Wouldn't it be sad... - Page 2

Hammerfist · 06-06-2008, 11:56 AM

They would waste $45 trillion on bad science. Problem with this is it involves nuclear power which the global warming/climate change retards hate as well.

$45 trillion needed to combat warming

Panthera · 06-06-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laodaron

Of course, an asshole with no idea of what moderation is would go with this....If your religion includes blowing me up, you don't deserve your religion, nor your freedoms.

The sweet taste of irony.

You speak of "moderation" while dictating what others can or cannot have.

Sweet.

And, skippy? We aren't in Iraq to establish a military presence to better foil terrorist plots. We over threw a nation because the were a clear and present danger to the United States with weapons of mass destruction directly targeting us and our interests.

Remember?

I supported the former but people as stupid as you needed the latter spoon feed to them.

Otis · 06-06-2008, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laodaron

I think its hilarious that you're either too blinded by uninformed hate or you're just too hard headed to see the difference between the two. One's a real threat, the other's a farce.

Don't be so cynical. I wouldn't exactly call the threat of everyone in the US dying in one big terrorist attack because a big, black, scary muslim democrat got elected a farce. Overblown maybe, but not a farce.

Gori · 06-06-2008, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerfist

The libs have to make people afraid of something or sane people wouldn't vote for them. It's not like they can talk the pants off people. Oh wait...

LMFAO...and the Republicans don't have their own "state of fear" buttons?

Hammerfist · 06-06-2008, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gori

LMFAO...and the Republicans don't have their own "state of fear" buttons?

I'm talking about false fears.

Gori · 06-06-2008, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerfist

I'm talking about false fears.

SAP4.3 Final Report

Hammerfist · 06-06-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gori

SAP4.3 Final Report

When this started it was 'global warming'. Then they realized the earth was cooling and scrambled to rename it 'climate change' to cover their bases. They can't possible sell something if it's not at least labeled properly. The planet heats and cools in cycles. If this caused by man's carbon output then what caused the earth to get much hotter in the early 1800's before the nasty gas-powered automobile was invented? Or even earlier then that?

I'm just not convinced this is man made and when one side says 'the debate is over' it has something to hide.

To me it's drumming up a new industry:Neutralize Your Pollution

Gori · 06-06-2008, 03:00 PM

Did you even read any of the paper. Particularly the part where they used modeling to account for solar cycles and volcanic activity?

...and this paper does not say "debate over." It fairly accurately talks about current data limitations. You will want to read where they assign probabilities of judgment though.

This is just one of many federal reports that are coming out to help with future planning. We stick our heads completely in the sand at our own peril.

Hammerfist · 06-06-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gori

Did you even read any of the paper. Particularly the part where they used modeling to account for solar cycles and volcanic activity?

...and this paper does not say "debate over." It fairly accurately talks about current data limitations. You will want to read where they assign probabilities of judgment though.

This is just one of many federal reports that are coming out to help with future planning. We stick our heads completely in the sand at our own peril.

Yes I did, however climate models are unfortunately not very accurate. Even using known climate from the past and imputing the variables in, the results are different from what actually happened.

Xrin · 06-06-2008, 03:16 PM

U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher : 46th District Of California

I liked this.