bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 This contingency direction predates Obama. You do remember that delicate little aristocratic elitist named Bush, yes? The commissioned study was not Pentagon "contingency direction"....LOL! It's funny as hell to watch you gobble up whatever you can from our generated bullshit, real or imagined. Christ it's pathetic. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 (edited) The commissioned study was not Pentagon "contingency direction"....LOL! It's funny as hell to watch you gobble up whatever you can from our generated bullshit, real or imagined. Christ it's pathetic. Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about, on almost every topic, or is it merely your troll act? Edited February 16, 2010 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Do you honestly have no idea what you're talking about, on almost every topic, or is it merely your troll act? No, it's very important collaboration to save the world from global warming climate change. Don't you care about that? The world looks to the Pentagon for answers! We will save you...I promise. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 No, it's very important collaboration to save the world from global warming climate change. Don't you care about that? No, not at all. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 No, not at all. Fair enough....maybe if I can find the equivalent Canadian DND "contingency direction" on global warming you might get interested. Don't wait until Great Lakes states begin siphoning off all the water....it will be too late. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Fair enough....maybe if I can find the equivalent Canadian DND "contingency direction" on global warming you might get interested. Don't wait until Great Lakes states begin siphoning off all the water....it will be too late. Nope. Anything you present is interesting only as a curiosity of aggrieved and smug American nationalism; of the growing pussification of right-wing thought. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Nope. Anything you present is interesting only as a curiosity of aggrieved and smug American nationalism; of the growing pussification of right-wing thought. ...that's right...and you will keep playing along because it gives your life meaning. Praise Jesus! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bloodyminded Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 ...that's right...and you will keep playing along because it gives your life meaning. Praise Jesus! Praise him? That stupid dink owes me big time. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 That "price" is already factored in...we already know that. Nobody should expect otherwise....now it's time for the scheming "climatologists" to admit the same thing. But it's like the claim that since all news is biased, it's ok for us to create a news network that is blatantly biased. Just because corporations can fund fake studies that will dissuade people from getting good information, it's not the same as scientists who have an inherent bias as environmentalist types and skeptics. I can see that those scientists do try, by and large, to be objective. There is even a letter in the Climategate emails where a scientists scolds environmentalists for making unsubstantiated claims about the effects of GW. Now can anyone anywhere find an example of an oil corporation saying "No, we shouldn't make that extreme claim about global warming - it's not accurate.". I highly doubt it. And the reason for that goes to the prime objective of the two entities: corporations are supposed to make money, and scientists are supposed to advance science. Do scientists make mistakes ? Are they biased ? Yes, they're human but it's beyond cynical to say that it's the same thing for large corporations to fund disinformation campaigns - in effect, to resign yourself to the degeneration of science. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 oh, I get it... given a preoccupation with that little ole Bush preemptive thingee over there in the Eyerac, the, as you say, "scheming climatologists" were able to make hay with all that high-flaluting climaty stuff. Accepting to that, it's somewhat disconcerting to see how thinly spread your Make War Dept & Intelligencia must be. Don't you think the Ruskies are in on it? I mean, c'mon... those climatologists are smart guys... as you say, "scheming smart guys", but surely, they couldn't have hoodwinked both DoD and the CIA on their own - could they? No, you still don't get it. The US government cranks out all kinds of reviews and anlaysis from war colleges to the Rand Corporation. It even has operations plans for the invasion of Canada and the protection of Canada....at the same time! ok, that's a relief! I actually thought those DoD and Intelligencia strategic positions to AGW climate change were meaningful. So, where does one find their countering reports - those alternate summary reports where they downplay... even ignore... the need for strategic planning related to climate change’s impact on military operations and security? Right here: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next040227.htm not sure that's an ignore... even a downplay! I also kinda like that the article you link to actually sources your 2004 Pentagon report from... wait for it... the Greenpeace site. Clearly, the Pentagon has been breached (note: obviously August1991 was very astute in tagging this thread's OP with it's "leftist" lean... Greenpeace trumps the U.S. DoD and Intelligencia, as your hero Cheney would say, Big Time!) but I'm somewhat interested in the influence your referenced Pentagon report carried. Clearly, it should have rocked the foundations... perhaps it just got lost in the fog of Dubya's wars! Obviously your referenced Pentagon report recognized the critical challenges related to AGW climate change... strategy, risk assessment, innovation, visioning... and... executive intelligence. But, did executive Dubya listen - did he? Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us - Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war - Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years - Threat to the world is greater than terrorism nukes!!! Greater threat than terrorism... it's got it all. Dammit, nobody's listening to the U.S. Make War Dept & Intelligencia. Well... at least nobody who reads British tabloids or cuts&pastes blindly from the denialsphere - hey Shady? Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Well there are those of us who do acknowledge and worry about the conflict of interest on the part of climate scientists. I'm more worried that there is no corresponding sense of concern whatsoever over the likelihood that most polluting industries and their associated sciences, who out of a sense of self-interest, are likewise fudging their numbers. If anything I get the distinct sense that this is not just a non-issue for many AGW skeptics, it's actually acceptable. I'm all for pollution control. I'm all for maximizing the efficiency of energy production, distrubtion and use. I could probably be convinced that, presuming it was economically feasible, every new private dwelling in Canada would have to be equipped with geothermal heating and ac, and water recovery systems. I'd even be willing to have the government subsidize the extra cost. What I'm not for is spending tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, to try and "reduce carbon emissions" when there's absolutely no likelihood this will significantly deter global warming - presuming some part of that warming is caused by us to begin with. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bloodyminded Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Do scientists make mistakes ? Are they biased ? Yes, they're human but it's beyond cynical to say that it's the same thing for large corporations to fund disinformation campaigns - in effect, to resign yourself to the degeneration of science. Exactly! Well said. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Argus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Now can anyone anywhere find an example of an oil corporation saying "No, we shouldn't make that extreme claim about global warming - it's not accurate.". I highly doubt it. And the reason for that goes to the prime objective of the two entities: corporations are supposed to make money, and scientists are supposed to advance science. The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Questions over business deals of climate change guru Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 I'm all for pollution control. I'm all for maximizing the efficiency of energy production, distrubtion and use. I could probably be convinced that, presuming it was economically feasible, every new private dwelling in Canada would have to be equipped with geothermal heating and ac, and water recovery systems. I'd even be willing to have the government subsidize the extra cost. why bother with any of that... what's the point... what's the/your end game? What would you be trying to improve - to correct? Why buy into any of that touchy-feely stuff Argus? You going soft? What I'm not for is spending tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, to try and "reduce carbon emissions" when there's absolutely no likelihood this will significantly deter global warming - presuming some part of that warming is caused by us to begin with. we've beat the one point up pretty well... in respecting bush_cheney's want for us to revere his home of the brave... both the U.S. Supreme Court and EPA have ruled/designated CO2 as - pollution. You said you're for pollution control, ergo..... absolutely no likelihood Argus? On the Argus scale, what's the ppm level of CO2 where we should take notice and actually adapt/mitigate... not just think about it, but act upon it? Any considerations toward acting during the lead-up time to the Argus ppm level? Given your resolute certainty, your absoluteness, you must have that figure handy, right? Absolutely right, right? Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 why bother with any of that... what's the point... what's the/your end game? What would you be trying to improve - to correct? Energy efficiency is always a good thing, both environmentally and economically. absolutely no likelihood Argus? Even if by some miracle of environmental activism global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday. The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Global Warming not reversible Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 Energy efficiency is always a good thing, both environmentally and economically. why would you care about the environment? What's the point? What I'm not for is spending tens of billions, perhaps hundreds of billions, to try and "reduce carbon emissions" when there's absolutely no likelihood this will significantly deter global warming - presuming some part of that warming is caused by us to begin with.absolutely no likelihood Argus? On the Argus scale, what's the ppm level of CO2 where we should take notice and actually adapt/mitigate... not just think about it, but act upon it? Any considerations toward acting during the lead-up time to the Argus ppm level? Given your resolute certainty, your absoluteness, you must have that figure handy, right? Absolutely right, right? Even if by some miracle of environmental activism global carbon dioxide levels reverted to pre-industrial levels, it still would take 1,000 years or longer for the climate changes already triggered to be reversed, scientists said Monday.The gas that is already there and the heat that has been absorbed by the ocean will exert their effects for centuries, according to the analysis, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Global Warming not reversible you stated there was absolutely no likelihood that reducing carbon emissions would significantly, as you stated, "deter global warming". By linking to that article are you suggesting there's no point in doing anything... are you looking at the referenced retention time frame and inferring, "what's the point of doing anything at all"? Wouldn't that apply equally to your aforementioned acceptance towards efficiencies... "what's the point of doing anything at all"? Quote
Argus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 why would you care about the environment? What's the point? you stated there was absolutely no likelihood that reducing carbon emissions would significantly, as you stated, "deter global warming". By linking to that article are you suggesting there's no point in doing anything... are you looking at the referenced retention time frame and inferring, "what's the point of doing anything at all"? Wouldn't that apply equally to your aforementioned acceptance towards efficiencies... "what's the point of doing anything at all"? I've always found the Socratic method of debating unimaginative and boring. Apparently you don't suffer the same problem. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Shady Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 "what's the point of doing anything at all"? I thought he already answered that. Efficiency. Quote
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 I've always found the Socratic method of debating unimaginative and boring. Apparently you don't suffer the same problem. I suppose that's one way for you to avoid further discussion on something you're clearly not well versed in... tell me... what style of debate do you follow when you, without added comment, drop a blind link to an article and then refuse to elaborate on your intent with that blind link? What style of unimaginative and boring debate are you following in that regard. I didn't think it was too difficult a request for you to clarify your point - you spoke to an absolute unlikelihood that reducing carbon emissions would have any effect in detering AGW climate change... you then drop a link to an article that presumes on a study with a reference to "irreversibility". What are you stating/implying/inferring - it's just a most simple question. Quote
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 I thought he already answered that. Efficiency. wassup? Taking a tabloid break? did not realize you and Argus were tree-hugging types... in your concerns for the environment, would you consider carbon emission reductions as an efficiency that will help reduce impacts on the environment? Quote
Shady Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 why would you care about the environment? What's the point? See, this is your primary problem. You AGW true-believer/truth-denier types think that one can only care about the environment if you believe in the hoax of global warming. When that's not the case at all. One can be for cleaner water, cleaner air, and better stewards of the planet, without falling for the "CO2 is evil" crap that's peddled by corrupt scientists with a marxist/socialist agenda, and their stooges such as yourself. Quote
waldo Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 ..."CO2 is evil" crap that's peddled by corrupt scientists with a marxist/socialist agenda7 you should stick with your tabloid cut&paste routine Quote
jbg Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 I've always found the Socratic method of debating unimaginative and boring. Apparently you don't suffer the same problem. It's a master method of debating. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
William Ashley Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 You know there is something wrong when a discussion about Global Warming turns into a discussion about oil companies. Quote I was here.
Argus Posted February 16, 2010 Report Posted February 16, 2010 It's a master method of debating. Only if done intelligently, which lets waldo out. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
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.