay, just like the Earth’s tectonic plates, I slipped a little bit, and it caused a tsunami of criticism that flooded me with embarrassment, and I stand corrected ….. I mean, I float corrected since I’m drowning, here.”[/i]

Nothing like a little mea culpa to fend off further criticism.

And take a cue from Neil, AmericanVoter. He’s absolutely right. Whether the issue is global warming or anything else, using such silly arguments only serve to discredit your position and strengthen mine. That’s why it’s so easy to defeat you in a debate, while Neil presents more of a challenge.

Come on, AmericanVoter, redeem yourself, here. (If you don’t, you’ll never live it down, you know.)

frantic disaster-mongering

In reply to Well, although on the other side of the divide from Maxwell

Is a very good description of MUCH of the hype surrounding Global cooling/warming/shifts.

But because there are people live American Voter that DO BELIEVE this, this “junk science” will continue to be at the front of the econut assult. The discredit themselves as soon as they leave their own little circles.

NOTE: Everyone, conserve, recycle, and “give a hoot, don’t polute”! 😀

Thinking outside of the box

In reply to Bad choice of disaster

I think you all are entitled to your view of global warming, but so am I. I don’t think we know everything about global warming yet, so all bets are on the table. I don’t care how many critics there are to the theories. We don’t have all the information yet.

The article I posted, said in part that:

? Since the 1950s all data show the Earth’s surface and the low and middle atmosphere have warmed, while the upper stratosphere has cooled. Those changes were expected from computer models of the effects of greenhouse warming.

? Radiosonde readings for the midtroposphere ? the nearest portion of the atmosphere ? show it warming slightly faster than the surface, also an expected finding.

? The most recent satellite data also show tropospheric warming, though there is some disagreement among data sets. This may be caused by uncertainties in the observations, flaws in climate models or a combination. The researchers think it is a problem with the data collection.

? The observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone.

Isn’t it possible that everything we know today might not show the real picture? A data collection problem? Look at our weather and at the Earth. The unbelievable storms, the earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. We’ve always had them, but they are significantly more intense and destructive.

Thats why I’m not ruling anything out. I’m skeptical, but I’m not close-minded about the issue. I don’t think we have all the information yet.

You can dis me if you like, but I’m not going there. I thought this was a discussion group, not a lynching.

Heres an article from India for what its worth. http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/01-04g-05.asp

lynching?

In reply to Thinking outside of the box

there is a difference between an insane person and an insane idea.

The jury is still out on you personally, but that idea is ready for a padded room! :^0

Theory

In reply to lynching?

There’s a pattern beginning to emerge.

A certain group boo-hoos about global warming, but want “someone else” to shoulder the burden of fixing it.

A certain group complains that we aren’t doing enough to help the starving children, but want “someone else” to shoulder the burden of fixing it.

There are other examples, Oil, immigration, natural disasters, but there seems to be a common theme.

I wonder if someone will create a computer model to test some predictions 🙂

You’re right

In reply to Theory

We want the US to do something about it.

Who’s the jury?

In reply to lynching?

You know JD, I think its ok to disagree with me, but I’d like for you to explain why you think its an insane idea and what you’re basing it on.

Are you suggesting you think I’m insane for even considering it? Why? Don’t you ever question what we are being told as fact?

Thank you for your support

In reply to Thinking outside of the box

We need to expose more people like you to finally put to rest the silly global warming myth.

?It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.?
– Mark Twain

AmericanVoter, you’ve removed all doubt.

Thank you for caring, man

In reply to Thank you for your support

I think I understand now what you think of global warming. Its just “silly.”

Maybe you should take Mark Twain’s advice.

Yes – The concept of. . . . .

In reply to Thank you for caring, man

…man-made global warming is silly. Not only is it silly, but you people have been duped. It’s a myth. It’s the biggest lie ever perpetrated on mankind. It’s right up there with the flat-earth.

I think man-caused global warming is a myth.

You think man-caused global warming is not only a reality, but it causes earthquakes.

Who’s the fool?

I rest my case.

Why is global warming a myth to you?

In reply to Thank you for caring, man

I’m very afraid that man got it wrong, but you seem to be confident that its a bunch of baloney. I just don’t trust anything that much. Why do you?

A reasonable person …

In reply to Thinking outside of the box

.. takes precautions; a fool does not. Thanks for having the courage to speak out in the face of so much close-minded, ‘let’s keep our heads in the sand’ drum beating. The facts are clear: our climate is changing and disastrous effects on our ability to survive are clearly a possibility. Those with ties to big oil and coal will always argue for the status quo, adorned with lip service to developing alternatives. Have you seen the NOVA special on Global Dimming and its relationship to global warming? If not, try to get it.

The tsunami???????????????

In reply to Bush is too busy these days

Global warming is now causing earthquakes? (under-water earthquakes cause tsunamis.)

And you wonder why people of your ilk either aren’t taken seriously and/or are considered extremely ill-informed? You may “claim” to get your “news” from several sources, but you are NOT an informed person. You’ve proven that time and again.

Blame Bush for high oil prices???????

In reply to Bush is too busy these days

.
http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/yourlife/2973

Sorry, you are so wrong. I’m simply amazed at the total ignorance some people display.

Where’s the blame

In reply to Blame Bush for high oil prices???????

I don’t see where American Voter was blaming Bushie for high oil prices, it looks to me that he was just mentioning current problems his administration is facing.

I think it’s funny how the Bush apologists have gotten to the point where they get defensive at the mere mention of his name.

P.S. Anyone got any bets on how long it will take before Max starts insulting me?

link

In reply to Bush is too busy these days

http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=193451&messageID=2003847

Global Dimming

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

Are you familiar with the process of Global Dimming and it’s relationship to global warming?

See Effects of Volcanos

In reply to Global Dimming

The thin layer of high level sulfuric dioxide in many ways mimics Solar Dimming. By reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation (we are talking very small percentage)volcanic dust acts a natural sun block. The last time this happened was 1991 Mt Pinutumbo. The following year in North America saw below average temps, above average precip. The most remembered episode was the 1815 explosion of Mt Timbora.

If the Sun dimmed all bets are off. Most scientists beleive that the Little Ice Age (LIA) occured during a period of solar dimming, and the Medevil Warm Period (MWP) occured during a solar maximum. If another LIA occurs life could get very unpleasant ery quickly.

Human contribution to dimming

In reply to See Effects of Volcanos

In the same way that volcanic emissions reduce the amount of incoming solar radiation, particle emissions resulting from human activity have also caused dimming and served to impede the global warming process. As we clean up particle emissions for health reasons, we are also beginning to feel the fuller effects of rapid warming. So, the urgency of reducing our contributions to global warming is greater than many of us suspected. Many scientists, including Hansen, believe the window of opportunity lies within the next 10 to 20 years.

Have I told you lately. . . . .

In reply to Human contribution to dimming

…that you’re an idiot?

I really can’t believe you people. To think that people exist that are as stupid as you is very discouraging. God, you’re an idiot. You were obviously dropped on your head as a child. Do you really believe the crap you spew? It’s absolutely incredible that idiots as severe as you actually exist.

No, but I was expecting it

In reply to Have I told you lately. . . . .

When disaster waves, I try not to wave back.
Mason Cooley

Only a fool pretends danger does not exist where it so obviously does. A reasonable person takes precautions, a fool does not.

Hansan’s Been Shouting For Decades

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

Censorship?You can’t get the guy to keep quiet and do, you know his job. Every few years the guy goes before cameras and complains about censorship.Does the guy have a sense of the ridiculous.

Speaking of ridiculous. When will people stop using ancedotal stories have proof of GW. Also, just last year, anthropologists were able to uncover an old Norse Church in Greenland. For the last 400 years it was covered under ice. The Church as about 3 miles inland and was built around 1200AD. It seems it was much warmer back then. Most of the melting glaciers today have only been around since 1500.

This years Alaska Iditorad was the coldest ever,and the Sahara had a crippling blizzard in March

Yet we still won’t listen

In reply to Hansan’s Been Shouting For Decades

And when will people stop using anecdotal stories to prove GW isn?t happening? The real irony is that even though Hansen has been shouting for years, the American power structure, with its crippling ties to the oil industry, has kept its collective head buried securely in the sand.

?Whenever our neighbour?s house is on fire, it cannot be amiss for the engines to play a little on our own.?
Edmund Burke

It is stupidity rather than courage to refuse to recognize danger when it is close upon you.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Oceans Rising?

In reply to Bush accused of censorship.

I had a friend that was in Australia/New Zealand last year, wnet on a tour wher they showed him a place where there was dead coral sticking out of the ocean. That would suggest the Seal level was dropping, rather than rising, wouldn’t it?

Can’t base it on that

In reply to Oceans Rising?

because with the shifting plates, all of the continents are rising and lowering all the time.

Aliens put it there! ;\

[Author]

Replies