The horror of global warming!

twostrokenut said:

Tit for tat don't ask me for something the whole thread has been asking you to provide for a while.

Click to expand...

you do know power in pretty much all cases is not generated by the individual?

are you looking me to prove the concept of power stations to you?

what has the "whole thread" asked me to prove numbnuts?

twostrokenut said:

• Till then can't go holding down developing nations with bullshit manufactured science and fake ass pie charts just cause they can't afford nuclear.....not fair to deny them their energy.
  
  
  
  
  So pointing out all this GW bullshit is holding down the developing nations or those that need development is a bullshit argument? Fuck bro I thought libs were compassionate. Would you ban DDT as well because it would never happen at an individual level?​
  
  

Click to expand...

this is a strawman the effort isnt to starve the third world of energy

theres alot of evidence that alot of the poorest countries will be worst hit by temperature rises

emotional bullshit plea arguments at its most specious

Doer said:

And who screws the straw pooch now? I did not say commie threat. That's a dry hole to fuck, I'm not talking about that Cold War, you are.

Click to expand...

ok not "commie threat" how about "red menace"?

I mentioned that when oil prices are high Russia can re-arm. That forces China, not us, to re-arm.

Click to expand...

You know i read and re read your post and i would never have guessed thats what you were saying (im not joking)

im struggling to find the reference to the disscusion especially as you said you arent talking cold war "style" scenario?
[/quote]
Oh, you love to dance.[/QUOTE]

I was going to paint the fish house today, but it's raining again. I wonder if it will turn to snow tonight?

ginjawarrior said:

really guns in climate thread? not to derail but the study of this laughable "million saved"?

Click to expand...

1) Barrel Warming is a real phenomenon.
2) The number of times that a gun or the credible threat of one averted a situation is impossible to count/tabulate. That doesn't mean that there aren't many many incidences of this every year. But proving it is a very difficult proposition. The best we can do is something very indirect, such as noting that afer Britain and Australia instituted sweeping confiscations, gun crime went down but overall violent crime went rather markedly up. This is not conclusive but circumstantial eviudence for there bing a real overall salutary effect to being able/allowed to own and carry defensive firearms. Jmo. cn

twostrokenut said:

Woah a mod edited post, stay classy dude.

Click to expand...

I edited out the deleted quoted portion; UB's portion remains as posted. I didn't and don't edit member posts. I delete those whole or leave'm whole. UB's post didn't warrant collateral deletion imo. cn

kelly4 said:

I was going to paint the fish house today, but it's raining again. I wonder if it will turn to snow tonight?

Click to expand...

I bet ice fishing rules. What else ya'll catch besides Walleyes? lol Do ya'll catch Walleyes? Only seen them on television. I've been Cat-fishing at night some lately.

cannabineer said:

I edited out the deleted quoted portion; UB's portion remains as posted. I didn't and don't edit member posts. I delete those whole or leave'm whole. UB's post didn't warrant collateral deletion imo. cn

Click to expand...

i was gonna say, that seemed exactly as i had left it.

ginjawarrior said:

this is a strawman the effort isnt to starve the third world of energy

theres alot of evidence that alot of the poorest countries will be worst hit by temperature rises

emotional bullshit plea arguments at its most specious

Click to expand...

wtf is your strawman obsession that's all you know how to say do you have strawman underwear and jammies? A strawman pez dispenser and comics have you?

Your evidence poor countries or any countries will be worst hit by anything man made is what everyone has been asking for it....is based on your 97% theory no?

You claimed nuclear was safer I pointed out how its high initial costs might prevent developing nations from enjoying what you are right now by having abundant energy, on tap, right now. Obviously there is a death toll there to be counted. I don't like to think so morbidly but, hey it was you that started slinging the death toll jpeg responses to how safe nuclear is...and how the powers that be should force ppl to use it...and blaze' blaze' continue on your rant though.. BTW I ate all my fish from the lake. Except stupid Carp they suck.

cannabineer said:

I edited out the deleted quoted portion; UB's portion remains as posted. I didn't and don't edit member posts. I delete those whole or leave'm whole. UB's post didn't warrant collateral deletion imo. cn

Click to expand...

UncleBuck said:

i was gonna say, that seemed exactly as i had left it.

Click to expand...

My bad never seen that before.

twostrokenut said:

wtf is your strawman obsession that's all you know how to say do you have strawman underwear and jammies? A strawman pez dispenser and comics have you?

Click to expand...

[h=4]Description of Straw Man[/h]The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Click to expand...

You want to make shit thats up to you.

Your evidence poor countries or any countries will be worst hit by anything man made is what everyone has been asking for it....is based on your 97% theory no?

Click to expand...

based on the 97%? no you have it wrong the 97% Is based on all the evidence gathered so far (including the evidence poor countries will be hit worse)

a subtle diference that when you understand it you see noboby had asked me for "poorest countries hit worst" till now

You claimed nuclear was safer I pointed out how its high initial costs might prevent developing nations from enjoying what you are right now by having abundant energy, on tap, right now.

Click to expand...

Sorry but where have i suggested forcing third world countries to by something they not afford and starving them of alternatives?

this is a strawman

Obviously there is a death toll there to be counted. I don't like to think so morbidly

Click to expand...

no you just shit yourself hearing "alarm tests" then bring your skid marked pants here as somesort of evidence you "know thing"

but, hey it was you that started slinging the death toll jpeg responses to how safe nuclear is

Click to expand...

hows your childhood skidmarks? still struggling to wash em off? must have been hard hearing that siren and living to tellthe tale....

cannabineer said:

1) Barrel Warming is a real phenomenon.

Click to expand...

i said it before and i'll no doubt say it again localized warming =/= climate

2) The number of times that a gun or the credible threat of one averted a situation is impossible to count/tabulate. That doesn't mean that there aren't many many incidences of this every year. But proving it is a very difficult proposition. The best we can do is something very indirect, such as noting that afer Britain and Australia instituted sweeping confiscations, gun crime went down but overall violent crime went rather markedly up. This is not conclusive but circumstantial eviudence for there bing a real overall salutary effect to being able/allowed to own and carry defensive firearms. Jmo. cn

Click to expand...

i think its a very special mind to say the 5 extra dead people are "saves" against 6 people with black eyes...

watching the SOP of arrests on cop shows in the usa further distances my mind from the special level needed for such cognition

We need to develop clean safe energy. That is the bottom line.

Nuclear is only clean and safe when it runs error free. We do not nor have ever
lived in an error free world.

The devastation that a single plant can cause will last for decades.

The whole "Nuclear Kills Less" argument doesn't stand up to the potential
devastation in an accident. While yes there have not been many large scale
accidents at nuclear plants but the ones there have been should be enough
for people to clue in to the fact that nuclear power is not a viable solution.

For crying out loud, there have been many reports of hackers attacking nuclear power
plants. When a nine year old possesses the knowledge that could cripple or destroy
a nuclear plant remotely from across the world there just might be a problem.

I bring up the hackers, simply because it is true. I also do so to illustrate the vulnerability
that a nuclear plant is.

I wouldn't want my family anywhere near anything that can cause such devastation in an instant.


We need to develop the new techs that have shown promise like solar, wind, magnetic etc. Why would we
stick with the status quo when looking forward trying to solve the problems we face now and down the road.

ginjawarrior said:

i think its a very special mind to say the 5 extra dead people are "saves" against 6 people with black eyes...

Click to expand...

LOL!

i was gonna go there with the bear and ask him whether he'd prefer being one of the 5 people to get shot or one of the 6 people that got robbed, but i didn't want to sidetrack the righties from failing about climate denial.

however, since you brought it up, there it is. i personally would prefer to be the victim on non-gun violence over gun violence.

twostrokenut said:

I bet ice fishing rules. What else ya'll catch besides Walleyes? lol Do ya'll catch Walleyes? Only seen them on television. I've been Cat-fishing at night some lately.

Click to expand...

we used to catch a lot of pike if i remember correctly.

we'd go early and set up about 10-15 holes, each baited with a flag. if the fish took the bait, the flag went up, and we'd go running.

other than that, it was pretty much sitting around in the cold and eating food.

ricky1lung said:

We need to develop clean safe energy. That is the bottom line.

Nuclear is only clean and safe when it runs error free. We do not nor have ever
lived in an error free world.

The devastation that a single plant can cause will last for decades.

The whole "Nuclear Kills Less" argument doesn't stand up to the potential
devastation in an accident. While yes there have not been many large scale
accidents at nuclear plants but the ones there have been should be enough
for people to clue in to the fact that nuclear power is not a viable solution.

For crying out loud, there have been many reports of hackers attacking nuclear power
plants. When a nine year old possesses the knowledge that could cripple or destroy
a nuclear plant remotely from across the world there just might be a problem.

I bring up the hackers, simply because it is true. I also do so to illustrate the vulnerability
that a nuclear plant is.

I wouldn't want my family anywhere near anything that can cause such devastation in an instant.

Click to expand...

hysterical special pleading

We need to develop the new techs that have shown promise like solar, wind, magnetic etc. Why would we
stick with the status quo when looking forward trying to solve the problems we face now and down the road.

Click to expand...

magnetic? what "new tech" are you talking about?

solar and wind needs an astronomically huge amount of investment to get even close to providing just the "baseload"

UncleBuck said:

LOL!

i was gonna go there with the bear and ask him whether he'd prefer being one of the 5 people to get shot or one of the 6 people that got robbed, but i didn't want to sidetrack the righties from failing about climate denial.

however, since you brought it up, there it is. i personally would prefer to be the victim on non-gun violence over gun violence.

Click to expand...

i always thought americans were supposed to be "tough guys" not that they were so petrified about getting into a tussle

UncleBuck said:

LOL!

i was gonna go there with the bear and ask him whether he'd prefer being one of the 5 people to get shot or one of the 6 people that got robbed, but i didn't want to sidetrack the righties from failing about climate denial.

however, since you brought it up, there it is. i personally would prefer to be the victim on non-gun violence over gun violence.

Click to expand...

Problem 1: why posit a very unfavorable 6:5 ratio when it could well be 20:1 or higher?
Problem 2: Many many violent crimes aren't nice neat aseptic robberies where the victim emerges unscathed or with a "black eye". I would rather not be the victim of blade or power-tool violence.

Gun murders in the USA in 2010 totaled just over 8000.
Now instances where possession of a gun or credible threat of its possession led to a deterrence event are impossible to tabulate, with estimates running from one hundred thousand to 2.5 million instances per annum. It's a bit like rape stats: reported numbers are not gonna track actual events, and sorting the real ones from the "I heard something and grabbed ol' Betsy" is a thankless task.
Even so, it's an easy mark to fob off with the sort of 6:5 disparagement you both are using. But is it wise or just? cn

twostrokenut said:

• Till then can't go holding down developing nations with bullshit manufactured science and fake ass pie charts just cause they can't afford nuclear.....not fair to deny them their energy.
  
  
  
  
  So pointing out all this GW bullshit is holding down the developing nations or those that need development is a bullshit argument? Fuck bro I thought libs were compassionate. Would you ban DDT as well because it would never happen at an individual level?​
  
  

Click to expand...

I have said this before if a very clear moment I have largely forgettten now. Thank you. The Libs fucking around 3 things come to mind.

1) ruthless in fucking with Islam

2) jacking emerging economies with AGW FUD and alternate fuel carpet bagging. Shameless in 1870 in the Deep South and shameless today in Africa.....the 21th Century's battlegrounds

2a) keeping these same African cannon fodder hopeless and staving with more FUD about crop yields. These folk are already organic.
Look what it has done for them. They are tools.

They are being starved for political purposes, by Islam. And by the ememies of America within that sow strife for power.

All of Africa will be re-taken by Islam, for these 3 reason alone. Not the religion. The War Cult.

Now #3 - AIDS The DEMS that run this country are quite happy to use that 3rd leg of fear, for feel good for themselves, while nothing is done about the systematic rape

You add up the hand wringing and the sanguine can see it amounts to a pattern of lies to promote fear. These DEMS

Not the hoot, haw or depends that vote them in. I don't consider Buck a professional DEM and he has a lot of voting and learning to do, like I did, and do.

Fear Uncertainly and Doubt

Global Ruin, Food Horror, and AIDS