|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 22, 2007 5:15:01 GMT -5
Time to wade on in with a little bit of moderation. And weather has fluctuated over the millennium so that it has been warmer and green and colder and white. And THAT is my point. Weather has ALWAYS flactuated radicaly but now it's about "human cause". Why? WHY? Is there an agenda behind it? Sorry, HA . . . the answer is “yes”. At one time Ethiopia and surrounding countries were lush and arable. However, the watershed was destroyed through deforestation, and the desert encroached on the land (and lands around). Yup, human greed did it. Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "carbon emissions". And THAT is my point. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 22, 2007 5:30:59 GMT -5
BAD example....REALLY BAD example. LOL! I thought it was a good example.First..... UN statistics are not worth writing on toilet paper these UN stats are rain measurement, pretty hard to misinterpret, unless you invent them. The UN will come up with anything that will support it's slant of the month. Do you know what what my second task for a Canadian division of a huge multinational? "Creating" statistics that justified equipment expenditures. Heck, if anyone questioned them, I could point to a Masters degree in engineering. That was no different BS shield as the "scientific consensus" that the IPCC and followers love to quote. And of course it second nature for a BS statistic sculptor to recognize other peoples BS sculptures I've done enough statistics to distinguish bad methododogy, and slanted interpretation from honest ones. I started my career BS'ing statistics to prove/show whatever my bosses needed in order to put food on the table that's really sad. The UN and it's specific interests is no different. No crisis, the UN becomes more irrelevant then it is and there goes the FUNDING the UN first goal is to prevent crisis, namely another world war Second....and for the record.....Ropoflu, answer me this. A huge part of the Sahara had running water 5000 to 10000 years ago and has slowly key word dried up. Did humans also cause "climate change" that far back? Probably not see Franko's answer So if humans did NOT , then you have to admit that climate change occurs naturally yes it does and has NOTHING to do with "carbon is the human cause of global warming the recent scientific litterature that i came across tend to say the opposite (I doing my master degree in environmental science and Ive done Managment at McGill before thatm so I'm not your classic hippy) ". You can't have both. yes you can LOL! Is it Pepsi or is it Coke? neither, but a beer most certainly. It's to debate you point by point if you do it this way. Anywho, I have to do the work thingy but I wll respond later. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 22, 2007 5:41:46 GMT -5
Time to wade on in with a little bit of moderation. And weather has fluctuated over the millennium so that it has been warmer and green and colder and white. And THAT is my point. Weather has ALWAYS flactuated radicaly but now it's about "human cause". Why? WHY? Is there an agenda behind it? I wasn't trying to refute your point ... in fact, as you well know, I am on your side of the fence. I was only supplying personal anecdoctal information that I am proud of ... how many people does anyone know who have been to Greenland? Sorry if you took offense and if it seemed if I was trying to come across as an (whatever you want to call me?) nit-picker I guess ... or something stronger? |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 22, 2007 6:35:58 GMT -5
Sorry, HA . . . the answer is “yes”. At one time Ethiopia and surrounding countries were lush and arable. However, the watershed was destroyed through deforestation, and the desert encroached on the land (and lands around). Yup, human greed did it. Which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with "carbon emissions". And THAT is my point. I'll see your point and raise you more rhetoric ;D . I wasn't referring to carbon emissions -- just to the human fingerprint on the decaying ecosystem. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 22, 2007 16:02:12 GMT -5
And THAT is my point. Weather has ALWAYS flactuated radicaly but now it's about "human cause". Why? WHY? Is there an agenda behind it? I wasn't trying to refute your point ... in fact, as you well know, I am on your side of the fence. I was only supplying personal anecdoctal information that I am proud of ... how many people does anyone know who have been to Greenland? Sorry if you took offense and if it seemed if I was trying to come across as an (whatever you want to call me?) nit-picker I guess ... or something stronger? I wasn't offended one iota, particularly from you. Perhaps I showed some fustration on the subject. It's fustrating to see the skating and evasivness when someone hammers home "inconvinient truths" about "human cause" of climate change. Take for example the "scientist" who attributes "human caused global warming" causing droughts which in turn caused social upheaval. That is the most asinine thing that I ever heard. Yet it's out there in the general public and the media as another "truth". The FACT is that Africa, more then any other continent, has a highly varied and changing eco system over the last several millenia. It has nothing to do with humans but yet, here we are. The FACT that the Sahara desert has dried up over the last several thousand years has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with humans is totally ignored, only to hear, "well the scientist said and who are you". They even found 4000 year old cave paintings that portrayed running rivers and animal life where it is now desert. And yet, here we are, your exhaust pipe caused all this misery and massacres. *sigh* You see variations of this BS an any given night in the media. A river dires up? It's human cause glabal warming. The fact that the lake got diverted has by irrigation is totally ignored and SOME people bend backwards to bend reality. Case in point, two years ago I was in Greece. While visiting family in the village my father was born, I came across some university students who where doing government funded university research. There is a river that runs near the town. It has dried up because people has siphon it off to irrigate their fields. EVERYBODY and their sheep knows this. Yet, there they were, studying the link between global waeming and the disappearing rivers. For crying out loud, they were sitting on CEMENT TROUGHS (canals) that diverted the river, and yet they could not see those troughs. They did some rudementry surveying of the river to establish "historic flows" and calculating surface evaporation rates from increased temperatures (which is ridiculously small) and yet they couldn't see those large, grey cement troughs. They were even asking the local residents how many times the river overflowed the banks in order to establish a link between "rapidly changing rain patterns caused by global warming". They worked hard to find every possible link and yet they did not see those DAMN CEMENT TROUGHS. They were in HEAVEN when my father told them that the river use to come to the edge of our property 50 years ago and yet they totally ignored him when he told them that 50 years ago the people strugggled to irrigated their fields and orchards with little mud troughs instead of these huge meter wide, meter deep cement troughs. Dammit, if only they could link those freaken troughs to global warming, they would be well on their way to becoming world renown enviromental scientists. Heck, they could even be sidekicks to Gore The Saviour. Common sense and black and white reality has left the building.  P.S. I probably will go to Greece this year and I am going to see if I can get my hands on that study and take pictures of the troughs. |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 22, 2007 22:10:22 GMT -5
I wasn't trying to refute your point ... in fact, as you well know, I am on your side of the fence. I was only supplying personal anecdoctal information that I am proud of ... how many people does anyone know who have been to Greenland? Sorry if you took offense and if it seemed if I was trying to come across as an (whatever you want to call me?) nit-picker I guess ... or something stronger? I wasn't offended one iota, particularly from you. Perhaps I showed some fustration on the subject. It's fustrating to see the skating and evasivness when someone hammers home "inconvinient truths" about "human cause" of climate change. Take for example the "scientist" who attributes "human caused global warming" causing droughts which in turn caused social upheaval. That is the most asinine thing that I ever heard. Yet it's out there in the general public and the media as another "truth". The FACT is that Africa, more then any other continent, has a highly varied and changing eco system over the last several millenia. It has nothing to do with humans but yet, here we are. The FACT that the Sahara desert has dried up over the last several thousand years has NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING to do with humans is totally ignored, only to hear, "well the scientist said and who are you". They even found 4000 year old cave paintings that portrayed running rivers and animal life where it is now desert. And yet, here we are, your exhaust pipe caused all this misery and massacres. *sigh* You see variations of this BS an any given night in the media. A river dires up? It's human cause glabal warming. The fact that the lake got diverted has by irrigation is totally ignored and SOME people bend backwards to bend reality. Case in point, two years ago I was in Greece. While visiting family in the village my father was born, I came across some university students who where doing government funded university research. There is a river that runs near the town. It has dried up because people has siphon it off to irrigate their fields. EVERYBODY and their sheep knows this. Yet, there they were, studying the link between global waeming and the disappearing rivers. For crying out loud, they were sitting on CEMENT TROUGHS (canals) that diverted the river, and yet they could not see those troughs. They did some rudementry surveying of the river to establish "historic flows" and calculating surface evaporation rates from increased temperatures (which is ridiculously small) and yet they couldn't see those large, grey cement troughs. They were even asking the local residents how many times the river overflowed the banks in order to establish a link between "rapidly changing rain patterns caused by global warming". They worked hard to find every possible link and yet they did not see those DAMN CEMENT TROUGHS. They were in HEAVEN when my father told them that the river use to come to the edge of our property 50 years ago and yet they totally ignored him when he told them that 50 years ago the people strugggled to irrigated their fields and orchards with little mud troughs instead of these huge meter wide, meter deep cement troughs. Dammit, if only they could link those freaken troughs to global warming, they would be well on their way to becoming world renown enviromental scientists. Heck, they could even be sidekicks to Gore The Saviour. Common sense and black and white reality has left the building. P.S. I probably will go to Greece this year and I am going to see if I can get my hands on that study and take pictures of the troughs. I can't help but I'm feeling targeted by that little story of yours. In a previous post where I said I was doing my master in Environmental Sciences, you reply promising that you'll get back with some answers. Is that it? An anecdote about some shockingly clueless environmental science students. Are you trying to demonstrate that we are all the same? Bravo. Quite impressive. Obviously, constructive debate seems impossible in this case here since we live in two different worlds. Learning to know each others positions could have been the better and richer option, but I just don't think your attitude is suited for that. I have the impression that your not just a cranky persona, but also aggressive, excessive (nice attribute for a moderator), and sometimes violent (see overuse of words like moron and nazi). And you're now resorting to some indirect cheap shot attempt at diminishing another poster credibility (me). On the numerous climate changes threads, I just wanted to propose a different point of view, but it seems there is little space here for other ideas than yours. That's too bad. |
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Jun 23, 2007 14:57:22 GMT -5
I'd like to make a more general point. Science is often complicated, full of facts that may appear contradictory to the lay-person. Pick any scientific theory and you can probably find some facts that you could use to convince some people that the theory is wrong. These people don't have to be stupid or uneducated, they just aren't experts in that particular area of science. The point is, the existence of such apparent contradictions doesn't disprove the theory.
This property of science seems to be at the center of a campaign to discredit theories about climate change in the mind of the general public, and I blame the media for being complicit in it, though probably mostly unintentionally. Far too often, articles about scientific topics (not only climate change) are published in newspapers with a smattering of scientific facts and no depth or explanation. There's a difference between explaining science so that the non-expert can understand it, and cherry-picking facts to give the impression that the author knows what they're talking about and to give the reader the feeling that they understand something when in fact they do not. Perhaps it's because people are so used to reading such articles that they aren't able to distinguish good scientific reporting from bad, and real science from pseudo-science. This is but one way in which I feel that the news media have dramatically failed us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 23, 2007 22:29:23 GMT -5
I can't help but I'm feeling targeted by that little story of yours. In a previous post where I said I was doing my master in Environmental Sciences, you reply promising that you'll get back with some answers. Is that it? An anecdote about some shockingly clueless environmental science students. Are you trying to demonstrate that we are all the same? Bravo. Quite impressive. Obviously, constructive debate seems impossible in this case here since we live in two different worlds. Learning to know each others positions could have been the better and richer option, but I just don't think your attitude is suited for that. I have the impression that your not just a cranky persona, but also aggressive, excessive (nice attribute for a moderator), and sometimes violent (see overuse of words like moron and nazi). And you're now resorting to some indirect cheap shot attempt at diminishing another poster credibility (me). On the numerous climate changes threads, I just wanted to propose a different point of view, but it seems there is little space here for other ideas than yours. That's too bad. Are you done? I was going to get back to answering your post after the draft. Besides that and besides work, I finished doing the roof of my house so time was at a premium. As for your personal comments, I don't really care what you think of me but I will indulge you. To me, anyone who will FORCE radical change to my life to enact THEIR agenda reminds me very much of pre war Germany. Let's face it, in a democrartic society there will always be causes and interests but THIS "cause" has taken a very aggressive and intolerant view of anyone who dares to oppose it. Further, the "cause" cloak itself in morality, pushing a fatalist meassage of "either you are with us or you are causing the end of the world". Can an army of Green Shirts be that far behind? If you take offense to me calling eco-Nazis those eco "warriors" who have no regard for anything other then their agenda, then I take an equal, nee far greater offense that those "warriors" are trying to destroy our society to fit THEIR agenda. We are not talking about hockey here, we are talking about livelyhoods, we are talking about FOOD on the table. As for your remark to my "little story". I am giving you the coordinates of that area. Go to Google earth and follow that river. Then you will understand. Along that river, I own several orchards and olive groves (from my parents). So I know a thing or two about that river and the surrounding eco system. 37'06"56.53 N 22'25"03.62 E. If you found that story "offensive" then you don't want to know..... About the two man who showed up in my plant telling me that I need to do a "carbon emission" study to be ahead of "impending legislation". And if I don't, I could be fined millions. If you want to see "aggressive", you should of seen me there. LOL! About my acountant telling me how to get aboard the impending "green gravy train" of emision permits and carbon trading. About sitting in meetings of LARGE (several billion) multinational who is trying to figure out how to manipulate their advertising to show how "green" they are. They even want to get my companies on board as a supplier in the chain of "green components". Are the products any "greener" then yesterday? Of course not but if one looks at them in just the right "green" frame of mind.... About the same multinational coming closer to a conclusion that they need to shift ALL their manufacturing to Asia to get away from the endless taxation and impending "green" restrictions. Of course, 14,000 employees (maybe twice as many spin-of jobs, some that I am part of) in Canada and the US will be thrown to the streets. But what the hell does that mean when the end of the world is around the corner. Ropoflu, we live in a different world. My world is very hard, unforgiving, deceitful. It's inhabited by people who lie with conviction, who manipulate, who will use and abuse any and all to make money. Stark business reality is... ......when a bank "supports" carbon emission trading because they are concerned about global warming, they are lying through their teeth. They already figured out how to make a killing on emission trading. A killing that will come out from the fleecing of YOU AND ME. .....when the legal profession support global warming, they are thinking of the colour is their next Porsche from all the lawsuits they will take on from the "green legislation". .......when Arnold and Stephane wrap themselves in green from hat to shoes, they are wrapping themselves in VOTES from the younger generation. You may see the business world rhetoric as an avalanche of support for the global warming, I KNOW it's an an avalanche of manipulation and deceit in the name of SELF INTEREST....in the name of MONEY. I know because I live there. I am cranky......with cause. Finally ..... I have nothing against your intended profession. I will applaud every step you take to safegaurd our food from toxins, from pollution, from toxic dumping, from bio-hazards, from radioactive hazards, from the people who inhabit my world. Heck, if you want, I will even come out to protest my support for you in my finest war thong. On the other hand, unless you prove conclusivly that global warming is man made and NOT a natural phenomenom then I will bite you if you try to take the food from my table. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 23, 2007 23:07:54 GMT -5
I'd like to make a more general point. Science is often complicated, full of facts that may appear contradictory to the lay-person. Pick any scientific theory and you can probably find some facts that you could use to convince some people that the theory is wrong. These people don't have to be stupid or uneducated, they just aren't experts in that particular area of science. The point is, the existence of such apparent contradictions doesn't disprove the theory. The exact same thing can be said in reverse. They may not be substantial evidence to support the theory and it's pushed through by cloaking it as a moral issue and impending doom to deny it the scrutiny it deserves. When Arnold declares "the debate is over", when Believe Me Al declares the "debate is over" then one HAS to wonder why these people with political agendas want to stop anyone from questioning the science. About a month ago, I saw an interview with an Eco...umm....warrior and he said something to the effect that Western society (the masses) must STOP their wasteful way of questioning and debating things like "human causing of global warming". To me, this smacks of the "cause" taking on religious overtones (questioning God's word?) or Black Shirts "directing" the opinion of the masses. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 24, 2007 9:44:08 GMT -5
I was taken to task in a PM for my "eco-Nazi" comment. That comment is directed to those who will FORCE change on me (us) against our will to suit their BELIEF. The term "Nazi" in common language is taken to mean people who will FORCE change through dictatorial, domineering, even violent means. In a democratic society, we have hundreds, if not thousands of causes and beliefs. Some pople like pets/anumals and are against using animals for drug testing. Fine. But the minute they start destroying labs and burning reseacrh facilities, they become "Nazis". When pro-abortion groups attack the reputation of doctors or even kill them, they have become Nazis. When eco "warriors" want to shut down debate/discussion to force what THEY believe is true and affect the food on my (OUR) table, then they have become Nazis. Finally... Human causing global warming is NOT A FACT. Repeat, it's NOT A FACT, It's a disputed THEORY. So if it is NOT A FACT, then it's a BELIEF. "Belief" is a state of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person, thing or cause. This "thing" or "cause" in this case is that "human are causing global warming". So my "Nazi" comment was NOT, repeat, NOT directed or a broad stroke at fellow posters on this board who believe in their cause. I apologize for that. My comments was directed to the feverish "eco-warriors" who want to forcefully shove their "thingy" down my (our) throat. BTW, the debate is the "belief" in humans causng global warming. So if you lurking on the subject, say your piece. Support your belief. Trust me, no one lost an arm or a leg debating on this forum. Okay, maybe they got some white hairs.  |
|
|
|
Post by ropoflu on Jun 24, 2007 11:04:48 GMT -5
Eco-zealots maybe? (overzealous, fanatical). I met quite a few but not so much in the halls of my university. I've come across these narrow-minded people in protest, or acting as opportunistic commentators or writers in the media, short-cutting logic and reasonableness for a colourful display of demagogic one-liners.
With the environment being a hot topic again these are given a lot of not deserved attention. And with our media blobs incapable of a critical sense, it appears that the more spectacular and demagogic, the merrier.
But that ain't specific to the environmental field. I've heard a lot of crap from commentating ideologists when the economy, education, health or any other aspect of our society becomes the flavor of the month.
-----
Anyway, thanks for having the courage to share a bit of your background. That helped me understanding a bit more where you are coming from and why you are angry (I regrettably presumed you had a violent attitude or personality, while it was just normal anger).
Despite having used my teeth to the socket reading you sometimes, I've grown to respect you and your positions, and if ever the zealots (from whatever religion) are taking over, I'll be standing on your side resisting (maybe not with a war thong though).
R.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 24, 2007 14:50:11 GMT -5
Leaving global warming behind, Ropo and HA and MC and others . . . we get back to the joy of being on a board that welcomes -- nay, encourages -- debate and discussion and discourse in a (mostly) accepting manner. Even when disagreements rage. So much better than one-dimensional "discussions" in which eveyone feels superior to the rest of the world because "we're right and everyone else are idiots".
Which leads me to this:
The thing to remember about ideologues is that the ideology itself doesn't matter. All that matters to the dogmatist is the cancellation of doubt. Believing relieves the necessity of thought.
I like that. It's true. I'd much rather be challenged for what I believe and have to come up with a reasonable defense than to say "well, that's waht I believe and that's all there is to it". Go ahead, try to change my mind. I may. I may not. But at least my brain will have to function on something more than auto-pilot or cruise control. There are enough of those in the world as it is. I believe HA calls them . . . sheep. And they are found on both sides of this particular issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 24, 2007 19:19:30 GMT -5
Despite having used my teeth to the socket reading you sometimes, I've grown to respect you and your positions, and if ever the zealots (from whatever religion) are taking over, I'll be standing on your side resisting (maybe not with a war thong though). Whay's wrong with war thongs? I can lend you a pair of green ones I don't wear anymore ...... they clash with my personality. Fustrated and opinionated? Yes. Angry? No. Franko and I meet every couple of months, had dinner with BC, coffee with HFTO, stuck TorontoHab with the breakfast bill ( ), met several guys from the board in Hamilton.......and they all survived. Actually, if you are in Toronto, let's do breakfast, my treat.  Anywho..... Let us get some real, unbiased answers about what is the real cause of global warming and how far or how much it will affect us. This is not a minor issue and despite it's importance, it has been hijacked and manipulated, twisted and abused by those with agendas, particularly the media and politicians. If it is a natural phenomena with an extreme envelope then we need to invest in the science to stop it or mitigate it, IF it's man made withan erxtreme envelope then we need to look at what steps and what technology to stop it or mitigate it, IF it's normal in earths climatic variations then we need to........enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 24, 2007 19:29:10 GMT -5
Leaving global warming behind, Ropo and HA and MC and others . . . we get back to the joy of being on a board that welcomes -- nay, encourages -- debate and discussion and discourse in a (mostly) accepting manner. Even when disagreements rage. So much better than one-dimensional "discussions" in which eveyone feels superior to the rest of the world because "we're right and everyone else are idiots". Which leads me to this: The thing to remember about ideologues is that the ideology itself doesn't matter. All that matters to the dogmatist is the cancellation of doubt. Believing relieves the necessity of thought. I like that. It's true. I'd much rather be challenged for what I believe and have to come up with a reasonable defense than to say "well, that's waht I believe and that's all there is to it". Go ahead, try to change my mind. I may. I may not. But at least my brain will have to function on something more than auto-pilot or cruise control. There are enough of those in the world as it is. I believe HA calls them . . . sheep. And they are found on both sides of this particular issue. I don't believe ANYBODY on this board has the luxury of putting their minds on cruise control.  |
|
|
|
Post by wpghabsfan on Jun 25, 2007 15:55:22 GMT -5
I'm a first time poster here, though I've read this board for a year, and I'm good friends with a frequent poster here, which may or may not give me credibility . I hate getting into political debates because I normally get too worked up, but I'm going to have to give my opinion on this debate. I'm going to have to disagree with HabsAddict, though I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that I that disagree with the notion that global warming is not human caused! I understand that it is just a theory, and is not 100% proven by any strech that it's human caused, but you have to look at the overwhelming facts that support the human cause of global warming rather than the natural earth's heating and cooling cycle. Yes, I've taken a earth's history/geology course for my environmental engineering degree, so I somewhat understand the idea that the earth is a volatile place that has significantly changed over time, and this could very well be the answer to global warming. But the significant increase in CO2 in our atmosphere coralating to the incredible increase in the earth's tempature, which basically started to increase exactly when the industrial revolution began, shows that there is a human element to global warming. I mean, in the "newer" (1 billion years or so) history of the earth (that we know of), there has never been such a sharp increase in temperature so dramatically without a MAJOR volanic eruption and/or a large metor/comet/asteroid that caused several tons of dust to enter the atmosphere. I'm not going to start posting several facts and articles backing up this point because it's all out there. Pick up a recent Scientific American or an Earth's History textbook if you don't believe what I'm posting. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists (see the UN's global warming conference this year) support the human cause of global warming. What I'm getting from your arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) is that: A) It's a theory, so we shouldn't put any money into it. B) Crazy environmentalists and multinationals have some agenda, so they are spewing propagada about human caused climate change so they can make a quick buck. C)That climate change is really just the earth changing like it's done so several times in the past. My rebuttal: A) (see above). Also if we, as a species, never did anything without 100% proof, we would go nowhere. If Columbus, or whoever you want to make the argument for, didn't sail to North America because there wasn't conculsive evidence that the world wasn't flat at the time, the Americas wouldn't have been discovered for a while. (Terrible example...but it works). To say that you don't want governments to waste your tax dollars because you don't agree with human caused global warming because it's not 100% factual, is incredibly shortsighted. We shouldn't just sit on our butts and wait until it's too late to act. Enough evidence is there to support human caused climate change. Hey, if you're right about it all, we may loose money, but money is JUST money. It comes and goes. The Earth doesn't. I would rank the health of Earth higher than an economic depression. Our species has gone through worse than an economic depression. I don't think we can rebound if the Earth dies. B) Simple put, that's a conspiracy theory. If you want us to believe your argument that climate change is not human caused, don't give us conspiracy theories that rival the JFK theories. No one is out to get us, and if multinationals had some agenda, the majority would probably be against action on climate change anyways for they rather make a profit than try to be more earth friendly. C) Could be true. Could not be true. In all honestly, I rather believe an enormous group of scientists, respected people, and my own instincts, than a small group, and it's very small, going against the idea of human caused climate change. Now that I've made my first enemy, I'll stick to talking about hockey... This post was written not to offend, just to debate arguments. I await your rebuttal! (And from reading your posts, I expect it to be good!  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jun 25, 2007 19:05:44 GMT -5
I'm a first time poster here, though I've read this board for a year, and I'm good friends with a frequent poster here, which may or may not give me credibility . I hate getting into political debates because I normally get too worked up, but I'm going to have to give my opinion on this debate. I'm going to have to disagree with HabsAddict, though I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that I that disagree with the notion that global warming is not human caused! I understand that it is just a theory, and is not 100% proven by any strech that it's human caused, but you have to look at the overwhelming facts that support the human cause of global warming rather than the natural earth's heating and cooling cycle. Yes, I've taken a earth's history/geology course for my environmental engineering degree, so I somewhat understand the idea that the earth is a volatile place that has significantly changed over time, and this could very well be the answer to global warming. But the significant increase in CO2 in our atmosphere coralating to the incredible increase in the earth's tempature, which basically started to increase exactly when the industrial revolution began, shows that there is a human element to global warming. I mean, in the "newer" (1 billion years or so) history of the earth (that we know of), there has never been such a sharp increase in temperature so dramatically without a MAJOR volanic eruption and/or a large metor/comet/asteroid that caused several tons of dust to enter the atmosphere. I'm not going to start posting several facts and articles backing up this point because it's all out there. Pick up a recent Scientific American or an Earth's History textbook if you don't believe what I'm posting. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists (see the UN's global warming conference this year) support the human cause of global warming. What I'm getting from your arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) is that: A) It's a theory, so we shouldn't put any money into it. B) Crazy environmentalists and multinationals have some agenda, so they are spewing propagada about human caused climate change so they can make a quick buck. C)That climate change is really just the earth changing like it's done so several times in the past. My rebuttal: A) (see above). Also if we, as a species, never did anything without 100% proof, we would go nowhere. If Columbus, or whoever you want to make the argument for, didn't sail to North America because there wasn't conculsive evidence that the world wasn't flat at the time, the Americas wouldn't have been discovered for a while. (Terrible example...but it works). To say that you don't want governments to waste your tax dollars because you don't agree with human caused global warming because it's not 100% factual, is incredibly shortsighted. We shouldn't just sit on our butts and wait until it's too late to act. Enough evidence is there to support human caused climate change. Hey, if you're right about it all, we may loose money, but money is JUST money. It comes and goes. The Earth doesn't. I would rank the health of Earth higher than an economic depression. Our species has gone through worse than an economic depression. I don't think we can rebound if the Earth dies. B) Simple put, that's a conspiracy theory. If you want us to believe your argument that climate change is not human caused, don't give us conspiracy theories that rival the JFK theories. No one is out to get us, and if multinationals had some agenda, the majority would probably be against action on climate change anyways for they rather make a profit than try to be more earth friendly. C) Could be true. Could not be true. In all honestly, I rather believe an enormous group of scientists, respected people, and my own instincts, than a small group, and it's very small, going against the idea of human caused climate change. Now that I've made my first enemy, I'll stick to talking about hockey... This post was written not to offend, just to debate arguments. I await your rebuttal! (And from reading your posts, I expect it to be good! ) Good post. I am not going to speak for HA .... but CO2 has not been proven to be a greenhouse gas. The reason? Carbon Levels are significantly higher after the period of warming ends. How can it be causing the warming if it is higher after the warming? Another point you make is that the CO2 levels and warming are correlated to the Industrial Revolution. The Earth is older than when the Industrial Revolution occured and the temperature of the earth (and I would submit with no proof that the CO2 levels as well) was higher pre-Industrial Revolution.... what caused that? |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 25, 2007 20:03:24 GMT -5
I'm a first time poster here, though I've read this board for a year, and I'm good friends with a frequent poster here, which may or may not give me credibility . I hate getting into political debates because I normally get too worked up, but I'm going to have to give my opinion on this debate. I'm going to have to disagree with HabsAddict, though I respect your right to your opinion, I have to say that I that disagree with the notion that global warming is not human caused! I understand that it is just a theory, and is not 100% proven by any strech that it's human caused, but you have to look at the overwhelming facts that support the human cause of global warming rather than the natural earth's heating and cooling cycle. Yes, I've taken a earth's history/geology course for my environmental engineering degree, so I somewhat understand the idea that the earth is a volatile place that has significantly changed over time, and this could very well be the answer to global warming. But the significant increase in CO2 in our atmosphere coralating to the incredible increase in the earth's tempature, which basically started to increase exactly when the industrial revolution began, shows that there is a human element to global warming. I mean, in the "newer" (1 billion years or so) history of the earth (that we know of), there has never been such a sharp increase in temperature so dramatically without a MAJOR volanic eruption and/or a large metor/comet/asteroid that caused several tons of dust to enter the atmosphere. I'm not going to start posting several facts and articles backing up this point because it's all out there. Pick up a recent Scientific American or an Earth's History textbook if you don't believe what I'm posting. Not to mention that the overwhelming majority of scientists (see the UN's global warming conference this year) support the human cause of global warming. What I'm getting from your arguments (correct me if I'm wrong) is that: A) It's a theory, so we shouldn't put any money into it. B) Crazy environmentalists and multinationals have some agenda, so they are spewing propagada about human caused climate change so they can make a quick buck. C)That climate change is really just the earth changing like it's done so several times in the past. My rebuttal: A) (see above). Also if we, as a species, never did anything without 100% proof, we would go nowhere. If Columbus, or whoever you want to make the argument for, didn't sail to North America because there wasn't conculsive evidence that the world wasn't flat at the time, the Americas wouldn't have been discovered for a while. (Terrible example...but it works). To say that you don't want governments to waste your tax dollars because you don't agree with human caused global warming because it's not 100% factual, is incredibly shortsighted. We shouldn't just sit on our butts and wait until it's too late to act. Enough evidence is there to support human caused climate change. Hey, if you're right about it all, we may loose money, but money is JUST money. It comes and goes. The Earth doesn't. I would rank the health of Earth higher than an economic depression. Our species has gone through worse than an economic depression. I don't think we can rebound if the Earth dies. B) Simple put, that's a conspiracy theory. If you want us to believe your argument that climate change is not human caused, don't give us conspiracy theories that rival the JFK theories. No one is out to get us, and if multinationals had some agenda, the majority would probably be against action on climate change anyways for they rather make a profit than try to be more earth friendly. C) Could be true. Could not be true. In all honestly, I rather believe an enormous group of scientists, respected people, and my own instincts, than a small group, and it's very small, going against the idea of human caused climate change. Now that I've made my first enemy, I'll stick to talking about hockey... This post was written not to offend, just to debate arguments. I await your rebuttal! (And from reading your posts, I expect it to be good! ) Sheesh...anybody else? Poor me! LOL! I expect Al The Saviour to barge through the back door with graphs in hand. *shiver* You guys realize that you have me at a disadvantage, both in time and in material access. I'm comming with a pen knife and you guys bring a gun. But what the hell, I never back away from a good fight. 1, Overwhaleming evdence. Which one? a...Mann's skewered hockey stick? I hope that you are not going to use that as proof. Way to easy to take apart. b...ice core samples and carbon content? Do you have proof that temperature change preceded of followed CO2 content? If it preceded then the entire "human cause" fails COMPLETELY. Be very careful here. If you show me a graph that is too wide in time period then by definition it can not establish "before or after". If major ocean current can cause continent wide temperture changes (as El Nino changes NA weather) in a span of one year AND if oceans play a major role in increase of decrease in atmospheric CO2 content, then how do you present paleoclimitic data which has a 100 year resolution or as much as 500 year resolutions in "factually" establishing that CO2 precedes global warming? Let's face it, tree rings and sediment records are indicators, not time stamped computer records. The second claim is that human carbon emissions are radically and rapidly causing global warming at an unprecedented scale and that is happneing NOW. Huh? Is all I have to say. What happened in the Medieval warming period? Why were the temperture 3 degrees warmer then today? We wont even get into the debate as to why Mann and the IPCC initially ignored that period. Maybe something to do with "ïnconvinient truths". Another claim is "human caused" climate change in the last thirty years has brought out droughts and radical weather patterns. If that is so, then how can you explain udden continental wide droughts in North America in 1930 and 1980? And empirical evidence of dozens of droughts before that? Or how do you explain major weather changes in our own prairies between 500 to 800 AD and 1000 to 1300 AD? Changes that were even FAR larger then our current temperture and rainfall changes? If you counter argument is that it's only local changes that did not affect "global conditions" then how do you explain something as huge as the drying up of the Sahara over a few thousand year period as recently as written history? Or ice ages? Or Mini Ice ages? Or warming periods in between ice ages and mini ice ages? Some very rapid, some very slow. I could go on to nausiating legnths with examples in different parts of the world. Let's look at some logical, common sense conclusions.. 1. We do not have data with high enough resolution to come to a conclusion of pre or post "warming/cooling" versus atmospheric CO2 levels. To say nothing of the fact that we are not even sure if CO2 is a major contributor as compared to sun output and cloud cover. 2. Earths weather patterns have been far more radical in continental wide regions over VERY SHORT terms (one year) and FAR more radical globally in longer terms . Ice ages, mini ice ages, ETC. 3. Even after massive weather changes (like continental wide droughts) the earth rebalanced itself and, well, here we are. And your argument is...... Today, we are causing "unprecedented climate change" and, to quote you...."I don't think we can rebound if the Earth dies." Rebutal to my points? P.S. Please, please don't use "the scinetist say" as a "shut down" defense because it's getting boring. On THIS board there are engineers, pshycologists, doctors, lawyers, reverands, teachers...and many more. There are people in here just as smart if not smarter then some of the research focused (ridden? LOL), common sense devoid people. Secondly, scientist livings are dependant on their findings. If there is nothing "special" or "spectacular" then unless you are working for REAL companies or teaching, there is no grants....and no food on the table. Thirdly, scientist are human. They will consciously or subconciously skewer toward their belief. I don't know if you watched a recent 60 Minute episode about the retreating Artic ice fields. A "well respected" scientist lamanted in the inteview, actually almost cried about the poor penguins and how he use to stand on the ice field and wonder in awe. And now "human caused global warming" has destroyed that increadable wonder of nature. How can anyone with a semblance of critical thinking take anything he writes or researches as neutral and good science? And yet, his work will be taken at face value by the eco community. After all, he is a "well respected scientist". As for "force of numbers" by scientist and respected people believeing in global warming. That's not true. There are just as many respected scientist who don't believe in it. In fact, read an IPCC report and it's filled with "likely" and "may". Even the scientist who support the "human caused" are afraid that their theories or support of those theories will not stand up to the test of time so they cage it in less then "fully commited" language. After all, some of them were warning us that we are about to go into the next "Ice Age" because of our evil polluting ways. I was there and heard the conferences first hand 30 years ago. The politicians and masses support count just as much as sheep and tv evangelists. It will evaporate the second it seriously hits pocket books or does not garner votes. As for the UN, it's relevence is relevent to it's usefullness. It dies if it does not make itself LOOK usefull. P.S.S. Just for the record, I read and still have every Scientific American since they invented cow milking machines. P.S.S.S. Welcome to HabsRus. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 25, 2007 20:07:39 GMT -5
Good post. I am not going to speak for HA .... but CO2 has not been proven to be a greenhouse gas. The reason? Carbon Levels are significantly higher after the period of warming ends. How can it be causing the warming if it is higher after the warming? Another point you make is that the CO2 levels and warming are correlated to the Industrial Revolution. The Earth is older than when the Industrial Revolution occured and the temperature of the earth (and I would submit with no proof that the CO2 levels as well) was higher pre-Industrial Revolution.... what caused that? The cavalry arrived! After we fninish molesting the locals, let's go after Al the Saviour and Stephane the Saviorette. |
|
|
|
Post by roke on Jun 25, 2007 22:30:03 GMT -5
I'm not as well informed on either side of the issue as well, anyone here but I do have one thing to say which kind of coincides with global warming. Whether or not it is caused by carbon emissions, relatively normal changes on Earth, the sun, aliens or an overabundance of fruit loops isn't too important to me. The way public opinion is these days governments for the most part are going to be for preventing global warming and going with the widely held belief that it is being caused by Carbon emissions and things are going to happen. Unless someone absolutely disproves that that is what is going to happen.
This is not much of an issue for me as I believe that given the current political situation carbon emmissions will be reduced. I have to say based on my limited knowledge I believe carbon emissions make a contribution to the warming going on. If we reduce carbon emissions without making significant damage to the economy great, even if there is no impact, it just has to be gone about the right way. I am completely against funding "green" projects in foreign, "developing" countries especially China and India. Why should our money go to help foreign countries who do not even have to attempt at reducing emmissions? China is one of the largest economies in the world and I vaguely recall reading something a year or two ago that said China was closing in on the Steel production or consumption (I can't remember) of the United States. Why should we help an economy out that is so hot? An economy that is a competitor to us, costing manufacturing jobs in our own nation. A country that has what could be described as a subpar at the least. Damaging our economy while helping out another which is not striving to achieve what we are is lunacy in my mind. Keep the dollars in Canada, keep the green projects in Canada. Under no circumstances do I want to see us "buying" credits from another country. I don't believe it accomplishes anything with regards to making the world greener, or reducing emmissions. It just allows people to say they did something when in fact they did not. Use that money for research for greener goods, planting trees, whatever. Just do not waste it in a foreign country when we can do it ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 25, 2007 22:55:46 GMT -5
I'm not as well informed on either side of the issue as well, anyone here but I do have one thing to say which kind of coincides with global warming. Whether or not it is caused by carbon emissions, relatively normal changes on Earth, the sun, aliens or an overabundance of fruit loops isn't too important to me. The way public opinion is these days governments for the most part are going to be for preventing global warming and going with the widely held belief that it is being caused by Carbon emissions and things are going to happen. Unless someone absolutely disproves that that is what is going to happen. his is not much of an issue for me as I believe that given the current political situation carbon emmissions will be reduced. If we reduce carbon emissions without making significant damage to the economy great, even if there is no impact, it just has to be gone about the right way. I am completely against funding "green" projects in foreign, "developing" countries especially China and India. Why should our money go to help foreign countries who do not even have to attempt at reducing emmissions? China is one of the largest economies in the world and I vaguely recall reading something a year or two ago that said China was closing in on the Steel production or consumption (I can't remember) of the United States. Why should we help an economy out that is so hot? An economy that is a competitor to us, costing manufacturing jobs in our own nation. A country that has what could be described as a subpar at the least. Damaging our economy while helping out another which is not striving to achieve what we are is lunacy in my mind. Keep the dollars in Canada, keep the green projects in Canada. Under no circumstances do I want to see us "buying" credits from another country. I don't believe it accomplishes anything with regards to making the world greener, or reducing emmissions. It just allows people to say they did something when in fact they did not. Use that money for research for greener goods, planting trees, whatever. Just do not waste it in a foreign country when we can do it ourselves. Try having a manufacturing company. We open the borders to every competitor on earth, regardless of losses to our own industries, then we have eco zealots who want to HELP those people with MORE of OUR money to further decimate OUR industries. I am not reading this in the paper, watching it on tv or listening about it in the radio. I am feeling it first hand. No mattter how innovative, no matter how concerned one is about the employees, no matter how resourcefull, it is a losing battle. And I am not alone. Thousands of small and medium sized businesses in almost ALL sectors are facing the same thing. 250,000 manufacturing jobs have already been lost in Ontario and Quebec and 500,000 more are IMMINANTLY on the line. I really want to see how "green" and how open our borders will be when we face a face smashing recession...or depression. But by then, it will be too late. |
|
|
|
Post by wpghabsfan on Jun 26, 2007 11:20:01 GMT -5
Yeah, I kinda figured my argument would be shredded to pieces...Even I was picking it apart when I was writing it . I've been exposed to both sides of the agrument. My geology professor had the same arguments as HA does. He is convinced the world is actually cooling, and global warming is just a small blip on the radar. I've also have had a high school teacher and an engineering professor that preach that if we don't do anything in the next five seconds, the Earth will implode . I understand where you're coming from on this. The Earth is a mysterious place, where we, even though we have lived here for thousands of years, know almost nothing about it. Hell, we don't even know what the Earth's core is made of! We just assume it's a nickel-iron core. This debate about human-caused global warming/non-human caused global warming could last forever! There is good but not great arguments for both sides of the debate, (you're just a million times better than me of getting your point across ). Simply put, we just don't know enough about it yet. But does that mean we shouldn't be doing anything about it anyways? I don't really know. Obviously I'm not even close to being an expert on it, but I really don't think anyone here is. But what I do know is that if we don't spend any money on stopping global warming, I think we risk a greater catastrophe than if we don't. What's the worst that can happen if we spend money on the environment and global warming turns out to be nothing? A few animals species are saved, more trees are planted, less smog days in Toronto? Is that really that horrendous? I agree with Roke, that we shouldn't be spending money to help other countries reduce there carbon emissons. What I really think we should do is put all our differences aside, come together and hammer out a better deal than Kyoto, which has more holes in it than a diffraction grating! (Yes! Physics reference! ) Even if the environment doesn't need saving, we would still be doing this Earth a service. I know this is going to cost a lot of money, and to us, money is everything. No one is every going to be happy when it comes to the bottom line, but when it comes to the health of this Earth whether it is human caused or not, I think we can all afford to give a little money, give a little time to make this place a better place to live for us and our children. As you can tell I'm way too young/naive/optimistic to truly grasp what the world is about, and what makes it go around. But no one can deny how much this place means to us, and to wake up some days and see the sky brown because we've polluted it with our Hummers and excessive needs saddens me. I think deep down, it saddens all of us. What I don't understand is why do you believe that we are losing jobs solely because governments and "eco-nazis" that want the world to go green? There are other, perhaps larger reasons why we are losing our manufacturing jobs to China, India and other countries, i.e. the dollar is on par with the American dollar, companies rather not pay their employees a decent working rate and give them benifits so they move their operations to a cheaper place. I think we are losing our jobs in the name of profit, not because companies choose to leave just to circumvent environmental laws. I think we should blame the loss of our jobs on globaliztion and NAFTA before the environmental laws. (Just for the record, I am neither for nor against NAFTA. That's a whole other can of worms...) Anyways, now that I've wasted all of your time with my sappy speech that pretty much reiterates a childish argument, I just want to say I'm most stubborn person and I'm probably never going to change my mind unfortunately (My friends can attest to that ). No matter how many arguments are made to the contrary, I will always believe that we caused global warming and we should do everything in our power to fix. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Jun 26, 2007 12:24:04 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why do you believe that we are losing jobs solely because governments and "eco-nazis" that want the world to go green? There are other, perhaps larger reasons why we are losing our manufacturing jobs to China, India and other countries, i.e. the dollar is on par with the American dollar, companies rather not pay their employees a decent working rate and give them benifits so they move their operations to a cheaper place. I think we are losing our jobs in the name of profit, not because companies choose to leave just to circumvent environmental laws. I think we should blame the loss of our jobs on globaliztion and NAFTA before the environmental laws. (Just for the record, I am neither for nor against NAFTA. That's a whole other can of worms...) I don't think HA would argue that we are losing jobs to China and India soley because of these new environmental policies (most of which aren't even in place, or are being ignored), but that it would be just one more nail in that coffin. I'm guessing that HA's point is that its hard enough being a manufacturer in Canada (because of all those reasons you cited), that we don't need the government giving these companies still one more excuse to leave. Smart governments of course, will not slap these taxes onto manufacturing companies. They'll slap them onto consumers, as the Quebec government has already done with its tax on gasoline. Granted, the tax is allegedly being levelled against the oil companies, but who really believes they won't pass that tax onto the regular consumer, with a couple extra cents per litre tacked on for administrative purposes? Next up, Hydro, heating oil, car registrations, insurance, toll roads, public transport taxes (oops, already have that one), and about a billion other things that can be taxed in the name of the environment. It will be death by a thousand cuts, and the government can get away with it, because hey! that's what the people want. If they REALLY wanted to save the environment, if they were REALLY concerned about it, they'd limit households to one car (not person, households), and slap a $5 per litre tax on gasoline and heating oil. The whole point, after all, is to get people to choose more environmentally friendly options, and to get them to do so you have to make those options more desirable than the current, earth-destroying ways. But of course they won't do that, because no matter what they say, that's not REALLY what the people want. They want the environment cleaned up... they just want somebody else to do it. By the way, I found your arguments informative and enlightning... don't be intimidated by us big, bad grouches... some of prefer the posters who disagree with us, as it gives us something to do other than work. As I always say, if we all agreed on everything, if we all thought the same way and that everything was hunky-dory... we'd be Leaf fans! |
|
|
|
Post by wpghabsfan on Jun 26, 2007 12:30:09 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why do you believe that we are losing jobs solely because governments and "eco-nazis" that want the world to go green? There are other, perhaps larger reasons why we are losing our manufacturing jobs to China, India and other countries, i.e. the dollar is on par with the American dollar, companies rather not pay their employees a decent working rate and give them benifits so they move their operations to a cheaper place. I think we are losing our jobs in the name of profit, not because companies choose to leave just to circumvent environmental laws. I think we should blame the loss of our jobs on globaliztion and NAFTA before the environmental laws. (Just for the record, I am neither for nor against NAFTA. That's a whole other can of worms...) I don't think HA would argue that we are losing jobs to China and India soley because of these new environmental policies (most of which aren't even in place, or are being ignored), but that it would be just one more nail in that coffin. I'm guessing that HA's point is that its hard enough being a manufacturer in Canada (because of all those reasons you cited), that we don't need the government giving these companies still one more excuse to leave. Smart governments of course, will not slap these taxes onto manufacturing companies. They'll slap them onto consumers, as the Quebec government has already done with its tax on gasoline. Granted, the tax is allegedly being levelled against the oil companies, but who really believes they won't pass that tax onto the regular consumer, with a couple extra cents per litre tacked on for administrative purposes? Next up, Hydro, heating oil, car registrations, insurance, toll roads, public transport taxes (oops, already have that one), and about a billion other things that can be taxed in the name of the environment. It will be death by a thousand cuts, and the government can get away with it, because hey! that's what the people want. If they REALLY wanted to save the environment, if they were REALLY concerned about it, they'd limit households to one car (not person, households), and slap a $5 per litre tax on gasoline and heating oil. The whole point, after all, is to get people to choose more environmentally friendly options, and to get them to do so you have to make those options more desirable than the current, earth-destroying ways. But of course they won't do that, because no matter what they say, that's not REALLY what the people want. They want the environment cleaned up... they just want somebody else to do it. By the way, I found your arguments informative and enlightning... don't be intimidated by us big, bad grouches... some of prefer the posters who disagree with us, as it gives us something to do other than work. As I always say, if we all agreed on everything, if we all thought the same way and that everything was hunky-dory... we'd be Leaf fans! I couldn't agree more with you! |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 26, 2007 17:29:45 GMT -5
I don't think HA would argue that we are losing jobs to China and India soley because of these new environmental policies (most of which aren't even in place, or are being ignored), but that it would be just one more nail in that coffin. I'm guessing that HA's point is that its hard enough being a manufacturer in Canada (because of all those reasons you cited), that we don't need the government giving these companies still one more excuse to leave. ! No, so far I am sure that that the enviromental issue has pushed companies into leaving BUT it has dampened expansion plans. Not that expansion plans are the priority of too many manufacturers. What surfaced in the last few weeks from one of my customers and from networking is that major players are deciding that it''s just not worth the effort or the hassle to keep manufacturing viable in Canada. They are getting getting pushed in that direction by the increasing dollar and the fear that enviromental regulations and subsequent spiral of taxes is just not worth it. After all, it's far easier to go and buy a container of of widgits from China then go through endless hoops and costs of manufacturing in Canada. Get rid of manufacturing and there is no health taxes, no vacation pay, no sick benefits, no machinery, no labour headaches, no manufacturing buildings, no municipal taxes, no water bills, no heating bills, no electricity bills, no WSIB inpections, no fire inspections, no insurance inspections. A dimly lit, barely heated warehouse, a couple of people to run the lift trucks, a couple of order pickers and MORE MORE MORE PROFITS. My accountant and his partners have over a thousand importers and manufacturers. In no uncertain terms, he thinks that I am crazy to keep manufacturing goods in Canada. His EXACT statement was "it's rare to see a manufacturere still doing well and it's even rarer to see an importer doing badly." And that was LAST YEAR. Wait until this year with the dollar way up to where it is, it's even cheaper to bring goods in and harder to sell Canadian goods to the world. Anywho.....back to climate change. Indeed, it will be taxation by a thousand cuts. Quebec is already getting aboard the morality cloaked "save the planet" gravy train and the village idiot in Ontario is not far behind. Toronto just announce a multi billion monument to public transportation, Harper is spending as he needs to look "green" and he has billions more to buy the appropiate votes at the appropiate time. A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we could be talking about real money. Bahh....gimme a recession and reality will bite HARD. |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2007 17:41:48 GMT -5
Bahh....gimme a recession and reality will bite HARD. Only if you'll give me a low-inerest mortgage when the bank comes calling. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 26, 2007 17:49:39 GMT -5
I think we can all afford to give a little money, give a little time to make this place a better place to live for us and our children. I will not argue against that. As I posted to Ropoflu, we MUST deal with air pollution and toxic substances. Where I draw the line is the all encompassing, all inclusive "humans are killing the planet, YOU are killing the planet and life will end next Sunday if you don't do as I preach". It's WAY OVER into social engineering on a world wide scale with a particular agenda rather then a rational, common sense discussion to see if there is a problem and find solutions to it. As for your youth.... I noticed that you are 19. That is about the same age that BC started to get his HabsRus education. By 20, he had woman fainting at his presence and Laff fans imploding with a glance. By 21, woman begged to see his curved stick and by 22, he was so world renown that sperm banks begged for his..umm..."help". There is a rumour floating around that the Kazakstanians children started to bear a striking resemblance to each other after BC's excellent summer vacation of '91. Could renaming it to Badcompastan be far behind? So you see, HabsRus is more then a forum, it's gateway to fame, fortune and hairy woman. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jun 26, 2007 17:54:07 GMT -5
Bahh....gimme a recession and reality will bite HARD. Only if you'll give me a low-inerest mortgage when the bank comes calling. LOL! Sorry, I just spend my last shekel to buy one of these. Care to join me?  |
|
|
|
Post by franko on Jun 26, 2007 18:21:32 GMT -5
Only if you'll give me a low-inerest mortgage when the bank comes calling. LOL! Sorry, I just spend my last shekel to buy one of these. Care to join me? Sorry, no can do -- that cart is yellow, not green. |
|
)