| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
We actually need to release MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. Didja see
this, 2pid? The Chinese are doing us a FAVOR! Please, everybody, for the sake of our children, burn as much as possible, as soon as possible. Coal, trees, oil, it doesn't matter. It all helps our planet! ************************************************** ****************** (i.e. The conclusion of the 2007 paper on GW by Robinson, Robinson and Soon): There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf ************************************************** ******************* nob would find no conflict that Soon is funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Money, to nob, is money, no matter where it comes from or what the agenda might be. Money is pure. Here, as we see, burning hydrocarbons is a *good* thing. The more we burn, the better life becomes! Soon also publishes with Sallie Baliunas, another whose work is funded by the American Petroleum Institute. How has that gone? ************************************************** ******** Baliunas is a strong disbeliever in a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon: "But is it possible that the particular temperature increase observed in the last 100 years is the result of carbon dioxide produced by human activities? The scientific evidence clearly indicates that this is not the case... measurements of atmospheric temperatures made by instruments lofted in satellites and balloons show that no warming has occurred in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. This is just the period in which humanmade carbon dioxide has been pouring into the atmosphere and according to the climate studies, the resultant atmospheric warming should be clearly evident.[7]" The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.[8] (i.e. "There isn't any warming going on. Period. Well, yes there is, but it has nothing to do with man's influence.") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas ************************************************** ************* But wait! It gets better! ************************************************** ************* In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[11] Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13] Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[16] (i.e.-and-) Baliunas earlier adopted a skeptical position regarding the hypothesis that CFCs were damaging to the ozone layer. The originators of the hypothesis, Paul Crutzen, Mario Molina and Frank Sherwood Rowland, were awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995. Her arguments on this issue were presented at Congressional hearings held in 1995 (but before the Nobel prize announcement). Although Baliunas never publicly retracted her criticism of the ozone depletion hypothesis, an article by Baliunas and Soon written for the Heartland Institute in 2000 promoted the idea that ozone depletion rather than CO2 emissions could explain atmospheric warming.[17] (i.e. in her defense) Other accomplishments Baliunas was technical consultant for the science fiction television series, Gene Roddenberry's Earth: Final Conflict which aired from 1997 to 2002. [18] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas ************************************************** ************************** And on to the other authors of this paper. Arthur B. Robinson? He's all over peptides: ************************************************** ************************** "Arthur B. Robinson is founder, president and professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, where he conducts research on protein chemistry and on nutrition and predictive and preventive medicine. He also sells the Robinson Curriculum, which is a self-taught home school curriculum for grammar school children through high school.[1][2] "Teach your children...to acquire superior knowledge as did many...in the days before socialism in education." He is an avowed Christian. "Robinson is also the senior author of the Oregon Petition, a petition of over 17,800 self-described scientists, intended to show that a "scientific consensus" does not exist on the subject of global warming. [8] Robinson is also a signatory to A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism, a petition produced by the Discovery Institute that expresses skepticism about the ability of natural selection to account for the complexity of life, and encouraging careful examination of the evidence for "Darwinian theory"." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_B._Robinson ************************************************** *********************** Um, OK, I do not see much that shows any expertise in climatology. I may have missed it, though. But his skepticism of Darwin has me wavering. As it turns out, GW *and* natural selection are suspect! And as for son Noah? Why, he's all over peptides, too. Just like dear old daddums! ************************************************** **** "Professor Noah Robinson carries out laboratory research on the deamidation of peptides and proteins and on the development of new analytical methods for the clinical laboratory. He also works on the development of Robinson home schooling techniques, which are used by more than 60,000 American students, and on the public dissemination of information on civil defense. Educated at Southern Oregon University and the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Noah Robinson is principle author of numerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and proteins, including four published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA and the book, Molecular Clocks - Deamidation of Asparaginyl and Glutaminyl Residues in Peptides and Proteins, by N. E. Robinson and A. B. Robinson, Althouse Press, 2004, which is the primary research reference in this subject. Between 1998 and 2005, Noah Robinson also carried out research at Rockefeller University with R. Bruce Merrifield during which approximately 900 peptides of various structures were synthesized for use in studies of deamidation. Dr. Robinson also works on the Petition project opposed to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming." In this effort he has published in the Wall Street Journal and is coauthor of Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide by A. B. Robinson, N. E. Robinson, and W. Soon, (2007) J. Am. Phys. Sur. 12, 79-90, which is currently the most widely read review article on this subject. http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p1846.htm ************************************************** ********** So we have a history of very shoddy and dishonest 'research', bad conclusions and distortion of fact, not by GW scientists, but by the skeptics. Well, what do you know about that! Poor nob! In his addled state he can't tell the difference between a peptide and a pep-fest. nob, are these the people that you're basing your bull**** on? Research indeed. Even retarded crackheads can do better than this. Why can't you? LOL! LMFAO! And here's something for those whose brains aren't drug-riddled, like nob's is: "Call it a case of libertarian looneyism." http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2006/05...GlobalWarming/ nob, you're a moron. But thanks for your service. And please, seek help for your drug problem. It's obviously affecting your 'thought' processes. Maybe the VA can help. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 16, 3:13 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Nov 16, 5:10 am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: We actually need to release MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. Didja see this, 2pid? The Chinese are doing us a FAVOR! Lucky you. Nothing you're wiling to do about it. Where did I say that? Your 'mind' is making things up...again. You don't want to restrict trade which drives the growth of the most polluting economy on the planet. They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth. I never said that, either, 2pid. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? LOL! What do you want to do? Kyoto is not designed as a "be all, end all" solution. It's designed as a start. Recognizing that developing countries would have more strain by limiting emissions, Kyoto built in some considerations. I think Kyoto should be adopted by the US. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier. You can't turn it on a dime. You have to start somewhere. |
|
#3
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. As we impose restrictions domestically without trade restrictions then manufacturing just moves to contract manufacturers in China who are supplied with energy from coal fired plants with no restrictions nor concerns. You of course get cheap goods. Which gets back to outsourcing and trade agreements. And it proves my point perfectly: business does only that which is good for business. Voluntary measures will not work. You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth. I never said that, either, 2pid. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? LOL! I've been arguing that point and all you have for it is ridicule. I stated my position in another post. You are against ALL immigration. I am not. You have no clearly stated positions beyond childish ridicule of others who do. I have positions. You've never asked for them before. I ahev asked for yours. You tend to bail when that happens. What do you want to do? Kyoto is not designed as a "be all, end all" solution. It's designed as a start. Recognizing that developing countries would have more strain by limiting emissions, Kyoto built in some considerations. I think Kyoto should be adopted by the US. I think in such a dire situation the idea that we can afford Kyoto exempt zones in a global economy will just accelerate the destruction of forests and habitat left which happen to reside in 3rd world (Kyoto exempt) territories. Rainforests have been getting destroyed for several decades. Kyoto may or may not change that. CITES tries to help halt that. While CITES is a step i the right direction, it is not a "be all, end all" either. For example, some tonewoods are on that list. Try to find guitars, for example, that are currently produced with Brazilian Rosewood. I believe that if we are to be taken seriously, we need to have *our* house in order before we start worrying about what others are doing. We do not. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier. You can't turn it on a dime. You have to start somewhere. A good start is by not destroying what little natural C02 sinks (rain forests, peat fields etc) that are left. Kyoto accelerates that. Proof? Is the Chinese pollution problem and the resultant damage to the environment simply a result of Kyoto? Is Brazilian rainforest deforestation? I don't think so: http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm BTW, I have not checked this site for *their* motivation, but business certainly looks like a potential culprit... |
|
#4
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese people to accept hardship over CO2? 2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really. I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great Communicator". What a joke. Indeed. As we impose restrictions domestically without trade restrictions then manufacturing just moves to contract manufacturers in China who are supplied with energy from coal fired plants with no restrictions nor concerns. You of course get cheap goods. Which gets back to outsourcing and trade agreements. And it proves my point perfectly: business does only that which is good for business. Voluntary measures will not work. and partial implementations with Kyoto free zones become voluntary. Business will relocate and kyoto increases the economic incentive to do so. Trade restrictions must be a part or we will simply be cutting our own throats to no avail. I agree. Trade restrictions are, for the time being, on a national level. We do not, apparently enforce. But we encourage outsourcing. We need the slave class. Your party is all about business. They will do nothing. Actually, I think even going completely green and completely disengaging from the world economy will still be to no avail. Then we're ****ed. I'm going outside to burn some forest right now. You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth. I never said that, either, 2pid. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? LOL! I've been arguing that point and all you have for it is ridicule. I stated my position in another post. You are against ALL immigration. I never said that, either, moron. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? "You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth." LOL! Indeed. (I'd post the message ID, except that statement of yours is IN THIS POST, up about two sentences.) LOL! I am not. You have no clearly stated positions beyond childish ridicule of others who do. I have positions. You've never asked for them before. Thanks for admitting you're all about ridiculing others while keeping quiet on your own views. Thanks for admitting that you've blustered like a drunken politician while never asking for someone's views. Same thing on audio, Mr. Shhhieee Paranoid won't even discuss his own system for fear someone might ridicule him. Irrelevant. But just for you: I have a 500 wpc amp, a CD player, two main speakers, a subwoofer, two turntables, some wires and cables, a tuner, and several tape machines, not all of which are in use. I ahev asked for yours. You tend to bail when that happens. I don't need your requests. I bail on your BS questions with bogus inuendos. Uh-huh. Two "Ns", 2pid. BTW, I recommend "Lions for Lambs". It's an excellent movie. I saw it last night. Have you seen this "trainwreck of a movie" yet? LOL! Yeah, lots of 'inuendo'. What do you want to do? Kyoto is not designed as a "be all, end all" solution. It's designed as a start. Recognizing that developing countries would have more strain by limiting emissions, Kyoto built in some considerations. I think Kyoto should be adopted by the US. I think in such a dire situation the idea that we can afford Kyoto exempt zones in a global economy will just accelerate the destruction of forests and habitat left which happen to reside in 3rd world (Kyoto exempt) territories. Rainforests have been getting destroyed for several decades. Kyoto may or may not change that. CITES tries to help halt that. CITES was drafted in the 60's you buffoon. I'm aware of that, you buffoon. How does that counter the point that rainforests have been getting destroyed, as I said, waaaaaaaaaaaaay up there one sentence ago,"for several decades"? Hint: it doesn't. It obviously has not worked. Then we should remove it and trust that people and business will do the right thing. While CITES is a step i the right direction, it is not a "be all, end all" either. For example, some tonewoods are on that list. Try to find guitars, for example, that are currently produced with Brazilian Rosewood. CITES actually backfired by restricting and eliminating forest management. So, in your estimation, MORE Brazilian rosewood has been harvested as a result of CITES? LOL! Banning some species trade makes the value of the land they occupy worthless and in some cases...contributes to clear cutting the land for other less lucrative activities. The clear-cutting was going on anyways, 2pid. CITES removed markets for certain endangered species, as it was designed to do. If there's an issue, it's in enforcement. As I said, it's not a "be all, end all" but a step in the right direction. Here is your 'argument': Some species covered by CITES had market value, so they were very carefully and responsibly harvested in the rainforests to take advantage of the market price. But CITES removed the market value of those species, so areas that contained these CITES- restricted species were less valuable. Therefore, they were clear-cut because the land was now worthless. Anything else? (See below for the real reasons, cheerfully provided by you.) LOL! Stupid ecologists are idiots when it comes to actually understanding the consequences of their actions. Not everybody is as bright as you are. Most aren't even close. Many of those that are close have been institutionalized for their own safety. You want rain forests to be maintained, you can't completely eliminate their market value. LOL! CITES did all that? Or was it Kyoto? I believe that if we are to be taken seriously, we need to have *our* house in order before we start worrying about what others are doing. We do not. Fine. How about starting with a zero population growth policy? Another piece of evidence concerning your immigration views, as if we needed one. I suggest you move to the Czech Republic. At least that way we won't have the conflicts of 30% increase in population with 30% reduction in emissions which actually tallies to an unattainable 53% per capita reduction. Good news for you, 2pid: our HIV rate of .6% mirrors our natural growth rate. If your numbers are correct, then tell me how cheney's energy policy, and bushie's inaction, have gotten us any closer. Even one percent closer. It's like trying to turn an aircraft carrier. You can't turn it on a dime. You have to start somewhere. A good start is by not destroying what little natural C02 sinks (rain forests, peat fields etc) that are left. Kyoto accelerates that. BTW, you forgot the oceans, but they're in trouble, too. Once again, this has nothing to do with Kyoto. Proof? http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0611-indonesia.html "Further pressure comes from expanding oil palm plantations used to produce biodiesel. Surging international demand has lead to an explosion of land-clearing for plantations, which by early 2007 covered more than 6 million hectares in Indonesia and 4 million in Malaysia. Associated land-clearing using fires releases so much carbon dioxide that Indonesia now ranks as the world's third largest emitter of greenhouse gases despite having only the 22nd largest economy. " You're making several assumptions here. The first is that "surging international demand" for biodiesel is a direct result of Kyoto. Around here, people buy E85 and biodiesel as a result of them often being cheaper than oil-based fuel and diesel, not as some way to reduce emissions. Second, the page you cite lists demand for palm oil as a *secondary* factor, not the *primary* one. In fact, it's not even close to the primary reason. (In your own quote note the word "further".) "Indonesia is losing more than 2.1 million hectares (5.2 million acres) of forest a year to illegal loggers, states a new report from the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP). The report, which estimates the value of illicit timbering at $4 billion annually, warns that 98 percent of Indonesia's lowland forests will be gone by 2022, putting species like the orangutan at risk of extinction in the wild." "The report blamed governments for failing to crack down on illegal logging, noting that timber importing countries like the United States, China, Malaysia, and members of the EU are as much at fault as Indonesia." " "The rate of decline of the forests is the most alarming we have seen yet anywhere in the World," added Christian Nellemann, a lead author on the Rapid Response report. "The real blame lies on the countries buying the timber and wood products from illegal sources. The stepping up of law enforcement in Indonesia is a very encouraging step indeed, but governments in importing countries bear a direct responsibility for the crisis". " Illegal timber harvesting is the prime culprit. Kyoto has no impact on illegal logging harvesting. So how do you feel about raising duties on non-compliant nations? Or sanctions? Is the Chinese pollution problem and the resultant damage to the environment simply a result of Kyoto? Is Brazilian rainforest deforestation? I don't think so: WTF...Is Brazilian rainforest deforestation? Are you retarded? In asking whether the Amazon rainforests are being deforested as a result of Kyoto? LOL! Duh. Allow me to refresh your memory on your claim: "A good start is by not destroying what little natural C02 sinks (rain forests, peat fields etc) that are left. Kyoto accelerates that." That was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there, like almost a whole paragraph. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm BS...see above on Indonesia. I did. I strongly disagree with illegal logging, yet I wonder how Kyoto influences it one way or the other. See this http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amaz...struction.html A large portion of deforestation in Brazil can be attributed to land clearing for pastureland by commercial and speculative interests, Now if they could make more money by managing hardwood timber (trade restricted by CITES) do you think they'd be less inclined to convert it to other uses? Based on the website you provided, I do not see how Kyoto or CITES will have an impact one way or another. It would be wonderful if everybody thought this way, wouldn't it? "Hm. I see some land with a valuable commodity on it. I will protect it, preserve it, and bring it to market in a responsible fashion, insuring its long-term viability by responsible husbandry." We're talking Brazil here, 2pid. Poor people trying to live. Subsistence farming. Further... "Brazilian deforestation is strongly correlated to the economic health of the country: the decline in deforestation from 1988-1991 nicely matched the economic slowdown during the same period, while the rocketing rate of deforestation from 1993-1998 paralleled Brazil's period of rapid economic growth. " Seems like 2 choices to me. Implement Marshall ecological law and declare the rain forests protected for the good of mankind and put them under military protection... or find a way make them too economically valuable to destroy. CITES does not do that. It does the opposite. I assume you meant martial law... Did you actually read the page? "A Closer Look at Brazilian Deforestation" Today deforestation in the Amazon is the result of several activities, the foremost of which include: Clearing for cattle pasture (i.e. no CITES or Kyoto impact.) Colonization and subsequent subsistence agriculture (i.e. no CITES or Kyoto impact.) Infrastructure improvements (i.e. no CITES or Kyoto impact.) Commercial agriculture (i.e. no CITES or Kyoto impact.) Logging (i.e. possible CITES impact. No Kyoto impact.) A long term goal is to limit the need for economic growth. What policy do you think might give people the option for at least maintaining their std of living without economic growth? What ideas do you have? |
|
#5
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 11:44 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese people to accept hardship over CO2? 2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really. I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great Communicator". You're not just confused, you're delusional. No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the former USSR. As we impose restrictions domestically without trade restrictions then manufacturing just moves to contract manufacturers in China who are supplied with energy from coal fired plants with no restrictions nor concerns. You of course get cheap goods. Which gets back to outsourcing and trade agreements. And it proves my point perfectly: business does only that which is good for business. Voluntary measures will not work. and partial implementations with Kyoto free zones become voluntary. Business will relocate and kyoto increases the economic incentive to do so. Trade restrictions must be a part or we will simply be cutting our own throats to no avail. I agree. Trade restrictions are, for the time being, on a national level. We do not, apparently enforce. But we encourage outsourcing. We need the slave class. Your party is all about business. They will do nothing. Clinton signed NAFTA...Hillary seems to be willing to go against the open trade policy of Bill but no candidate save Thompson who foolishly argues for free trade has put forward a very clear position. What a wiggle we have here. Clinton "signed" it, and it is his "policy" so he is responsible for it. "NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, especially among intellectuals (i.e. liburrals) who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...rade_Agreement As a matter of curoisity, which party had control of Congress then? Do you remember the "giant sucking sound" predicted by Perot? LOL! Actually, I think even going completely green and completely disengaging from the world economy will still be to no avail. Then we're ****ed. I'm going outside to burn some forest right now. How about starting to relocate some low lying cities to higher areas? Would this be less expensive than reducing emissions? If we remove everybody from coastal areas likely to be affected, what would this cost? LA, New York, Miami (most of Florida, actually), Seattle, Boston, San Francisco, San Diego, the Gulf coast, and on and on... Rebuilding New Orleans where it sinks was stupid when it could have been rebuilt bigger, better, and more beautiful on the other side of the lake on high ground. We buckle to sentiment. Yeah, like increasing CAFE standards. We're so sentimental about low MPG in our auto fleet. China's standards are higher than ours. You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth. I never said that, either, 2pid. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? LOL! I've been arguing that point and all you have for it is ridicule. I stated my position in another post. You are against ALL immigration. I never said that, either, moron. Are you capable of making an argument without making **** up? "You don't want to stop immigration to our own country which drives our polluting economic growth." Does that mean "all" to you? How bizarre. What does it mean to you? How bizarre. I see no exceptions either specifically stated or implied. You have no clearly stated positions beyond childish ridicule of others who do. I have positions. You've never asked for them before. Thanks for admitting you're all about ridiculing others while keeping quiet on your own views. Thanks for admitting that you've blustered like a drunken politician while never asking for someone's views. Poor sssshhhhhieee, he needs to be asked. In case you haven't noticed, you, nob, and Bratzi are about the only ones here who do not ask. You blare out your political views, unless specifically asked for them. I agree with you: I am very much unlike all three of you. Same thing on audio, Mr. Shhhieee Paranoid won't even discuss his own system for fear someone might ridicule him. Irrelevant. But just for you: I have a 500 wpc amp, a CD player, two main speakers, a subwoofer, two turntables, some wires and cables, a tuner, and several tape machines, not all of which are in use. I rest my case. I forgot: I have a preamp, too. And I forgot to mention that I am very happy with the sound. What else do you feel you need to know? Do brands make a big difference to you? If so, why? Very well: they are all Panasonic. LOL! I ahev asked for yours. You tend to bail when that happens. I don't need your requests. I bail on your BS questions with bogus inuendos. Uh-huh. Two "Ns", 2pid. BTW, I recommend "Lions for Lambs". It's an excellent movie. I saw it last night. Go see it again and again...it could be one of the few movies where you alone could have a box office impact. No, not the McDonald's argument. I asked you. What did you think of it? (I've been asking for your review of it for some time, yet you always bail, as you do again here.) Have you seen this "trainwreck of a movie" yet? See? Kyoto is not designed as a "be all, end all" solution. It's designed as a start. Recognizing that developing countries would have more strain by limiting emissions, Kyoto built in some considerations. I think Kyoto should be adopted by the US. I think in such a dire situation the idea that we can afford Kyoto exempt zones in a global economy will just accelerate the destruction of forests and habitat left which happen to reside in 3rd world (Kyoto exempt) territories. Rainforests have been getting destroyed for several decades. Kyoto may or may not change that. CITES tries to help halt that. CITES was drafted in the 60's you buffoon. I'm aware of that, you buffoon. How does that counter the point that rainforests have been getting destroyed, as I said, waaaaaaaaaaaaay up there one sentence ago,"for several decades"? They've been getting destroyed while CITES has been in effect. What did it accomplish? Apparently, only one of the species covered by it has gone extinct. Neither of us can say how many might have without it. Hint: it doesn't. It obviously has not worked. Then we should remove it and trust that people and business will do the right thing. We should define strategies that work. There are none as far as GW, based on what you've said. It appears to me your position is "Let's just get used to warmer weather." Oh, and you apparently buy the argument that CO2 is an "excellent and effective aerial fertilizer". Did I miss something? Use economic incentive and market forces to preserve and protect instead of the foolish stupidity of policies like CITES. Ah, the libertarian view that the market will fix everything. Then the market will fix China's environmental woes and we have nothing to worry about there. End of 'discussion' on that topic. While CITES is a step i the right direction, it is not a "be all, end all" either. For example, some tonewoods are on that list. Try to find guitars, for example, that are currently produced with Brazilian Rosewood. CITES actually backfired by restricting and eliminating forest management. So, in your estimation, MORE Brazilian rosewood has been harvested as a result of CITES? LOL! No..it's been burned off and used for cattle grazing since forest has no economic value given CITES eliminates trade in it hardwoods. So, as I said, your position is the CITES actually *increased* Amazon basin deforestation, the history of the topic be damned. LOL! Banning some species trade makes the value of the land they occupy worthless and in some cases...contributes to clear cutting the land for other less lucrative activities. The clear-cutting was going on anyways, 2pid. CITES removed markets for certain endangered species, as it was designed to do. If there's an issue, it's in enforcement. The issue is in strategy. Need to create a system that makes it economically unrewarding to clear the land. CITES didn't do that. How can it? How can Kyoto? That's the Brazilian government's bailiwick, just like it's our governments duty to "economically unreward" fuel inefficiency and so on. We are not willing to do so, so why look to Brazil? If there was a market for products of the rain forest, embrace it, subsidize it, manage it to encourage rain forest cultivation. The drug companies should do it, if nobody else will. It's in their market interests. Many new drugs come from the plants in the region, and many more are potentially available. So why haven't they? Just plain banning trade in certain species doesn't do anything but encourage people to clear the land for other uses. It encourages no such thing. As I proved, that would go on anyway. It *removes* one incentive. It does not *create* a new one. As I said, it's a step in the right direction. You are trying to turn it into the "be-all, end-all" that I specifically said it was not. As I said, it's not a "be all, end all" but a step in the right direction. See? But that's tree hugging stupidity. It was a foolish step that clearly has not worked. Out of, what, 30,000 endangered species included in CITES, only one has gone extinct in the 40 years since CITES was written. Those damned "tree-hugging environmental whackos". They lost one. Here is your 'argument': Some species covered by CITES had market value, so they were very carefully and responsibly harvested in the rainforests to take advantage of the market price. No...I didn't say they were. I said they could be. And world peace "could" happen. Don't eliminate the market by banning it...use the market to advantage to preserve and cultivate rather than destroy. Like American business has been doing in China and elsewhere in the world? Then why would Exxon/Mobil spend so much to create doubt? That seems contradictory. But CITES removed the market value of those species, so areas that contained these CITES- restricted species were less valuable. Therefore, they were clear-cut because the land was now worthless. Facts show this to be true. The clear land to create pasture. Find a way to make that land as rain forest to rewarding to turn into pasture and it won't happen. The people with capital *may* agree. The dirt-poor who need to subsistence farm or get land *may* not. Anything else? (See below for the real reasons, cheerfully provided by you.) LOL! Stupid ecologists are idiots when it comes to actually understanding the consequences of their actions. Not everybody is as bright as you are. Most aren't even close. Many of those that are close have been institutionalized for their own safety. Same old ****....you can't make a reasoned argument so you turn to crap. Um, OK. Business will do what is right, even though it is business that is largely responsible for deforesting Indonesia, it is business that is largely responsible for the ecological disasters in China, and business plays a large part in clearing the Amazon basin... But you may be right. It may be business, suddenly with some attack of concience, that will save the Brazilian rainforest, if we would only be so farsighted as you to see what trading freely in endangered species will accomplish. That's pretty much what I said above. Why did that offend you? You want rain forests to be maintained, you can't completely eliminate their market value. LOL! CITES did all that? Or was it Kyoto? Sigh.... Yes, I was giving you **** for believing something that the evidence and the history clearly does not support. I believe that if we are to be taken seriously, we need to have *our* house in order before we start worrying about what others are doing. We do not. Fine. How about starting with a zero population growth policy? Another piece of evidence concerning your immigration views, as if we needed one. I see your commitment to protecting the environment is really limited. Tell me...how many people do you think this country can support with a decent quality of life without creating unsustainable ecological damage? That depends on what you mean. Do you mean "without changing a damned thing", the position you've been arguing? Probably not much. Or do you mean if we do some things like shift from non-renewable energy to geo-thermal, wind, and other sources? If we raise our CAFE standards? If we consume less beef, as methane is also an issue (another thing that I've done to lower my footprint)? If we use more rail to transport goods instead of 4-6MPG tractor-trailers (but we need immediate gratification, don't we)? If we tax gasoline like it is in other parts of the world? If we tighten coal plant emissions requirements? http://www.fossil.energy.gov/program...ems/futuregen/ Note the government influence here. And he "Miller said that Sebelius had pledged not to oppose the plants but that her position was clear after her "moral steward" remark. "That implies that we're not moral stewards of the land, which we don't appreciate one bit," he said." LOL! Delicate sensibilities are offended. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...1802452_2.html Good for Kansas. This almost makes up for teaching ID in schools. |
|
#6
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 18 Noi, 18:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the former USSR. I think Reagan himself would say that the Soviet Union fell because of the inherent flaws in the Communist economic system, and the dictatorship necessary to perpetuate it. Communism flies in the face of human nature, and deprives hmanity of the freedom to make economic choices. of course, the totalitarianism necessary to keep Communism in place deprives humanity of personal and political freedoms, too. having said that, Reagan was always one to remind us of the above, and to keep us focused on applying pressure to beat it down, as opposed to libs like Carter, Mondale, etc., who would go soft on it, and actually contribute to extending the life of Communism. We do owe Reagan a great debt, but yes, he did not 'cause' the fall of the USSR, though he, Walesa and the Pope strongly hastened it. |
|
#7
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 7:35 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:10 pm, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Why do you think others owe you a fair discussion when this is a typical response from you? I make a sarcastic comment on unsubstantiated opinion stated as fact and you start asserting the "fairness" doctrine. Is it "unfair" to suggest you need a clue? LOL! Read Clyde's post. He's smarter than you are. But thank you for proving my point. |
|
#8
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 7:10 pm, MiNe 109 wrote:
In article , ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Why do you think others owe you a fair discussion when this is a typical response from you? And people wonder why I never say discussion when referring to 2pid. It's a 'discussion'. |
|
#9
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 6:59 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 18, 11:44 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese people to accept hardship over CO2? 2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really. I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great Communicator". You're not just confused, you're delusional. No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Lol... You do have lots of faith. Perhaps. Faith and thousands of years of human history are on my side. But as I said, you believe the former USSR fell as a result of conservative US politics.;-) |
|
#10
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 7:15 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 18 Noi, 18:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the former USSR. I think Reagan himself would say that the Soviet Union fell because of the inherent flaws in the Communist economic system, and the dictatorship necessary to perpetuate it. Communism flies in the face of human nature, and deprives hmanity of the freedom to make economic choices. of course, the totalitarianism necessary to keep Communism in place deprives humanity of personal and political freedoms, too. having said that, Reagan was always one to remind us of the above, and to keep us focused on applying pressure to beat it down, as opposed to libs like Carter, Mondale, etc., who would go soft on it, and actually contribute to extending the life of Communism. We do owe Reagan a great debt, but yes, he did not 'cause' the fall of the USSR, though he, Walesa and the Pope strongly hastened it. Clyde, you've been making some reasonable posts recently. What do they put in the water in Romania? Slivovitz? |
|
#11
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 18 Noi, 21:31, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 18, 7:15 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 18 Noi, 18:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Intervention may speed things up a little, like perhaps reagan's influence may have influenced, but not caused, the collapse of the former USSR. I think Reagan himself would say that the Soviet Union fell because of the inherent flaws in the Communist economic system, and the dictatorship necessary to perpetuate it. Communism flies in the face of human nature, and deprives hmanity of the freedom to make economic choices. of course, the totalitarianism necessary to keep Communism in place deprives humanity of personal and political freedoms, too. having said that, Reagan was always one to remind us of the above, and to keep us focused on applying pressure to beat it down, as opposed to libs like Carter, Mondale, etc., who would go soft on it, and actually contribute to extending the life of Communism. We do owe Reagan a great debt, but yes, he did not 'cause' the fall of the USSR, though he, Walesa and the Pope strongly hastened it. Clyde, you've been making some reasonable posts recently. What do they put in the water in Romania? Slivovitz? even Romanians won't drink their tap water, but i do. i think any changes must be due to heavy metals leftover form Communism of course. It wasn't aq very environmentally friendly system. Communism causes worse pollution than that horribly profit driven Capitalism, How about that!!!! it is true that Reagan would be hesitant to give himself credit, be cause he always maintained the system was ultmatley doomed to failure he did give it a nice push or two. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 18, 10:45 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
even Romanians won't drink their tap water, but i do. i think any changes must be due to heavy metals leftover form Communism of course. It wasn't aq very environmentally friendly system. Communism causes worse pollution than that horribly profit driven Capitalism, How about that!!!! I am not, BTW, against capitalism. *Unrestrained* and *unregulated* capitalism may not be any better than communism was as far as pollution, though. Fortunately, we now regulate things like dumping chemicals or other waste into lakes, streams and rivers, and other environmental concerns. Industry still fights the EPA frequently, though. I remember driving through Chicago and Ohio on a family trip as a child. I'll never forget seeing lime-green crap being dumped from a pipe directly into the Chicago River. It looked like radioactive Gatorade. I also remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire around that same time: "On June 23, 1969, Cleveland's oily, contaminated Cuyahoga River caught fire. Flames climbed as high as five stories until fireboats brought it under control. The fire was attributed to wastes dumped into the river by the waterfront industries." http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/03/c...e-of-1969.html (Yes, I know this is from a blog, but I figured that this was such a well-known historical fact that it wouldn't matter and it popped up on Google first...) And Love Canal, and Times Beach, and Lake Erie, strip-mines, and several hundred other Superfund sites: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm And as for business taking care of business ethically, let's also not forget why labor unions became necessary here. I got a catalog from The Company Store bedding company a couple of days ago and I remarked to my girlfriend that I wouldn't have chosen to name my business after such a dark period in American business history. Here is unrestrained, unregulated capitalism at work: "Most of these new West Virginians soon became part of an economic system controlled by the coal industry. Miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. The rent for company housing and cost of items from the company store were deducted from their pay. The stores themselves charged over- inflated prices, since there was no alternative for purchasing goods. To ensure that miners spent their wages at the store, coal companies developed their own monetary system. Miners were paid by scrip, in the form of tokens, currency, or credit, which could be used only at the company store. Therefore, even when wages were increased, coal companies simply increased prices at the company store to balance what they lost in pay." http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html Anyway, I wouldn't be too adamant about the differences between the two political systems as far as pollution is concerned. And once again history should show nob and 2pid what unrestrained and unregulated market-driven forces are capable of. It ain't necessarily pretty. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 19 Noi, 04:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 18, 10:45 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: even Romanians won't drink their tap water, but i do. i think any changes must be due to heavy metals leftover form Communism of course. It wasn't aq very environmentally friendly system. Communism causes worse pollution than that horribly profit driven Capitalism, How about that!!!! I am not, BTW, against capitalism. *Unrestrained* and *unregulated* capitalism may not be any better than communism was as far as pollution, though. Fortunately, we now regulate things like dumping chemicals or other waste into lakes, streams and rivers, and other environmental concerns. Industry still fights the EPA frequently, though. I remember driving through Chicago and Ohio on a family trip as a child. I'll never forget seeing lime-green crap being dumped from a pipe directly into the Chicago River. It looked like radioactive Gatorade. I also remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire around that same time: "On June 23, 1969, Cleveland's oily, contaminated Cuyahoga River caught fire. Flames climbed as high as five stories until fireboats brought it under control. The fire was attributed to wastes dumped into the river by the waterfront industries." http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/03/c...e-of-1969.html (Yes, I know this is from a blog, but I figured that this was such a well-known historical fact that it wouldn't matter and it popped up on Google first...) And Love Canal, and Times Beach, and Lake Erie, strip-mines, and several hundred other Superfund sites: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm And as for business taking care of business ethically, let's also not forget why labor unions became necessary here. I got a catalog from The Company Store bedding company a couple of days ago and I remarked to my girlfriend that I wouldn't have chosen to name my business after such a dark period in American business history. Here is unrestrained, unregulated capitalism at work: "Most of these new West Virginians soon became part of an economic system controlled by the coal industry. Miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. The rent for company housing and cost of items from the company store were deducted from their pay. The stores themselves charged over- inflated prices, since there was no alternative for purchasing goods. To ensure that miners spent their wages at the store, coal companies developed their own monetary system. Miners were paid by scrip, in the form of tokens, currency, or credit, which could be used only at the company store. Therefore, even when wages were increased, coal companies simply increased prices at the company store to balance what they lost in pay." http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html Anyway, I wouldn't be too adamant about the differences between the two political systems as far as pollution is concerned. And once again histhetory should show nob and 2pid what unrestrained and unregulated market-driven forces are capable of. It ain't necessarily pretty. the pollution is Eastern Europe is far worse. as the government ran everything, there was no regulation at all. nor even any testing or oversight. they just didn't care at all. for what its worth, here we have two deterrents under capitalism, being regulation and victim lawsuits. Note, i am not in favor of laissez faire, capitalism needs to be regulated, a legitimate power of government. ]i am not duh Mikey. |
|
#14
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 8:21 am, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 19 Noi, 04:55, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 18, 10:45 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: even Romanians won't drink their tap water, but i do. i think any changes must be due to heavy metals leftover form Communism of course. It wasn't aq very environmentally friendly system. Communism causes worse pollution than that horribly profit driven Capitalism, How about that!!!! I am not, BTW, against capitalism. *Unrestrained* and *unregulated* capitalism may not be any better than communism was as far as pollution, though. Fortunately, we now regulate things like dumping chemicals or other waste into lakes, streams and rivers, and other environmental concerns. Industry still fights the EPA frequently, though. I remember driving through Chicago and Ohio on a family trip as a child. I'll never forget seeing lime-green crap being dumped from a pipe directly into the Chicago River. It looked like radioactive Gatorade. I also remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire around that same time: "On June 23, 1969, Cleveland's oily, contaminated Cuyahoga River caught fire. Flames climbed as high as five stories until fireboats brought it under control. The fire was attributed to wastes dumped into the river by the waterfront industries." http://pratie.blogspot.com/2005/03/c...e-of-1969.html (Yes, I know this is from a blog, but I figured that this was such a well-known historical fact that it wouldn't matter and it popped up on Google first...) And Love Canal, and Times Beach, and Lake Erie, strip-mines, and several hundred other Superfund sites: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/index.htm And as for business taking care of business ethically, let's also not forget why labor unions became necessary here. I got a catalog from The Company Store bedding company a couple of days ago and I remarked to my girlfriend that I wouldn't have chosen to name my business after such a dark period in American business history. Here is unrestrained, unregulated capitalism at work: "Most of these new West Virginians soon became part of an economic system controlled by the coal industry. Miners worked in company mines with company tools and equipment, which they were required to lease. The rent for company housing and cost of items from the company store were deducted from their pay. The stores themselves charged over- inflated prices, since there was no alternative for purchasing goods. To ensure that miners spent their wages at the store, coal companies developed their own monetary system. Miners were paid by scrip, in the form of tokens, currency, or credit, which could be used only at the company store. Therefore, even when wages were increased, coal companies simply increased prices at the company store to balance what they lost in pay." http://www.wvculture.org/hiStory/minewars.html Anyway, I wouldn't be too adamant about the differences between the two political systems as far as pollution is concerned. And once again history should show nob and 2pid what unrestrained and unregulated market-driven forces are capable of. It ain't necessarily pretty. the pollution is Eastern Europe is far worse. as the government ran everything, there was no regulation at all. nor even any testing or oversight. they just didn't care at all. for what its worth, here we have two deterrents under capitalism, being regulation and victim lawsuits. I agree, but my point was that the regulation of contaminating water did not occur until 1972 with the Clean Water Act. I think the Clean Air Act was in the 1960s. Both, whatever the actual dates are, are fairly recent. Note, i am not in favor of laissez faire, capitalism needs to be regulated, a legitimate power of government. ]i am not duh Mikey. Which is why I didn't say, "Clyde, nob and 2pid". :-) |
|
#15
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 11:17 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Which is why I didn't say, "Clyde, nob and 2pid". :-) Of course I never said the things you attribute to me. But it's your integrity you **** upon with these posts. Not mine. Except the market and business, in their infinite wisdom and grace, will protect the rainforests and Brazilian rosewood. But other than that, you are indeed correct.;-) LOL! OK, folks, it's time to resort to shorthand...again. Imbecile. |
|
#16
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 11:14 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 18, 6:59 pm, ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 18, 11:44 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese people to accept hardship over CO2? 2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really. I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great Communicator". You're not just confused, you're delusional. No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Lol... You do have lots of faith. Perhaps. Faith and thousands of years of human history are on my side. But as I said, you believe the former USSR fell as a result of conservative US politics.;-) It fell as a result of many things. The war in Afghanistan being one. This is another.http://www.energybulletin.net/19837.html A drought in the south was another and the Aral sea disaster was another. http://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/wes.html Your gross simplifications of this issue are without merit. Huh? Are you OK, 2pid? You prove that the exact point that I made is true, and then call that point simple and without merit. OK, I'm done with you. You 'win', 2pid. I can't wait to see your next 'discussion'. Imbecile. |
|
#17
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 10:52 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message In article , ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 5:10 pm, MiNe 109 wrote: In article , ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Why do you think others owe you a fair discussion when this is a typical response from you? I make a sarcastic comment on unsubstantiated opinion stated as fact and you start asserting the "fairness" doctrine. Is it "unfair" to suggest you need a clue? Yes, it is. For one thing, although it wasn't "substantiated" in the very post in which it was expressed, that view is part of the mainstream in explaining the fall of the Soviet Union and as such an informed person could be expected to know of it. One unsubstantiated opinion begets another. Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that the former USSR would have fallen all on its own, which is EXACTLY what I said (once again, I will not post a message ID, sinces it's IN THE FIRST LINE OF THIS POST), then give Stephen **** for agreeing (and don't forget that Clyde did, too)? You call it "unsubstantiated opinion" or "opinion stated as fact", help prove that the statement is 100% correct, and then thrash about with weak insults. My god, man, you must have gotten jealous when I said that nob was the dumbest poster on RAO. So the race is on! LOL! All one had to do in your misinformed world is make their view "mainstream". I guess once upon a time, the earth was really flat. It's beginning to appear that the "flat earth" you saw was actually the top of your head in the mirror. LOL! Imbecile. |
|
#18
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
Shhhh! said: Except the market and business, in their infinite wisdom and grace, will protect the rainforests and Brazilian rosewood. If you understood free-market economics, you would realize that your precious rainforest trees can seek recourse from the courts. Jeez! |
|
#19
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 12:54 pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote: Shhhh! said: Except the market and business, in their infinite wisdom and grace, will protect the rainforests and Brazilian rosewood. If you understood free-market economics, you would realize that your precious rainforest trees can seek recourse from the courts. Jeez! I tried. God *knows* I tried. Having 'discussions' with 2pid is *exactly* like being President of the United States of America (according to bushie, anyway): it's hard work. It's really, really hard work. It's *very* hard work. You have to really work very, very hard. You must put in long days filled with hard work. It is *extremely* hard work. And now I've reached the same conclusion as bushie: "Ah, forget it. I'm going golfing." I think 2pid is trying to turn me into a republican. |
|
#20
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 6:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that the former USSR would have fallen all on its own, No, I said they're all contributing factor and it is impossible to determine which if any or even all of them could be removed without altering the outcome. A simple question: if reagan had not been President, but Carter or Mondale or Dukakis had, do you believe the USSR would still be in existance? You constantly want to argue of things that cannot be known and then claim them as fact. You have a tenuous grasp on rationality. Uh-huh. |
|
#21
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? I must have missed that blog. Please post a link. So where is the specific evaluation that shows that a struggling Soviet Economy would have failed in the timeframe it did without the pressure put on it by the decade long Afghan conflict? Nobody has said that, 2pid. I said that reagan (who funded Al Queda in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets) may have sped up something that would've happened anyway. The actual statement of "eventually fallen on its own" does not mean "in the timeframe that it did". Smart people would know that. Why don't you? LOL! And if you argue this point then you must concede that extended conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are of no economic consequence to us as their fraction of GDP are far less. While I "must" not concede any such thing, as it does not follow. I would argue that they will not cause the fall of the United States, which is the analogous argument. The arguments in Congress are outwardly about money, but do you really believe that it's the money that they're really arguing about? Also one must consider that rising oil prices would have eventually provided them a significant economic boost. The window of opportunity for this collapse was not infinite, yet you seem oblivious to this common knowledge. And you wonder why Putin might enjoy supporting the Iranians and creating conflict in the middle east... Hey! Some Russians agree with you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...970821,00.html "A large majority of Russians, on the other hand, as they have regularly made clear in opinion surveys, regret the end of the Soviet Union, not because they pine for "communism" but because they lost a secure way of life. They do not share the nearly unanimous western view that the Soviet Union's "collapse" was "inevitable" because of inherent fatal defects." A "nearly unanimous western view"? You can put paid to that by clicking your heels and saying "Twasn't so!" three times. How do you suppose Russians gain a perception of western views? The media? Anything unanimous in the media must be right! Beats reading your tripe, 2pid. LOL! There is honest disagreement on the subject, but the view does exist and is widespread, mainstream, and as such doesn't require 'substantiation' whenever it's mentioned. Flatworlder. Is this your definition of 'discussion', 2pid? I mean, I don't mind when you bluster and spit and call me names. I would imagine consistently being shown to be an imbecile is upsetting, so I understand concerning me. Where has Stephen called you any names? Imbecilic hypocrite. |
|
#22
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 6:31 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 11:14 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 18, 6:59 pm, ScottW wrote: On Nov 18, 3:04 pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 18, 11:44 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 17, 6:35 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 17, 10:31 am, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in They're starting on their own, 2pid. We still outdo them in many areas. Perhaps we should (and I know this is not how your 'mind' works) take care of business at home before pointing fingers elsewhe http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/wo...a/26china.html You always make irrelevant links that actually prove my point. Do you actually think that the people of China will not do anything about it? There is already civil unrest over the issue. The government recognizes there is a problem and they are trying to take steps (albeit unsucessfully so far, but that will likely change) and the people certainly do. Lol...they can't get grip on smog and you expect the chinese people to accept hardship over CO2? 2pid, you really do need to read some history. Really. I think discussing this with you is a waste. Why? Because you believe the fall of the former USSR is a direct result of "The Great Communicator". You're not just confused, you're delusional. No, not at all, 2pid. My point is this: the USSR was going to fail eventually all on its own. Yes, a meteor is going to hit the Kremlin eventually. Iraq would have had political change all on its own. They did not "need" us for regime change. And the Chinese will eventually take care of themselves. Lol... You do have lots of faith. Perhaps. Faith and thousands of years of human history are on my side. But as I said, you believe the former USSR fell as a result of conservative US politics.;-) It fell as a result of many things. The war in Afghanistan being one. This is another.http://www.energybulletin.net/19837.html A drought in the south was another and the Aral sea disaster was another. http://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/wes.html Your gross simplifications of this issue are without merit. Huh? Are you OK, 2pid? You prove that the exact point that I made is true, The point you made is to attribute a position to me which was not mine......again. and then call that point simple and without merit. Claiming Reagans policy had no influence is also wrong which also simplistic. I said it *did* "influence" the collapse of the USSR, but did not *cause* it. Get it, dum-dum? Jesus, you're dense. OK, I'm done with you. Promises made to be broken again I see. Good one, 2pid. Did your wife help you with that response? LOL! |
|
#23
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 19 Noi, 23:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 19, 6:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that the former USSR would have fallen all on its own, No, I said they're all contributing factor and it is impossible to determine which if any or even all of them could be removed without altering the outcome. A simple question: if reagan had not been President, but Carter or Mondale or Dukakis had, do you believe the USSR would still be in existance? at least through the end of their terms, and little bit longer, if you mean in 2006, the answer is so speculative because of so many other events that happened, did not happen, would have happened but didn't, did happen but would not have. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 19, 11:56 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 19 Noi, 23:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 19, 6:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that the former USSR would have fallen all on its own, No, I said they're all contributing factor and it is impossible to determine which if any or even all of them could be removed without altering the outcome. A simple question: if reagan had not been President, but Carter or Mondale or Dukakis had, do you believe the USSR would still be in existance? at least through the end of their terms, and little bit longer, Which was the case with reagan... if you mean in 2006, the answer is so speculative because of so many other events that happened, did not happen, would have happened but didn't, did happen but would not have. And this counters the point that we've already agreed on, how? All I said to kick off 2pid's ****storm is that the fall of the former USSR cannot be attributed directly to reagan, but that he may have influenced it, which implies that there were other factors involved. |
|
#25
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 20 Noi, 01:02, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 19, 11:56 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 19 Noi, 23:59, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 19, 6:33 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in Did you, or did you not, just list several contributing reasons that the former USSR would have fallen all on its own, No, I said they're all contributing factor and it is impossible to determine which if any or even all of them could be removed without altering the outcome. A simple question: if reagan had not been President, but Carter or Mondale or Dukakis had, do you believe the USSR would still be in existance? at least through the end of their terms, and little bit longer, Which was the case with reagan... longer than that, i was assuming two terms for Mondale to 92 and Dukakis to 96 if you mean in 2006, the answer is so speculative because of so many other events that happened, did not happen, would have happened but didn't, did happen but would not have. And this counters the point that we've already agreed on, how? All I said to kick off 2pid's ****storm is that the fall of the former USSR cannot be attributed directly to reagan, but that he may have influenced it, which implies that there were other factors involved. he was one of about major factors, and he also had some lesser influences on some of those other factors |
|
#26
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 12:48 am, "KMM" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... We actually need to release MORE CO2 into the atmosphere. Didja see this, 2pid? The Chinese are doing us a FAVOR! Please, everybody, for the sake of our children, burn as much as possible, as soon as possible. Coal, trees, oil, it doesn't matter. It all helps our planet! ************************************************** ****************** (i.e. The conclusion of the 2007 paper on GW by Robinson, Robinson and Soon): There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf ************************************************** ******************* nob would find no conflict that Soon is funded by the American Petroleum Institute. Money, to nob, is money, no matter where it comes from or what the agenda might be. Money is pure. I don't know of anybody here who has such a thing. I've said the truth is the truth and it doesn't matter how it gets paid for. Peer review will eventually sort it out. It already has, nob. You just need a brain and an agenda-free mind to see it. The claim that atmospheric data showed no warming trend was incorrect, as the published satellite and balloon data at that time showed a warming trend (see satellite temperature record). In later statements Baliunas acknowledged the measured warming in the satellite and balloon records, though she disputed that the observed warming reflected human influence.[8] As do many scientists. If they're basing their views on the Robinson, Robinson and Soon survey, as it appears is very likely, then why would you not see that their research into it is fatally flawed? (i.e. "There isn't any warming going on. Period. Well, yes there is, but it has nothing to do with man's influence.") There is no warming, well, there is but it's not due to man. Perhaps it's the ozone layer. But it isn't, but I still will not retract my statement. This to you is 'fact'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas ************************************************** ************* But wait! It gets better! ************************************************** ************* In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar variation and temperatures of the earth's atmosphere. When there are more sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth has been recovering since 1890.[11] Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.[13] Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[16] I agree. Yet when your 19,000 scientists buy into this type of research, it creates doubt in your mind. I'd find that really funny if it wasn't so very sad. And on to the other authors of this paper. snip of non-relevant to GW gibberish. Um, no, nob. If the authors of the facts you and others are using to try to create doubt are using faulty logic, improperly drawn conclusions from the work of others, severely flawed data, basing their conclusions on religious beliefs ("Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed"). and so on, it is actually very relevant. For example: is the jury still out in your mind concerning the science of natural selection, as it is for at least two of the three authors of this survey, or is that pretty much a settled issue for you? If it's a settled issue for you, as it is for all but the most religious (who only base it on belief, with NO SUPPORTING FACTS), isn't it at all curious to you what the motivation of these three buffoons is? This boils down to a simple yes/no question: are you a supporter of "intelligent design"? I know I am curious, particularly since not one of them has any expertise in the area of GW and they are supported in a big way by a company that has a HUGE vested interest in creating doubt? Tell me again what the motivation of the UN and the climatologists is that say, without equivocation, that GW is a crisis? Never mind. I forgot who I was talking with momentarily. |
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 12:47 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote On Nov 19, 11:56 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: if you mean in 2006, the answer is so speculative because of so many other events that happened, did not happen, would have happened but didn't, did happen but would not have. And this counters the point that we've already agreed on, how? All I said to kick off 2pid's ****storm is that the fall of the former USSR cannot be attributed directly to reagan, but that he may have influenced it, which implies that there were other factors involved. Keep spinning...and where he'll stop, nobody knows. Not even ssshhhhieeee. Hm. What an odd response. Why don't you remind me where I said anything other than that. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. |
|
#29
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 4:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. Confusion is your apparent expertise. I admit I am cunfused by one thing: what worries you more, 2pid? Global warming, or illegal immigration? |
|
#31
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 20 Noi, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 20, 4:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. Confusion is your apparent expertise. I admit I am cunfused by one thing: what worries you more, 2pid? Global warming, or illegal immigration? with three more walls to build (atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts) this is a moot point. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 6:28 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 20 Noi, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 20, 4:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. Confusion is your apparent expertise. I admit I am cunfused by one thing: what worries you more, 2pid? Global warming, or illegal immigration? with three more walls to build (atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts) this is a moot point. Excellent point, Clyde, but I'd still like to hear 2pid's response. Or will 2pid (as usual) try to obfuscate and dodge? Or will he focus on the typo I made spelling "confused"? I anxiously await his response. I'm sure his reasoning will be brilliant, whichever of the two is more important to him. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On 20 Noi, 19:38, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote: On Nov 20, 6:28 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 20 Noi, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 20, 4:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. Confusion is your apparent expertise. I admit I am cunfused by one thing: what worries you more, 2pid? Global warming, or illegal immigration? with three more walls to build (atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts) this is a moot point. Excellent point, Clyde, but I'd still like to hear 2pid's response. Or will 2pid (as usual) try to obfuscate and dodge? Or will he focus on the typo I made spelling "confused"? I anxiously await his response. I'm sure his reasoning will be brilliant, whichever of the two is more important to him. i will give you my response i am more worried about illegal immigration something can be done about that. gw, questionable as to its extent, its causes, and societal costs of remediation. and effectiveness of any remediation. a cure that won't even work might be worse than the disease. but i have more serious concerns than both of these two items, anyway Iran getting the bomb who will end up controlilng the Pakistani bomb wahtever Al'Queda might be up to and whether tomorrow'sQ'Doba shells are gonna be nice and crspy. |
|
#34
Posted to rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
|
A note to China: Please send us more CO2!
On Nov 20, 9:10 pm, Clyde Slick wrote:
On 20 Noi, 19:38, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 20, 6:28 pm, Clyde Slick wrote: On 20 Noi, 18:47, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote: On Nov 20, 4:17 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 3:28 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 20, 12:48 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ... On Nov 19, 6:49 pm, "ScottW" wrote: "MiNe 109" wrote in message "ScottW" wrote: "...the objective is to demonstrate that assertions that CIA got it blatantly wrong are unfounded--that charges that CIA did not see and report the economic decline, societal deterioration, and political destabilization that ultimately resulted in the breakup of the Soviet Union are contradicted by the record." This argument is a very broad brush, about the only specific is that the NYT is full of ****...but we already knew that. Did we? All sane rational people do. Feeling left out? Of a group that you consider yourself a member of? Not at all. I'm quite sure your definition of "sane" and "rational" are different than everybody else's, though. So is my definition of everybody. So is your definition of "definition" apparently. Confusion is your apparent expertise. I admit I am cunfused by one thing: what worries you more, 2pid? Global warming, or illegal immigration? with three more walls to build (atlantic, Pacific and Gulf Coasts) this is a moot point. Excellent point, Clyde, but I'd still like to hear 2pid's response. Or will 2pid (as usual) try to obfuscate and dodge? Or will he focus on the typo I made spelling "confused"? I anxiously await his response. I'm sure his reasoning will be brilliant, whichever of the two is more important to him. i will give you my response i am more worried about illegal immigration something can be done about that. I catch your drift. I'll call tomorrow to make sure that you can't get back into the US. You're a stand-up guy, Clyde. Taking one for the team, as it were. gw, questionable as to its extent, its causes, and societal costs of remediation. and effectiveness of any remediation. a cure that won't even work might be worse than the disease. but i have more serious concerns than both of these two items, anyway Iran getting the bomb who will end up controlilng the Pakistani bomb Don't worry about it. Nuclear war is the ultimate global warming, so there's nothing to worry about there, either. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Aux Send question | Pro Audio | |||
| send 24 bit from DAW to adat possible? | Pro Audio | |||
| If you like I could send you a PDF | Pro Audio | |||
| How do I send....? | General | |||
Linear Mode
