Out of Topics

[Halo]

Yeah, Al and GW are turning into quicksand.  


(quote Skuzzy)  What about cars? Motorcycles? Radio Control? Architecture? History? Bowling? The well has plenty of water in it. And its right over there!  (unquote)



Cars?  Zillion threads on cars.

Motorcycles?  Wheely popular.

Radio Control?  Do not touch the dial -- you are being taken to The FlyLite Zone.

Architecture?  The sky's the limit.

History?  It's everywhere!  It's everywhere!  (sayeth Chicken Man, a once popular radio feature).

Bowling?  Now there's a safe topic.  Shouldn't push many defensive buttons.  Kegling (insider term) looks so easy.  Just started in a pleasant senior casual league.  Seems 200 should be routine.  It's not.  Few people break 200.  Even a turkey (3 strikes in a row) is tough.  

In!  What's the highest game you ever bowled?  

[Seagoon]

Halo,

I'll try to do my patriotic AH2 OC duty and generate a new topic or two today. If they generate any problems or get locked, can I tell Skuzzy that "Halo told me to do it, and I'm very susceptible to peer pressure?"

- SEAGOON

[Edbert]

Anyone notice that global warming is happening on Venus, Mars, and Jupiter? Anyone notice that these temperature increases are directly proportional with increased solar activity? Only a politician would blame a soccer-mom in an SUV for the sun's increase in activity, them or the O-club parrots of the left.

[lazs2]

I didn't see much science in the movie but it certainly was dramatic and heartwrenching...

If you are a woman.

Did you see the film "swindle"   it was more amusing but it was full of nasty old science and stuff and scientists who never even ran for office and had bad hair..  They weren't even around when algore invented the internet.   It was a decent film but they keep going on and on about science and facts and stuff.

lazs

[JB88]

Originally posted by Edbert
Anyone notice that global warming is happening on Venus, Mars, and Jupiter? Anyone notice that these temperature increases are directly proportional with increased solar activity? Only a politician would blame a soccer-mom in an SUV for the sun's increase in activity, them or the O-club parrots of the left.

anyone notice that a bunch of people are trying really hard to avoid putting the brakes on polluting the same air that we breath with things that we can't?

[Edbert]

Originally posted by JB88
anyone notice that a bunch of people are trying really hard to avoid putting the brakes on polluting the same air that we breath with things that we can't?

Co2 is good for the plants, save the rainforests!

If you are talking about emerging industrial nations (China/India/Brazil) then we are in a greement. If you are talking about nations with exploding birth rates (China/India/Brazil) then we are in agreement. But often the proponents of the GW scare are only talking about the western nations being the ones who need to curtail emissions.

I still remember when the evironmentalist scare-mongers were claiming we were headed to another ice age due to air pollution. We were all going to freeze to death (if you lived up north) or die from dehydration when the lakes and even the Gulf Of Mexico dried up from the growing ice caps. These claims were supported by a "consensus" of leading scientists at the time, the time was the early 1970s. According to them we'd all be dead by....now.

[JB88]

i don't disagree with the idea that global warming is occurring.  it is.  and i think that we are probably contributing to it in ways that we should not be, but i am not one of those people who think that it is going to suddenly happen in five minutes.  

i do think that we have a responsibility to do what we can to make sure that we are not creating problems for ourselves.  err on the side of caution seems best to me.

cars dont expel carbon dioxide like people and animals do. cars expel carbon monoxide.  is that good for plants?

i guess if it wasnt for all of the new people eating all of the new plants that come as a result of all of the new people breathing and releasing carbon dioxide, and driving cars that release carbon monoxide...all would be swell.

mmmm.  chemicals in my water from a plant upstream.  what?  you say we dont do that anymore?  oh...why's that i wonder?  because big biz is so good it did it on its own right?  

okay.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by rpm
So what about the CO2/global temp correlation? Did anyone look at the pics of the glaciers? Think what you might about Albert, I see nothing to dispute these facts.

Some evidence exists that the CO2 rise is delayed by 800 years after warming occurs.

The Ocean is the biggest carbon sink.  The Ocean absorbs CO2.

Theory says that the CO2 follows warming (rather than being a cause of warming) because when the oceans heat up the CO2 in solution comes out like CO2 coming out of Dr Pepper when you heat it on the stove.

So correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

[WilldCrd]

Originally posted by Airscrew
I am beginning to suspect we are all here only for Skuzzy's entertainment anyway, witness MT's  "Hello, My Name is MT" thread/bait/troll.  
I saw that hook about 4 hours ago and just kept swimming by waiting to see who would bite, it had promise but was cut short when it was skuzzified...

hmm seems your news is outdated....prolly all of 5 mins later they announced that the MAIN hurrican dude is predicting 17 hurricans with 5 of them being cat 5's and dirictly threatening the us coast
he placed the blame on la nina
he went on to say that this year wil be VERY active due to the cooler winds from the pacific cruising the 3000+ miles over the US then south to the mid-lower atlantic.

Personally im hoping Richard C. Hoagland is right and there is a sekrit weather war going on ....

[Seagoon]

One of the best responses to the current trend of "shut down the engine of capitalism in order to cool the planet" activism that I've read in some time was actually produced by a group called ISA in response to the ECI's (Evangelical Climate Initiative) alarmist paper calling on Christians to support legislation that would create radical reductions in CO2 emmissions as a "moral duty." I heard about it because a friend of mine, Dr. Cal Beisner was one of the men who worked on the report. None of the men or organizations that worked on it have any connection to or funding from the oil or energy industries and no direct vested interest in one side or the other winning.

The paper points out the lack of direct cause and effect evidence even in the "scientific consensus," especially when one considers that the radical changes being called for would only result in a miniscule drop in emmissions, and then goes on to point out that the economic effects of the changes being called for would be devastating to the world's poor. The paper itself entitled "A Call to Truth" is available at: http://www.interfaithstewardship.org/pdf/CalltoTruth.pdf

Here is a tickler regarding the effects on the poor:

The ECI’s claim that “deadly impacts are being experienced now” is unsubstantiated. To substantiate it, the ECI would have to prove not just that global average temperatures are rising or that severe weather events are more frequent or more extreme, etc., but that (a) these things are significantly driven by CO2 emissions from fossil fuel consumption and (b) the numbers of deaths attributable to them match or exceed the numbers attributable to the known, well-understood causes listed above. No data anywhere suggest anything remotely like that. In fact, virtually everywhere death rates have declined over the last several decades, even as  he globe has admittedly warmed–although they are rising in some areas that are sinking deeper into poverty or where malaria is resurgent and AIDS has become prevalent.42

Worse, by emphasizing these improbable risks and solutions, and by condemning the world’s poor to slower economic development by raising energy prices, the ECI asks the poor to give up or at least postpone their claims to modern technology that is essential for a better future for themselves and their children. It tells them they must not expect to have fossil fuels, electricity, or even ecotourism (because jets emit greenhouse gases and cause climate change). Other environmental activists tell them they must not use hydroelectric or nuclear power to generate electricity, because of fears of damming rivers and risks from handling nuclear wastes. So the world’s poor must remain indigenous, traditional, and poor–or as Leon Louw has put it, must continue living in “human game preserves,” so that affluent Westerners can visit them in their quaint villages.43

It is immoral and harmful to Earth’s poorest citizens to deny them the benefits  of abundant, reliable, affordable electricity and other forms of energy (for homes, cars, airplanes, and factories) merely because it is produced by using fossil fuels. Foreseeable forms of renewable energy (other than hydroelectric) won’t provide reliable, affordable electricity at least for many years, in amounts that are adequate and necessary for modern hospitals, factories, homes, communities and nations. To tell poor families, communities, and nations that they can’t develop hydroelectric or nuclear energy either, because some people disapprove of them, is unconscionable.

[Skuzzy]

You guys are really wierd.  Just sayin...

[WilldCrd]

Originally posted by Skuzzy
You guys are really wierd.  Just sayin...

And you keep hanging around here, dont that kinda make you a tad "off" as well?

[Skuzzy]

It is a foregone conclusion I am off my nut.  You have to be to do what I do for a living.

[AWMac]

The true scource of Global Warming

Here's your Proof!

Mac

[JB88]

sort of like a sheppard...but for geeks.