Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21  
    Wake up and look outside yourself!
    I know, whats wrong with my backyard? It looks fine to me!!!

    Thats my point, do it yourself if you want to pick up, don't bug me.
    <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" id="all" leftmargin="10" topmargin="10" marginwidth="10" marginheight="10" link="#000000" vlink="#000000" alink="#000000">

    <img src="http://www.msnbc.com/d/v/130x100/n_bush_accept_001213.jpg">

    <br><b><font color="#0000FF" size="2">Proudly led by "Dubya"</font></b></center>

    </body>
  2. #22  
    Originally posted by yaz320


    I know, whats wrong with my backyard? It looks fine to me!!!

    Thats my point, do it yourself if you want to pick up, don't bug me.

    I'm beginning to think you are GW...
    <A HREF="http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_69783.html"TARGET=_BLANK><IMG SRC="http://members.aol.com/lenn0nhead/hvcslogo181x75.jpg"BORDER=1></A>
  3. #23  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70
    I'm sure you must love how he backpeddled on his campaign promise to cut CO2 emissions, also in violation with the signed Kyoto accord. Apparently, a lying president is only a "character" issue when it's not actually related to policy.
    I hate having to defend somebody I didn't even vote for, but one not having implemented a policy due to investigating the ramifications of that policy is not lying. Similar to the irrational bush-hating spin that has been placed on the arsenic in drinking water debate, there is simply no basis to make any such statements yet.

    If I ate a fast food lunch in your home and left the containers on your table, you might not appreciate me telling you that if you don't like my litter, you should get a trashbag and clean it up yourself.
    No, one might not appreciate that, but one would have to deal with it anyway. What really astounds me about these global warming advocates is that they think someone can reliably predict climate changes years in the future when current technology and science can't even reliably tell you what the weather's going to be like two weeks from now.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by sdoersam
    I'm not sure that is necessarily bad. I think it is worse to go off making regulations based on bad or incomplete science....
    While I don't completely disagree with you, I think it is important to remember that science is always incomplete. We will forever gain new information that clarifies our understanding of nature. It is a less than perfect situation but we must act on incomplete information and be prepared to change as new information becomes available.
    Mike
    I'd rather be upside down in my kayak than rightside up at my desk.
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by Toby
    What really astounds me about these global warming advocates is that they think someone can reliably predict climate changes years in the future when current technology and science can't even reliably tell you what the weather's going to be like two weeks from now.
    Did you happen to see "This Week with Sam and Cokie"?

    George Will had a few quotes from the science community of 1975. They quoted a number of top scientist of the time stating that the "signs were clear" that we are heading for another ice age. (And yes I know George is biased in his beliefs).

    I myself believe that there is a global warming issue, but I do think that the predictions are probably not even close to what the reality might be.

    Originally posted by homer
    ... Pollution is pollution. Whether or not if affects global warming really should have no bearing on whether or not we try and reduce emissions.
    EXACTLY !!!

    We that live in the U.S. are the biggest polluters on the planet. We should be doing whatever we can and not leave this place worse that when we got here. (that said as I drive by myself 90+ miles everyday ).

    Also, living here in LA, the number of 1st stage smog alerts have dropped dramatically from when I was a teen. Apparently some of the rules and regulations that have been put in place have made a difference.



    Similar to the irrational bush-hating spin that has been placed on the arsenic in drinking water debate, there is simply no basis to make any such statements yet.
    Ms. Whitman from the EPA has explained that they are not delaying the 2006 implementation of this regulation (one that Clinton had 8 years to implement and waited until his last days to put in), but that they are trying to finish their own review and see if should be at 10 parts per billion or even less. Another part of their arguement is that they want a complete policy that will take into account the economics this will have on very small water companys. An example she has is a small water company that had to make changes based on a state regulation caused it close up and leave 30 or so homes without a water supply. These residents ended up sinking their own wells and are now getting their water at 100 parts per billion (50 parts higher than they were before). Again, this regulation does not go into place until 2006 and the EPA said they will be done with the review by September at the latest.

    As for YAZ320 "Perhaps the earth will be fine until I die, then it won't be a problem.", what a lousy reply to miradu2000's post. He is uplifting with his outlook!. Why do you feel the need to try to shock with yours? Do you really think your views are the same as the Republican party? Your views are what the "far left" wants everyone to believe that this is what Republicans think.

    Anyway, I come to this site for the Visor conversations. I think I will go back to them now and get a little better enjoyment of my time.
    Bret Snyder<BR>If you don't know where you're going,<BR>You'll probably end up somewhere else.
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by Bret Snyder
    Did you happen to see "This Week with Sam and Cokie"?
    Nope. I don't catch network television (well, I do on antenna, but I hardly ever watch anything off antenna), so if it's on ABC, CBS, or NBC, I almost definitely haven't seen it.

    George Will had a few quotes from the science community of 1975. They quoted a number of top scientist of the time stating that the "signs were clear" that we are heading for another ice age. (And yes I know George is biased in his beliefs).
    Perhaps, but that was at the tail end of the last string of fad-global 'science', so the quotes were real, no doubt. Global cooling was the big thing then. OTOH, on a geological scale, we're always either heading into or heading out of an ice age, so I guess the 'scientists' have an out. I still think the pop 'global warming' thing is just so much FUD, though.

    I myself believe that there is a global warming issue, but I do think that the predictions are probably not even close to what the reality might be.
    I think that 'global warming' is quite probably happening. IIRC, we're technically still in the waning stages of an ice age, so temperatures should be rising.

    Ms. Whitman from the EPA has explained that they are not delaying the 2006 implementation of this regulation (one that Clinton had 8 years to implement and waited until his last days to put in), but that they are trying to finish their own review and see if should be at 10 parts per billion or even less.
    The quoted figures that I recall state that the final number will wind up being between 3 and 20 ppb.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions