cybercoma Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 You asked for an answer to a question. It was provided in a simple and clear way. You didn't like the answer because it was childish. I'm only saying the answer is as childish as the question was, so you have absolutely no room to complain about how the answer was presented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 You asked for an answer to a question. It was provided in a simple and clear way. You didn't like the answer because it was childish. I'm only saying the answer is as childish as the question was, so you have absolutely no room to complain about how the answer was presented. The answer was NOT PROVIDED. Many other members including 'warmies' also tried to correct the answer given and got nowhere. Then your bud waldo gave his typical 1000 word answers which only asked more questions but NOT providing an answer hence I had to dumb it down to the simple question. But hey...thanks for keeping up with the thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 has the "adult in the room" reported his 2 false accusations yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 ...doesn't mean I won't take the time to straighten people out that's right! You said you were an intervenor... didn't you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 The answer was NOT PROVIDED. Many other members including 'warmies' also tried to correct the answer given and got nowhere. Then your bud waldo gave his typical 1000 word answers which only asked more questions but NOT providing an answer hence I had to dumb it down to the simple question. But hey...thanks for keeping up with the thread. The answer was provided. It turned out to be NO. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 has the "adult in the room" reported his 2 false accusations yet? I (the adult) never had any intention of reporting...even after your numerous tantrums. So no worries waldingoman!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 The answer was provided. It turned out to be NO. Sorry. You should be sorry. Sorry to the public education system that failed you so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 You should be sorry. Sorry to the public education system that failed you so! I posted a link to provide you with some answers. You don't understand or choose not to move off your previously proven bogus assumption, that's your problem. B' bye. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accountability Now Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 I posted a link to provide you with some answers. You don't understand or choose not to move off your previously proven bogus assumption, that's your problem. B' bye. Yes....your kids link. That was duly noted. Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Yes....your kids link. That was duly noted. Lol Nope. That was a little dig from another member. My link was from the EPA. Too bad you didn't bother to read it. It would have set you free on this issue. It's still there of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Nope. That was a little dig from another member. My link was from the EPA. Too bad you didn't bother to read it. It would have set you free on this issue. It's still there of course.You probably believed nothing the U.S. government told you during the Bush era. Now anything the Obama regime tells us is gospel? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 You probably believed nothing the U.S. government told you during the Bush era. Now anything the Obama regime tells us is gospel? Funny how that happens, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 You probably believed nothing the U.S. government told you during the Bush era. Now anything the Obama regime tells us is gospel? Funny how that happens, eh? as you're replying to a post with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) linked reference, don't hesitate to state what policy/position differences you interpret existed between the EPA within the Bush admin versus the Obama admin..... particularly those within the Bush admin that you imply "wouldn't be believed today". Of course, one commonality across both administrations is U.S. Republican subversive attempts to undermine/gut/do away with the EPA... so there's that for you to factor as well, hey! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 (edited) You probably believed nothing the U.S. government told you during the Bush era. Now anything the Obama regime tells us is gospel? Good point....some of them pick and choose what to believe from the U.S. government based on ideological and political leanings. No worries...."climate change" data from the "denier nation" will always be there for them. The EPA was created by a Republican. Edited October 19, 2014 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 No worries...."climate change" data from the "denier nation" will always be there for them. don't be so, so, so hard on the U.S.... not sure why you want to call the U.S., as a nation, the "denier nation"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 19, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Good point....some of them pick and choose what to believe from the U.S. government based on ideological and political leanings. same request to you: "don't hesitate to state what policy/position differences you interpret existed between the EPA within the Bush admin versus the Obama admin..... particularly those within the Bush admin that you imply "wouldn't be believed today"." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Nope. That was a little dig from another member. My link was from the EPA. Too bad you didn't bother to read it. It would have set you free on this issue. It's still there of course. You probably believed nothing the U.S. government told you during the Bush era. Now anything the Obama regime tells us is gospel? And your reply has exactly what to do with CO2??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 Good point....some of them pick and choose what to believe from the U.S. government based on ideological and political leanings. No worries...."climate change" data from the "denier nation" will always be there for them. The EPA was created by a Republican. Really? I didn't think Republicans believed in science. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Oops, it looks like the deniers have now lost a significant player you may have thought would have been their ally. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/13/pentagon-releases-climate-plan-citing-security-threat-of-global-warming/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 Oops, it looks like the deniers have now lost a significant player you may have thought would have been their ally. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/10/13/pentagon-releases-climate-plan-citing-security-threat-of-global-warming/ The Pentagon works for the Obama administration. They can direct the Pentagon to produce any make-work project they want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted October 20, 2014 Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 The Pentagon works for the Obama administration. They can direct the Pentagon to produce any make-work project they want. Well I doubt the pentagon needs any more "make work" projects right now but al least one based on scientific data is better than one based on, oh, say, phony WMD.reports! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 20, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2014 The Pentagon works for the Obama administration. They can direct the Pentagon to produce any make-work project they want. perfect for this thread! Just perfect! So... we have a self-proclaimed, self-acknowledged MLW denier asserting that, essentially, not just the Pentagon... but also arms of the American Intelligence Community are in the bag for the Obama admin... creating, as you say, "make-work" projects! Let me expand a bit on MLW member OGFT's post with a few partial extracts of past related posts: ... of course, the U.S. National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is a key component within the overall U.S. intelligence community... and it's funding for this ASU initiative would appear to align with one of its funding branches; specifically, the NGA Academic Research Program (NARP): The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is the nation's primary source of geospatial intelligence, or GEOINT for the Department of Defense and the U.S. Intelligence Community. As a DOD combat support agency and a member of the IC, NGA provides GEOINT, in support of U.S. national security and defense, as well as disaster relief. GEOINT is the exploitation and analysis of imagery and geospatial information that describes, assesses and visually depicts physical features and geographically referenced activities on the Earth. The NGA Academic Research Program (NARP) is focused on innovative, far-reaching basic and applied research in science, technology, engineering and mathematics that has the potential to advance the GEOINT mission. The objective of the NARP is to support innovative, high-payoff research that provides the basis for revolutionary progress in areas of science and technology affecting the needs and mission of NGA. This research also supports the National System for Geospatial Intelligence, which is the combination of technology, systems and organizations that gather, produce, distribute and consume geospatial data and information. The end result is aimed at advancing GEOINT capabilities by improving analytical methods, enhancing and expanding systems capabilities, and leveraging resources for NGA, DOD and the IC. note the NGA provides support to DOD... and in that regard, I've previously written several references to the U.S. DOD's position on climate change as a U.S. national security threat. A somewhat dated post that spoke to the U.S. 2010 Quadrennial Defense Report... along with a CIA reference: ... • How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat? Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA. A Quadrennial Defense Review Report issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world." Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources." an update on that U.S. DOD 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review; per the U.S. DOD 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review: Climate change poses another significant challenge for the United States and the world at large. As greenhouse gas emissions increase, sea levels are rising, average global temperatures are increasing, and severe weather patterns are accelerating. These changes, coupled with other global dynamics, including growing, urbanizing, more affluent populations, and substantial economic growth in India, China, Brazil, and other nations, will devastate homes, land, and infrastructure. Climate change may exacerbate water scarcity and lead to sharp increases in food costs. The pressures caused by climate change will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world. These effects are threat multipliers that will aggravate stressors abroad such as poverty, environmental degradation, political instability, and social tensions – conditions that can enable terrorist activity and other forms of violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.