ScottSA

I was shocked when I heard a talking head on theTV say our frigates are getting long in the tooth....seems like only yesterday they were commisioned and the talk was they were the most advanced ships of the class and size in the world..... They were, circa 1945. Poor poor macfeegle and your chronic inferiority complex...... when the frigates were launched there was not a ship in their class that could compete with them in any nation in the world. They had peachy new silhouettes and a few new gadgets. Let's not overdo it here.

Again, a foolish thing to say, and something which shows the bancruptcy of your argument. Besides, you're talking to at least two people who are over there, and they are both in favor of it, so if your argument is that only those who are there are worthy to speak of it, you ought to STFU and listen to what they say about it, right?

I seem to remember seeing something that says there are far more trees around the world today than 50 years ago. One doesn't need to be a scientist to understand the exponential magnification of error in a multi-variant hypothesis. There are so many variables at so many different levels feeding into this ridiculously labelled "consensus" that it is completely and utterly impossible to call it anything other than a faith based thesis. We are not even sure if there is a global warming trend, because the various levels of data are imprecise or corrupted, with some indicators suggesting warming and others cooling, and still others than weather is regional or even local. Even if we were to concede that GW is occuring, we run into the same issue of variables again in terms of causation, each with huge margins of error, each of which magnifies the potential of error from the stage before it. In fact, at this stage we're really just batting in the dark, pasting together marginally observable and imprecise data to form an a priori conclusion. The next stage is to take the essentially meaningless data, massage it, and feed it into hypothetical "models" that would be error prone even if they had to deal with certain, proven data. Needless to say, at this point anything can pop out, and the only thing controling the output is the bias of the researcher who chooses the input. Finally, and this is the real kicker, we are all assured that GW will be bad. Why will it be bad? Tree rings are bigger? Doesn't that mean trees are growing faster? Doesn't that mean growing cycles are longer and stronger? Doesn't that mean more food can be produced in a shorter time and more people can be fed? Doesn't that mean the same thing will happen as happened in the Little Optimum (one of those other inconvenient cogs in the gears of the manmade GW hysteria), and more prosperity will ensue? And what will we pay for all this added bounty? Hurricanes are 2-3 miles an hour faster than before, and the sea level rises a bit. Shouldn't we be actually increasing the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere on the off chance that it will have the slightest effect on the weather?

nice. he's only a soldier over there NOW. Could you be anymore pompous? such ignorance. Yes, he is a soldier over there right now. and right now, as a soldier over there putting his life on the line to achieve to goals of the canadian government - he still doesnt know why he's there. He thinks he's there to defeat evil Islam the Taliban and Al Queda. That may very well be his own personal ambition but thats not why the Canadian government sent him there...and he knows that very well. I might suggest you refrain from drinking and posting at the same time I suggest you stop kissing ass. It's a shame that you don't see, first, the fact that you are going beyond insult in your dealings with active duty soldiers, and second, that you don't have the elementary common sense to see what "negotiations" mean in this context. What should we negotiate about? 1 We can't negotiate on the basis of political power sharing, because we believe in democracy and they believe in theocratic authoritarianism. It would be like negotiating a form of government with Hitler. We would have to convince the Taliban that democracy is better than ordained theocracy, that Jefferson is better than Mohammed and smarter than Allah. How likely is that? 2 We can't negotiate on the basis of territorial division, because if we split the north from the south, the Taliban will constantly be on the warpath. What is peace to them if Allah wants it otherwise? 3 They have no more intention of bargaining in good faith than the North Vietnamese did in the Paris peace talks. You must be aware that they put a fair bit of stock in what the Koran says, and the Koran is quite explicit that the Musselman can lie through his teeth, construct temporary truces, and make fake peace treaties if it will help the Ummah bring other lands under it's influence. You and Jack are completely fooling yourselves that these folks see things the way you do. Peace is paramount to you and Jack. "Better red than dead" is the gang of folks you would have hung out with a few years ago. You see peace as the ultimate virtue, which is fine, since you can afford to for now, but the Taliban doesn't. You believe that everyone just wants peace. The Taliban scoffs at people like you for imagining that peace is anything but an afterthought to the success of Jihad.

I was shocked when I heard a talking head on theTV say our frigates are getting long in the tooth....seems like only yesterday they were commisioned and the talk was they were the most advanced ships of the class and size in the world..... They were, circa 1945.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19606530/ <<He denounced Egypt, Jordan and Saudi at length. He warned Iraq’s Sunni minority against seeing them as allies, saying they pretend to support the Sunni cause while allying themselves with the United States. If Saudi Arabia controls Iraq or Sunni regions of Iraq, “the Iraqis would then suffer the same repression and humiliation which the people suffer under Saudi rule under the pretext of combating terrorism — i.e., combatting jihad and preserving American security,” al-Zawahri said. The al-Qaida deputy also laid out an al-Qaida strategy, saying in the near-term militant should target U.S. and Israeli interests “everywhere” in retaliation for “attacks on the Islamic nation” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. The long-term strategy calls for “diligent work to change these corrupt and corrupting (Arab) regimes.” >> Just doing as you say: listening to their self-articulated reasons for jihad. Want to tell me how off the mark I was? Oh sorry, I didn't realize that what you meant by "oppression" was governments that oppressed al Queda. Yes, there are rather a lot of them. I take it you feel that we should un-ally ourselves with those countries and instead embrace Islamic theocracies that spring up waving scimitars and howling for our blood? After all, if al queda doesn't like them... Do you really mean to argue this line of reasoning?

I doubt that. Citation please. I don't need a citation. I'm a creationist and I don't reject evolution. You are not a creationist. You may be a believer in the great architect, or someone who hold that the Prime Mover started it all, but you are not a creationist. A creationist is someone who believes in the literal biblical account of creation. While you may say that your definition suits you, it is only your definition and it isn't shared by anyone else. Allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

What a surprise.

I agree. I'm sure the intent of those tie dyed teachers back in the 60s and 70s was to break through the myopic canons of the day and produce a generation of students with an awareness that went beyond the western perspective, but I wonder if they knew that in doing so they would produce a second generation of self-hating ideologues with no sense of formal history, no sense of what the rest of the world actually is like, and so divorced from the realities of life that their idea of foreign policy, moral fortitude, and right and wrong is captured in the single vague notion of "peace," and worse yet, "peace at all costs."

The difference between the terms "government" and "regime."

Nuking...I understand, Scottsa, that you're quite willing to punish the innocent for the crimes of a few; That you subscribe to the terrorist mantra that all civilians are justifiable targets; That there are no innocents. You are playing right into AlQueda's hands. You are the usefull idiot. Right. But would you like to answer the question? Why do you think we're still there? I get the definite sense that you'd like to do nothing at all and simply watch the world waft by, perfectly secure in the notion that no one wishes us ill and that if they do, we'd be much better to cringe away than to fight.

Don't you think the fact that the Chinese themselves use Pinyin for their own purposes was what triggered the shift? It is kind of silly for any non-Chinese Sinologist to insist on using something else under the circumstances. Much is silly in academia, not least the debates over Wade-Giles and Pinyin.

Typical right-wing two-faced hack. Didn't hear you chomping at the bit to liberate the downtrodden in North Korea...nope. silence regarding democracy and human rights there. So in an effort to be an evenhanded lefty, would you care to suggest we ought to attack North Korea too? It's only fair. Maybe we oughta take a few rounds out of China too, what with sweatshops and pollution. Would it be hypocritical to go save Darfur when we have all those beheadings going on in Indonesia? Goodness, what shall we do in an effort to be perfectly fair, evenhanded, and equitable? Nothing? Or should we dither about, tapping warlords on the shoulder and reminding them that the good book says we ought not step on each other's toes, much less commit genocide and mass rapes, so would they be so kind as to sip tea and nibble crumpets with us while we 'negotiate' more acceptable ways to enslave and disappear huge swathes of the population?" Bullshit. Weaponeers whole point is to make political hay. Leftards are chickenshits is his claim. Leftys care not about anyone else - only themselves. The facts are this ScottSA: No one made any efforts whatsoever to intervene in Afghanistan when the Taliban were taking over the country. Nobody - Nobody in the military was advocating a need to stop the Taliban from siezing control of the country. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. Now weaponeer and yourself are on about how the muslim world must be defeated/conquered/outlawed for the sake of mankind/democracy/freedom/education of little girls and a hundred other boilerplate excuses that didn't mean shit on Sept 10th 2001 and don't mean shit today. Its bullshit and lies pulled out by you and weaponeer. The proof of that is that the fact that nobody advocates interfereing/liberating anywhere else - only Afghanistan. All this care about humanity you and weaponeer claim for yourselves is absolute Lies and bullshit. If you and weaponeer are to be believed then you would agree that North Korea, China, and a hundred other places in the world need saving. You don't. You never have. Its political spin. Its hackery. You're right. We should have just nuked it till it glowed. But I think you miss the point. We attacked those countries because it was in the national interest to do so. But it's not in the national interest to stay, so there must be some other reason. Without merely reaching for the lefty boilerplate of "oil" and "Haliburton", can you suggest why we're there? After all, wouldn't it make more sense just to bomb it to rubble and leave them in the stoneage?

Your entire argument was based on the fact that "Occam's razor" gets more hits in google than "Ockham's razor" & that it is used by more academics, and therefore is the only acceptable spelling. When I showed you that "color" also gets more hits in google than "colour" and that "color" is used by more academics than "colour", knowing that "colour" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, you change your argument to make it sound like the spelling "Ockham" hasn't been used in a long time. Why don't you take another look at that Link I provided you and take notice of the dates of those "academic" publications. You might want to re-think where you are going with this... No, I'm going to rethink the point of trying to explain this to you. I daresay you can find a number of recent articles using Wade-Giles translation, but that doesn't mean Wade-Giles translation is the one commonly accepted in academia. Ockham is archaic, Occam is not. Now really, if you can't grasp this simple fact without banging your head against the issue, lets drop it, ok?

Typical right-wing two-faced hack. Didn't hear you chomping at the bit to liberate the downtrodden in North Korea...nope. silence regarding democracy and human rights there. So in an effort to be an evenhanded lefty, would you care to suggest we ought to attack North Korea too? It's only fair. Maybe we oughta take a few rounds out of China too, what with sweatshops and pollution. Would it be hypocritical to go save Darfur when we have all those beheadings going on in Indonesia? Goodness, what shall we do in an effort to be perfectly fair, evenhanded, and equitable? Nothing? Or should we dither about, tapping warlords on the shoulder and reminding them that the good book says we ought not step on each other's toes, much less commit genocide and mass rapes, so would they be so kind as to sip tea and nibble crumpets with us while we 'negotiate' more acceptable ways to enslave and disappear huge swathes of the population?"

I just googled "color" and "colour", and "color" came up with way more hits. When I searched "colour" in wikipedia, it sent me to "color" as well. Are you now going to tell me that means it's wrong for me to spell color as "colour"? Why can't you just admit you made a mistake, is that really so hard to do? You spell colour any way you want. I'm talking about the accepted academic rendering of Occam's razor. I don't believe the proper spelling of colour is at issue in academia. On the off chance that you don't have any notion of academia at all, let me introduce you to another similar overthrow of usage: Once upon a time, Mandarin was translated into English via Wade-Giles. Through this school of translation, we get "Peking," "ching," and "Mao Tse Tung." Then one day, round about the 1950s and 60s, a new form of translation named "Pinyin" came along. Buckets of ink were spilled in debating the proper form to use in Mandarin translation. The wars among Sinologists raged back and forth, with each side heaping scorn on the other, but guess what? Lo and behold, today we know them as "Beijing, "jing," and "Mao Zedong," respectively. Know why? Because one gave way to the other as proper usage. That's what happens in academia. It happens all the time, and that's the fate of Ockham. It turned into Occam a long time ago. So you see, it's just not as simple as you thought, is it?

Maybe if I try one more time, but this time putting the emphasis on a different part: "Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution." It IS possible for human activity to have a significant impact on global warming without knowing exactly how much other effects may have. If you still can't see that, I can't help you... You are either being obtuse or dishonest. Obviously I can't help you either. Guess we'll have to leave the other folks to decide if Bush is agreeing with you in the claim that man is causing global warming. Kinda too bad you refuse to see it in context though...

Do you read what you write before you post it?

I love it when people can't admit they are wrong. Perhaps you should be arguing with all of These Academics I don't need to argue with those academics. The accepted rendering of it is Occam's razor." If you google it my way I will gaurantee you'll find hundreds more academics using the proper spelling. Ockham is archaic and hasn't been in wide use in decades. It's not clear to me why you're persisting with this nonsense. Even wiki sends you to 'Occam' when you google 'Ockham'. What's your problem?

No I didn't miss it. I actually read it. What you left out, either through sloppiness or dishonesty, is the context. Here's the context. Does this still sound like he's saying what you're claiming he's saying? There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity. Yet, the Academy's report tells us that we do not know how much effect natural fluctuations in climate may have had on warming. We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future. We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it.

If you know anything about tax law at all, you must see the giant glaring problem with trying to use this to claim that taxes are higher in the states. You cannot simply lump in various costs and call them taxes. They are not, any more than a benefit or social equalization is a tax rebate.

HA! Your the idiot who claimed he didnt support the idea. I absolutely read the article where Bush cites the National Academy of Sciences and states how there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution. What the hell do you think he was saying? But even if I hadnt read it, does it change the fact that your talking out of your ass and shitting out of your mouth? No it doesnt. And it was not about citing Bush as an 'expert' on global warming, it was pointing out that even he- the leader of the administration that for so long fought against the idea- now accepts it. How friggin dense are you? In the interests of saving you from walking around with a glowing dunce hat, here's what you originally said: "...have all issued statements concluding the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling." Here's the argument you're now trying to flog as if it was the original one: "there has been a dramatic increase of CO2 since the industrial revolution." Let's see if you can figure out the difference between those two statements. It shouldn't be hard, since it's the main point of debate in the whole GW debate. Go for it!

I think the only confusion lies with you confusing "effective" with "average." The two terms I used were "marginal" and "effective." "Average" is something else entirely, and I have no idea why you inserted it in the argument. You do know what an effective tax rate is, right? I suggest you not confuse government transfers to public goods and equalizations as "rebates," since they are nothing of the sort, and don't even approximate rebates in effect. As I said, many people with half-decent jobs pay 45% in tax; well over any state in the US except possibly Alaska.

It certainly would be an investment and not something that could be done overnight. It would also have to be something that was coordinated with our allies. I'm not sure if you are arguing it is unnecessary or impossible. I think weaponeer has something in mind similar to JTF2, and that is truly a rapid response force, but it has severe limitations in capability. I suspect what you have a mind is a larger force, flexible enough to counter any threat. Am I right?