Key Bush backers rally to Fred Thompson

I saw that "Dept of Peace and Non-violence....." AhAHAHAHAH again! That was one of the most rediculous things I've ever seen. That wouldn't be used for any kind of gun-control at any point in the future, now would it (other than being a completely useless department that the government has no business wasting tax $$ on anyway). :rolleyes:

I do, however, agree that we MUST get out of NAFTA and the WTO (as well as the UN, WHO, end foreign aid, etc. etc.)

The environment is already over-protected and it's getting worse with this "we're causing global warming" nonsense.

Kucinich would represent drastic change, but it would not be ANYTHING close to what RP would attempt. Although I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would most definitely vote for him if he were nominated. I would vote for whoever Kucinich was running against.
 
I saw that "Dept of Peace and Non-violence....." AhAHAHAHAH again! That was one of the most rediculous things I've ever seen. That wouldn't be used for any kind of gun-control at any point in the future, now would it
Click to expand...
Under Kucinich it probably would only be used for gun control, you're probably right about that. Is it really all that bad of an idea though? I think keeping the country out of useless wars is a pretty good idea and this is what the department of peace should do. I don't think it would be much worse than the department of homeland security is now.

The environment is already over-protected and it's getting worse with this "we're causing global warming" nonsense.
Click to expand...
Ah a climate change denier, do you also not believe in evolution? Your grandkids will mad that you decided that global warming is not real when their water supplies dry up and they have no land that they can grow food on.

Here's something you should read:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Kucinich would represent drastic change, but it would not be ANYTHING close to what RP would attempt. Although I don't agree with Paul on everything, I would most definitely vote for him if he were nominated. I would vote for whoever Kucinich was running against.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% :D

Kucinich would be a very bad choice for president.
 
I think we may see eye-to-eye on more things that we think, but climate change is not one of them.

I have no doubt that global warming is real; I do, however, have a very difficult time believing that we are causing it. There have been heating and cooling cycles here on earth for much longer than man has been around.... There is proof of this in ice core samples taken from the poles.

I would also be hard-pressed to explain why other planets in our solar system are heating up..... I'm pretty sure our "impact" does not extend to other Mars. As well, the Earth has purged itself from volcanic blackout conditions in less than a decade, and there is little explanation of why previous ice ages have come and gone without human impact.

If Earth was the only planet warming I may be more inclined to believe the global warming hysteria. I happen to believe it's nothing more than a global control issue, and I think those behind the scened are doing a great job of marketing their scheme.

On evolution...... I believe there has been a certain amount of evolution (although I do subscribe to a divine creation along with some evolution), but I also believe that adaptation is often used to as attempted proof that evolutionary processes far outreached their true scope.


Oh, and by the way:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

There are all kinds of environmental articles out there. :rolleyes:
 
In your article they make a point of calling it a controversial theory, don't you think that says something?

I do, however, have a very difficult time believing that we are causing it.
Click to expand...
Well most scientists would disagree with you, the consensus is that humans are increasing the temperature of the planet.

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

The report defines "very likely" as a greater than 90% probability and represents the consensus of the scientific community.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

Oh, and by the way:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...s-warming.html

There are all kinds of environmental articles out there.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but most of them agree that humans are one of the main reasons the world is warming up.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004550,00.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070202-global-warming.html
 
Of course it's controversial (I seem to remember this term being used in a lot of articles pertaining to the individual RKBA view).... it goes against the main marketing push of the power brokers, and the scientists that speak out are discredited as the threats they are. We have been keeping track of the temperature (on a scientific basis) nowhere near long enough to say that an increase in temperature over a few decades is a long-term trend anyway. Wasn't it a "pending ice age" in the 70's?

I don't buy it. It's a narcissistic theory and it's making a lot of people rich and powerful (I wonder if Gore would cop to his involvement with the company that sells those bogus "carbon offsets?"). IMO it's a ploy to get control of the world economies and governments. What better way to control the planet than creating a "planetary crisis" in the form of a doomsday scenario that would open the door for MORE worldwide regulation.
 
The first article that I posted shows why a lot of what you're talking about is myth. I'll link directly to the answers for your convenience:

Wasn't it a "pending ice age" in the 70's?
Click to expand...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11643

What better way to control the planet than creating a "planetary crisis" in the form of a doomsday scenario that would open the door for MORE worldwide regulation.
Click to expand...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11653

There have been heating and cooling cycles here on earth for much longer than man has been around
Click to expand...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11647

I would also be hard-pressed to explain why other planets in our solar system are heating up..... I'm pretty sure our "impact" does not extend to other Mars.
Click to expand...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11642

We have been keeping track of the temperature (on a scientific basis) nowhere near long enough to say that an increase in temperature over a few decades is a long-term trend anyway.
Click to expand...
What about those ice-cores you mentioned? :confused:

Here's the answer to another myth (the biggest one I think):
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654
 
Just to keep this on topic, I like FDT from some of the quotes I've heard and the sense of humor the man seems to have -- something of a rarity in our politicians nowadays.

I'd think that a FDT and Ron Paul ticket would get people talking. Or it could backfire because too many people would see RP as a threat to the established system.

WRT "Global Warming".... I'm sorry B22 but your arguments about "most of them agree" is something of a myth itself. The UN's alphabet-soup committee keeps balking at releasing the names of the "scientists" and more than "just a handful" have requested their names be removed from the published list -- last I heard it was approaching 200 or so -- because of the disingenious methods used.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=c47c1209-233b-412c-b6d1-5c755457a8af

Besides, I just had an interesting conversation with an environmental engineer who's brother is a climatologist with NOAA. Contrary to your "most of them agree" statements, there are apparently many at NOAA who do not agree (that man is the primary cause). And the numbers are growing as they dig into the data. Several periods in history show warmer climates world-wide than we have today, from the Roman empire to the dark ages.

I think it was Will Rogers who said it best...
Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get.
 
When legions of what's left of the Goldwater conservatives are now saying "We don't want Bush anymore, we want a real conservative", there's definitely trouble being associated with him, yes.
 
Wow, great articles b22. When a bunch of "global warming" scientists who make their living off globabl warming being a problem all decide to poll each other on global wraming I wonder what the resutls will be? Wikipedia articles are also well know for the impartiality and adherence to truth.

You do realize that the medieval warming period was WARMER than it is today and resulted in one of the greatest explosions in human advancement in history? Strange that the globe heated up very rapidly then without man running a single IC engine... Then there was the Little Ice Age. Both seem to be CYCLICAL enviormental phases that all the "man is destroying the planet" hysterics seem to ignore. You may not remember it but in the 70s the cry was there was an "Ice Age Coming!!!" News stories and hype galore with scientists feeding off of the money it generated like bloated ticks on a host. Today's global warming hysterics are no different. They have yet to make any accurate predictions but they expect the entire world to uproot itself to conform to their utopian ideal. This is not nearly as much about climate control as it is people control.
 
Not all of them. I'd rather my enemy be my enemy to my face than pretend to be my friend and then try to stab me in the back.
 
Wow, great articles b22. When a bunch of "global warming" scientists who make their living off globabl warming being a problem all decide to poll each other on global wraming I wonder what the resutls will be? Wikipedia articles are also well know for the impartiality and adherence to truth.
Click to expand...

Hey, at least he didn't cite from the Democratic Underground this time.....:p
 
While it's not terribly scientific, it does seem that sunspot activity (and thus solar luminosity) seems to correllate fairly well to some of the supposed temperature increases.

Compare the chart used in B22's New Scientistreference here (or view the chart directly with this link)

With the color sunspot activity chart on this page from Oregon university. Also note that the page says there was a dearth of sunspot activity between 1645 and 1715 and indicates During the period 1645 to 1715 the Earth was unusually cold.

We just passed a solar maxima (max sunspot activity) around 2001 so we are just exiting a period of heightened activity. So I'll predict that the next update of the "global temperature" chart used in the New Scientist article should show something of a drop from about 2005 through 2010.
 
So I'll predict that the next update of the "global temperature" chart used in the New Scientist article should show something of a drop from about 2005 through 2010.
Click to expand...

That will be the earth overcorrectign due to the ravages man hath wrought upon it.

Remember the #1 rule of the Cataclysmic Climatologist: It is ALWAYS Bad and it is ALWAYS because of Man!

If it is unusually hot out it is Global Warming.

If it is abnormally cold out it is Global Warming.

If it is 72 degrees, partly sunny with a light southwesterly breeze it is Global Warming!
 
Climate change is a fact and it is man made, even Bush admin finally admitted that. But don't take my word for it, take Adam Smith's. You know, the invisible hand of the market? The smart money is being bet global warming being the reality it is.

I had thought this debate was over months ago. I thought only fools and zealots were still sticking to the energy company propaganda lines. Well...I guess that might still be true...never mind.
 
It is, isn't it. Is this a great country or what.

I read a lot too, some of it written by scientists and many of them disagree.

John
 
I've always been under the understanding that there's a consensus on the earth getting warmer. The debate is whether we're causing it.

How arrogant of us a species are we to think that we can accomplish such godlike feats as changing the world's climate permanently? The earth has buffers on everything. More CO2 equals more biomass. More biomass equals less CO2.

Funny how the loudest groups supporting the notion of man-made global warming are also the the same groups hating on industry, capitalism and globalization. Luddites.

Wait, what was the original topic again? Oh yeah, go Fred Thompson.
 
What's a scientist? The problem is not all scientists are created equal, yet many would have us believe that on this issue climitologists are the same as HS physics teachers. Well...they are both scientists.

I'm a scientist and probably know as much or more about the reliability of jet aircraft than anyone on this board. I'm fairly knowledgeble about statistics, since I have been a certified quality engineer and worked as a reliability engineer stating in the early 1990s. I have a fair amount of knowledge about machining and metalorgy but probably less than the majority of gunsmiths. I don't offer opinions on gunsmithing issues since my knowledge while better than the vast majority of folks is not specialised enough for that discussion. I will however debate physics and math with anyone, well not math PHDs they're just weird, but my best friend who has always called me Henry(after henry holyoak Lightcap the original hillbilly redneck philosopher) has a PHD in geo physics and we debate a lot(usually about woodworking). I will also debate soccer with anyone since I have played and coached for several decades now.

My wife is also a scientist, a physician to be exact. She can also debate a myriad of scientific issues with more or less expertise than most. However, only a fool would ever engage her in debate about cytochrome 35something or other metabolites and various nuerotransmitter response to certain chemicals. Just typing it gives me a headache.

There are probably less than a 200 people worldwide who know the science of climate change well enough to render a legitimate opinion on the subject, and all 200 are too busy to be here arguing with us mere mortals. My research has convinced me that at least 95% of these experts are of the same opinion. In any scientific debate you will always get 5-10% who disagree with everyone else.

This is a gun forum with hundreds of people with millions of hours and billions of rounds of experience and yet we are more able to come to a seeming consensus on something as complex as global warming than we are about which .357 is the better self defense round, or if maybe a .38 special +P is better than the .357 in actual application.

So, with all this concrete ballistic information and real world experience this forum can't form a consensus about whether a faster 125grain bullet is more lethal than a slower 158 grain bullet, but we're ready to argue with the guys who have spent their lives studying climate. Give me a break.

There is greater consensus about the extent and cause of global warming than there is about the correct self defense load. Hell, we can't even form a consensus about whether revolvers are better than semi-autos or whether we would all be better off with shotguns. And we want to argue global climate change with experts in the field?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top