MY Carbon Footprint is Bigger Than Yours

[[R-CON]Desertfox]

Originally Posted by ArmedDrunk&Angry

Micheal Crichton " State of Fear"
A great book and one that presents a wealth of data that shows we are not the cause of global warming.
It also mentions that the polar ice caps have been melting for 6,000 years and now are beginning to thicken.
It makes a great point that the science behind "global warming" is weak at best and often outright fraudulent.
Carbon credits are without a doubt a fraud, a new age papal dispensation that allows the rich and famous to continue their lifestyle while pretending to "do something" about "global warming".
The CO2 level is rising but beyond that there is little data to back up the " crisis" and " catastrophe" that many are warning about.
Another subject that was similar in outlook was Eugenics, accepted worldwide by the "reputable" scientific community and now ...well after the failed painter's experiments at it nobody will lay claim to ever believing in it.
Global warming is the left's religion, all based on faith with very little data to back it up and a whole witch's brew of hate for anyone who disagrees with it.
Ask anyone and most people will agree that there is global warming and that ALL the scienctist agree.
Then go read about the subject and you find that more disagree than agree.
I know that when I was a kid ( 30 years ago ) it snowed and the snow stayed and that is no longer the case in NY but that alone does not mean we HAVE to reduce emissions by 60-80% in the next five years or face global catastophe.

I read that book, it was awesome but you wonder how much of that is true and how much of it was just part of the book.

[A-10Warthog]

^^ U READ!?


j/k

[jerkzilla]

I agree with Kensei and Trogdor.
We're throwing a shit load of bad stuff into the atmosphere, water and ground. We can't expect anything good to come out of it.
Also, there are people that say the Earth is a really big place and we don't have the power to influence it... I won't even bother commenting on that.

[SiN|ScarFace]

Carbon tax is bullshit, the earth is getting warmer, it is not because of mankind.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62022478442170 watch that and then rethink your position.

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

Well, im on the fence about the whole thing. Since im not a scientist, im not gonna say it is or it isnt. Taking that into account, i think its better to act as if it is gonna happen then it isnt.
To sit and go "we dont know what will happen" could just result in the screw up but to do something and not know doesnt really have any consequences(except someone gets rich elsewhere). Besides, cleaner energy usualy happens to be renewable and considering the whole oil thing, it doesnt seem like a bad idea.
That reminds me of my Economics teacher. He says that his whole house is powered by solar pannels. Hes got it down so well, that his energy bill is negative and he makes money from going on holiday!
Now thats class

...mongol...

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

in reverse order:
Taking that into account, i think its better to act as if it is gonna happen then it isn't.
The most extreme proposal ( never happen ) would plunge the world into a massive economic depression which would lead to wars which would dirty the atmosphere.
That reminds me of my Economics teacher. He says that his whole house is powered by solar panels. Hes got it down so well, that his energy bill is negative and he makes money from going on holiday!
Now thats class
It may have changed but in the 90's the electric company was required to buy excess home generated power from you at market rates in NY anyway.
@ DesertFox... I checked some of the cites in the book and they are real.
We need to protect the environment and the idea that industry can be trusted to self-police itself is ludicrous.
But at the same time we need to manage the ecosystem because we are causing more and faster changes than the system can adjust to.
Clean renewable energy is in everyone's interest but like over-the-top drug education in the 80's ( when I was young ) when you bullshit people and they find out then they don't trust anything you say, so telling the truth as we know it concerning global warming and pollution is again in everyone's best interests.

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

This is what I'm talking about with the bullsh t that is accepted as fact and pushed in an almost facist way.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...3-c904feb71047

[ArmedDrunk&Angry]

Energy Independance really means going from being beholden to the OPEC to Iowa.
You hear all about ethanol now on the campaign trail.

Comments such as:
"Ramp up the availability of ethanol," says Hillary Clinton.
"We've got to get serious about ethanol," says Rudolph Giuliani.
"60 Minutes" called it "the solution."

But consumers(IE you and I) won't reward them, because without subsidies, ethanol would cost much more than gasoline. Both political parties are to blame for the corn subsidies.

The claim that using ethanol will save energy is another myth. Studies show that the amount of energy ethanol produces and the amount needed to make it are roughly the same. Fellas, itt takes a lot of fossil fuels to make the fertilizer, to run the tractor, to build the silo, to get that corn to a processing plant, to run the processing plant. .

Sorry Guys, but ethanol degrades, it can't be moved in pipelines the way that gasoline is. So many more big, polluting trucks will be needed to haul it. What was that about energy independence?

More bad news gents: The increased push for ethanol has already led to a sharp increase in corn growing -- which means much more land must be plowed. That means much more fertilizer, more water used on farms and more pesticides.

This makes ethanol the "solution"?

But won't it at least get us unhooked from Middle East oil? Wouldn't that be worth the other costs? Another myth. A University of Minnesota study shows that even turning all of America's corn into ethanol would meet only 12 percent of our gasoline demand. As Taylor told an energy conference last March, "For corn ethanol to completely displace gasoline consumption in this country, we would need to appropriate all cropland in the United States, turn it completely over to corn-ethanol production, and then find 20 percent more land on top of that for cultivation."

OK, but it will cut down on air pollution, right? Wrong again. Studies indicate that the standard mixture of 90 percent ethanol and 10 percent gasoline pollutes worse than gasoline.

Well, then, the ethanol champs must be right when they say it will reduce greenhouse gases and reverse global warming.

Nope. "Virtually all studies show that the greenhouse gases associated with ethanol are about the same as those associated with conventional gasoline once we examine the entire life cycle of the two fuels," Taylor says.

Surely, ethanol must be good for something. And here we finally have a fact. It is good for something -- or at least someone: corn farmers and processors of ethanol, such as Archer Daniels Midland, the big food processor known for its savvy at getting subsidies out of the taxpayers.

And it's good for vote-hungry presidential hopefuls. Iowa is a key state in the presidential-nomination sweepstakes, and we all know what they grow in Iowa. Sen. Clinton voted against ethanol 17 times until she started running for president. Coincidence?

=========================
Now, let's get on to Mike's breakdown of Newt's statement and his arguement about SA, oil and the 9/11 hijackers. Anyone hear Carter's comments about "the worst foreign policy ever..."?

Let's do a quick review of what happend during this dipshits tenure and you tell me why we are in this WAR?

Iran:On taking office in 1977, Carter declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. America's ally, the Shah of Iran, was one of his first targets, with Carter chastising him for his human rights record and withdrawing America's support.
One of the charges was that the Shah had been torturing about 3,000 prisoners, many of them accused of being Soviet agents. Carter sent a clear message to the Islamic fundamentalists that America would not come to the Shah's aid. His anti-Shah speeches blared from public address systems in downtown Tehran.
The irony, as noted by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute in his book, "The Real Jimmy Carter," is that the regime of Ayatollah Khomeini "executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's SAVAK had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." Khomeini's regime was a human rights nightmare.
When Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in 1979, he established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and the jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. embassy was stormed that November and 52 American hostages were held for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind.
The wreckage of Carter's foreign policy was seen in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages, a plan never formally presented to the Joint Chiefs, resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines. The rest, as they say, is history.

Hezbollah
As we have noted, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini who introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and who paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible.
It was Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. Marines in their Beirut barracks in 1982.
The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan, and it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. The Iranian revolution led to the Iraq-Iran War that took a million lives and encouraged Hussein to invade Kuwait to strengthen his position.
That led to Operation Desert Storm and bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan. Now we're about to face a nuclear Iran as we are embroiled in a war on terror.
If we'd stuck by the Shah and his successors, the history of the last 25 years in the Middle East and here at home would have been very different. As Hayward observes, the fruits of Carter's Iran disaster are with us still, spawning the rise of radical Islam, terrorism, the Taliban and al-Qaida.

North Korea: When President Clinton first learned of the North Korean nuclear program in 1994, a surgical strike against its Yongbyong reactor might have sufficed to send Pyongyang a message that a nuclear North Korea was unacceptable.
Instead, Clinton allowed Jimmy Carter to engage in some private foreign policy and jet off to the last Stalinist regime on earth to broker a deal whereby North Korea would promise to forgo a nuclear weapons program in exchange for a basket of goodies that included oil, fool and, amazingly, nuclear technology.
Along the way, Carter praised North Korea's mass-murdering dictator as a "vigorous and intelligent man." And of North Korea itself, Carter said of this habitat for inhumanity: "I don't see they are an outlaw nation."

Cold War:
Jimmy Carter also once challenged Ronald Reagan's "aggressive" and successful strategy for winning the Cold War. Perhaps he'd like to send one of his Habitat for Humanity crews to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by tyrannical brick. The fact is that Jimmy Carter could not have done more to damage our national security had he been a hand-picked mole planted in the White House by the KGB.
When Carter left office, the Soviet Union was on the march from Grenada to Afghanistan, control of the strategic Panama Canal had been given away, our military had planes that couldn't fly and ships that couldn't sail for lack of trained crews and spare parts, production of the B-1 strategic bomber had been canceled and our economy was in no shape to resist Soviet expansion.
Jimmy Carter, the man who makes Neville Chamberlain look like Dirty Harry, made his remarks about President Bush while promoting his audiobook series of Bible lessons for children. Jimmy, thou shalt not bear false witness against your president and country. Haven't you done enough damage? If you want to see our worst ex-president, look in the mirror.

[[R-MOD]Mongolian_dude]

Originally Posted by ArmedDrunk&Angry

in reverse order:
Taking that into account, i think its better to act as if it is gonna happen then it isn't.
The most extreme proposal ( never happen ) would plunge the world into a massive economic depression which would lead to wars which would dirty the atmosphere.

But surely the fact that everyone has their own supply of non-depletable, renewable energy would kinda stop that. I mean what could be worse than oil wars? Hell, we'd be forlking it out for some of Africa's finest solar energy.
Wouldnt it just open up a huge new market?

...mongol...

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by [R-MOD]Mongolian_dude

Well, im on the fence about the whole thing. Since im not a scientist, im not gonna say it is or it isnt. Taking that into account, i think its better to act as if it is gonna happen then it isnt.
To sit and go "we dont know what will happen" could just result in the screw up but to do something and not know doesnt really have any consequences(except someone gets rich elsewhere). Besides, cleaner energy usualy happens to be renewable and considering the whole oil thing, it doesnt seem like a bad idea.
That reminds me of my Economics teacher. He says that his whole house is powered by solar pannels. Hes got it down so well, that his energy bill is negative and he makes money from going on holiday!
Now thats class

...mongol...

Best so far ;P lol