• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  What exactly about that is a lie?  And while it has largely been proven false there was reason to believe that DDT was a major problem.

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  lets go by their figures.....they claim that the Earths atmospheric temperature has risen by 1.33 degrees since 1906.....the human body isn't even capable of feeling less than 2 degrees in change.....is it any hotter in Africa than it already was?....they say nothing about that, only about the malaria.....I bet if you showed a chart of malaria deaths since taking DDT off the market you would see the disease skyrocket!....and they are trying to tie it to global warming?....That's bullshit!
  

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  They also mention hunger......global warming causes hunger? really?....last time I checked, warm weather was required to grow food!....that is an outright lie! Food bearing nations produce more food than is eaten every year, and our own government pays farmers subsidies not to grow food!.....that is a greed and distribution problem, not a global warming problem!

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  here is a link to back up my ddt assertion: source
  
  1000% increase!
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  1.  It doesn't matter if we can feel the difference.  That has nothing to do with anything it has to do with how it effects the enviroment as a whole.  Water freezes at 0 degrees Celcius and boils at 100 degress Celcius.  1 degree Celcius is damn cold but it's not freezing nor is 99 degrees boiling.  Our ability to feel the difference means less than nothing.

  2.  The food issue is complex.  It deals with growing periods and harvests and replenishing soil blah blah blah.  It's really needlessly complex  In the short term it effects crops, in the long term of course we get more food as more land becomes able to support crops.  It's not a lie, it's misdirection.

  We should point out that the world was warmer during the majority of the Roman Empire's reign which amongst other things can blame it's downfall on the mini ice age that the world suffered resulting in the Dark Ages of europe and horrible winters.  For humans if given the choice between erring towards a little warmer and a little cooler we should lean towards a little warmer.

  3.  I wonder what would happen if we didn't pay farmers not to grow.  I mean there must be some far reaching plan that I don't see that justifies this behavior.  I mean was it done solely to keep farmers employed?  Cus that sounds stupid to me.  I'd rather us eliminate starvation ENTIRELY in America (or better the Americas) because we can at little or no additional cost to us.  Call it socialist if you want but if we ARE capable of producing infinite of something I don't see a quality reason not to, and not to provide it free of charge either.

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  1. That is a fact and people need to know that to be able to separate discomfort from real misery or dangerous conditions, as far as that goes.....neither real misery or dangerous conditions as related to heat in general come in to play here.
  
  2. Yes the food issue is complex, and it has nothing to do with global warming, or at least no more than it has for millions of years that is....weather patterns change......a decrease in sun spot activity resulted in the mini ice age that you referred to, as did any other significant long term drop in Earths temp. On the flip side any significant increase in the Earths temp has been a result of increase in Sun spot activity.
  
  3
  
  3.
  

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  3. I agree to some extent.....if the government wants to give the farmers a handout, then subsidize them to grow the additional crops needed and then give them to the nations that need them.....at least we would be getting something for our money.
  
  But back to the article......it was simply written as a scare tactic, and did nothing to balance the truth....a misdirection in this case is a lie
  

• travelr712 said on May 30, 2009....

  i did extensive research into global warming for a class project last year. most of the data being used is either corrupt or misinterpreted. the 1.33 degree temperature rise is a rise in the calculated average global temperature over a year. from what i researched, this is more due to a change in the sun than anything humans have done. it's similar to the 'hole in the ozone' when people said it was because of aerosol sprays. but when the measurements were started, the hole was already there, with no way to tell how long or how it was created, and after decades of no aerosols, it's still there.

• D6fer said on May 30, 2009....

  exactly....thanks!
  
  And from what I hear....the sun is entering a period of low sun spot activity.....scientists a few years ago thought that it was increasing, but now a new report has come out and they are reluctantly releasing the information.....we could see another mini ice age in the very near future.
  

• travelr712 said on May 30, 2009....

  and low sunspot activity usually means another ice age, so maybe what we humans have done is figured out a way to keep the temperature more moderate without realizing we were averting another dark age.

• D6fer said on May 31, 2009....

  LOL....yeah...we'll be hoping we can heat things up!

• bloc said on Jun 02, 2009....

  "the 1.33 degree temperature rise is a rise in the calculated average global temperature over a year. from what i researched, this is more due to a change in the sun than anything humans have done."
  
  It is not due to the sun. I've disproved this before, to d6, but he never accepts any facts that go against his ideology.
  

• bloc said on Jun 02, 2009....

  Here is one of many studies on this.
  
  I'd like to point out the type of nonsense that comes from d6fer. He's posted blogs stating that the sun is causing global warming then he'll post a blog claiming that the earth has really been cooling. Both of these can't be true and there is no coherent explanation from him. He is simply ideological on this with no regard to reason or logic. He will repeat anything if it can be used to say that man isn't causing global warming no matter how much it contradicts other things he's said about it in the past. I wish he'd get some integrity on this issue.
  

• D6fer said on Jun 02, 2009....

  actually to correct trav....that is the rise in temp over 100 years not one.....and you've disproved nothing bloc.....you are simply regurgitating BS that some pinhead and a computer model have come up with....not proof.
  
  Prove to me that the sun is not the Earths energy source.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 02, 2009....

  We don't have to prove that D6.  What has been proven is that increased sunspot activity has not in the past had any direct effect on global tempratures.

• D6fer said on Jun 03, 2009....

  bullshit

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 03, 2009....

  Got charts?  I should note that I am a skeptic of global warming.  My siding with the "libs" on this has everything to do with the fact that conservatives offer no alternative stance.  Libs basically say we should return to the stone age and chase buffalo with big sticks (while simotaneously taking care of the ill and elderly as little sense as that makes).  Conservatives however counter with "hur hur lets shit in teh drinking water.  No big!"

  Seeing how we currently ARE shitting in the drinking water I know what happens if I side with the Right.  The Left will NEVER talk me out of my computer though.

  My point here is that if Conservatives would offer some kind of point, even a false one it would be easier to follow them.  Take the car bail outs.  The right is screaming about how Obama is going to force GM to make cars that are little and stupid and nobody wants (while ignoring entirely that we CAN'T sell our cars overseas at all because we fail to make simple emission and efficiency standards.  And say what you want about socialism but Europes artificially high gas prices have made them less depending on the evil mud people. . .moose limbs. . .dune coons. . .shit. . .OPEC.  They are less dependent on OPEC that is PC right?  Anyway the right's answer to OBama wants to cut dependency on foriegn oil and permanently move to a new energy source is. . . Little cars are for bitches.

  If you would even conceed an inch.  A single inch by saying we are actively pursuing lower emissions to keep our skies smog free and lower gas consumption to save you the voter money you'd get votes.  Instead your stuck on.  "Hur real cars use gas.  Stop being a pussy pussy.

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 03, 2009....

  The universe will go through it's cycles whether humans are in it or not.
  We are nothing compared to it.
  
  That said, there are a lot more chemicals out there worse than DDT.  We will all die of something.  Malaria, hunger, DDT...
  
  I personally believe the guilt put on people by believing in global warming is bullshit.
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 03, 2009....

  Also we should basically coat Africa in DDT for about two full years.  The entire fucking continent.  No more mosquitos will help them tremendously.

• D6fer said on Jun 03, 2009....

  you obviously havent been paying attention.....if you will go back through my posts on the subject you will see that I believe in alternative energies.....I also think we should drill here drill now.....build more nuke plants.....upgrade our infrastructure......how the fuck is it going to support all of the electric cars they plan to build?......and how expensive will electricity be then?
  
  I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic about the DDT and Africa comment.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 04, 2009....

  Sean in all of your whiny bantering you always fail to actually back your statements about the right.  The left claims our SUV's and oil usage are heating the planet to castastrophic levels.  There is no alternative to that because it is flat out bullshit as D6 put it and this has nothing to do with the actual pollution which you disingeniously and repeatedly claim.  Everyone is for no garbage and no pollution. 

  Our car business has shit the bed because the UAW union has gotten so greedy our cars cost more and when you add the stupid global warming nutcases who have created myths and sold them as truth it has chipped away at the market until we have what we have today.  Europe is less dependent oil because people rely a lot on public transportation after they have taxed gas to death.  

  You are also hung up on this fuel emissions standards crap.  Another myth fed to Americans is raising fuel emissions standards equals less global warming which is completely false.  Raising fuel emissions standards hurts car companies and does nothing to increase or decrease the temperature of this planet.  Car companies were are all ready raising emission standards before these retards starting lieing about global warming.

   Stand back and watch.  When the myth of global warming is finally exposed Al Gore will claim it was because of his efforts that the warming was halted and the planet is actually cooling then the new threat will be safety because statistics will show a drastic rise in auto deaths because safety standards are taking a back seat to this fuel efficiency nonsense.

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 04, 2009....

  Can I just say, every time I see one of those little clown cars on the road, I want to run over them. Just for being stupid. It is the equivalent of a person on the highway with their scooter/wheelchair with orange flag. At least they have a reason for doing it. I'll get some caffeine now... :)

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2009....

  D6:  I don't need to go through your posts.  You are one man.  As a party, as a movement the Right has no solid stance on envioromental standards.  I agree 100% with all of the statements you just said.  But when was the last time you heard a major Republican say anything that even resembles that statement?  Aside from the drill here, drill now.  Find me a Republican talking seriously about alternative power, or even Nukes.

  SMB:  See you're proving my point that the Right has no alternative stance and what stance it does have is retarded.  For starters the MANAGEMENT could have refused to do business with the UAW.  Ultimately they signed the motherfucking contracts and I got no pity for them.  Sorry its my inner capitalist that refuses to feel bad for a man who didn't act in his own best interest.  And it would have been in their own best interest to sell the companies long ago and refuse to deal with theives and muggers. 

  As far as fuel emissions.  If rising fuel emissions hurt car companies then the foreign car companies would have been destroyed.  Obviously they don't.  More to the point who cares if lowering emissions slows the heating of the planet.  Is the idea that I like a blue sky that bad that you refuse to make rational steps towards it?  Is the idea that I don't like the fact that there is a floating island of trash the size of Texas so bad that you refuse to take steps to fix it? 

  Again if cars with higher safety standards were inherently less safe then you should be able to find stats proving that American made cars are less dangerous than foreign made cars correct?  So prove it.

  SMB is the standard Republican response.  It's not a problem lets stay the course.  Fuck that get a plan.  Get an actual stance to put up against the democrats.  Your current position is ignorant and will not hold.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 04, 2009....

  Sean-I actually thought the way it works is you actually read what a person writes then comment, not just repeat the same drivel.

  I'll be more specific considering my audience :>

  "See you're proving my point that the Right has no alternative stance and what stance it does have is retarded." 

  Tens of thousands of scientists have stated in other words that catastrophic global warming is a big fat load of bull.  Is the planet warming to dangerous levels because of humans?  NO.  Therefore there is no alternative stance to that.  Everyone agrees we should be good stewards of this planet.

   From you previous post:

   "(while ignoring entirely that we CAN'T sell our cars overseas at all because we fail to make simple emission and efficiency standards." 

  This is horseshit and has nothing to do with why are car companies are in trouble.

  http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=mpgClass&subject=fuelList

  "If rising fuel emissions hurt car companies then the foreign car companies would have been destroyed."

  The link above points out the top best fuel efficient cars and Americans are not that far behind.  Rising fuel emissions just adds to the price of cars for no good reason.  Our cars do not pollute the environment and if they did our planet would have went down in flames when cars had zero emission standards way back when.

  "Is the idea that I don't like the fact that there is a floating island of trash the size of Texas so bad that you refuse to take steps to fix it?"

  You being dishonest because you are mixing two completely seperate subjects.  If Al Gore wanted to do some good he sould highlight real pollution not this imaginary Global warming nonsense.  What does an island of trash have to do with Global warming?  And sorry Mr. socialist you want to give the people who allowed that big island of trash to happen in control of healthcare and every other aspect of our lives.  That makes a lot of sense.  If our leaders can't clean up garbage in their districts what makes you think they are going to provide better healthcare than what we all ready have?

  "Again if cars with higher safety standards were inherently less safe then you should be able to find stats proving that American made cars are less dangerous than foreign made cars correct?  So prove it."

  Public transit accounts for around 50% of transportation in Japan and Europe compared to about 5% here in the U.S. and we lose around the same number of lives in car crashes per population size.  Bigger cars and SUV's compared to smaller toy cars is the main reason.

  "SMB is the standard Republican response.  It's not a problem lets stay the course.  Fuck that get a plan.  Get an actual stance to put up against the democrats.  Your current position is ignorant and will not hold."

  What is my current position?  I agree we should keep our planet clean and clean up the current messes we have.  I don't agree with kneecapping business and the free market based on some ridiculous global warming myth.  You don't even agree with the whole global warming crap but you are back ignorant policies from an ignorant President. 

   

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2009....

  1.  There was no point in reading yoru last post.  But I'll humor you this time.

  2.  No not everyone does.  Your stance CLEARLY does not.  Lowering emission standards and improving fuel economy has so many advantages that even if you think GW is a crock of shit (which most data suggests it isn't) it should need to.  Again how bout clean skies?  How bout lowered dependence on foriegn oil!  Why is there no republican stating he will push for lower emissions and higher gass mileage?  If you disagree with the method being used then comup with an alternate stance.

  3. If by not far behind in fuel mileage you mean 1 in the top 10 then yeah I guess your right.  Crazy me, I would have thought being competitive would have required at least 3 in the top ten.  I guess I should return to basic fucking math.  In fact the only place we dominate is in the Full Size SUV market.

  4.  How can you look at the sky over LA or Chicago and say our cars don't pollute the enviroment?!  Holy fucking shit.  Also the idea that the world would have gone down in flames way back when is. . . you are joking right.  You do understand that it wasn't a single big act that caused a river to fucking catch fire!  Right?  It was years and years of destructive behavior. 

  5.  Now who's mixing subjects.  Enviroment.  One issue.  I see no important distinction between car pollutants, recycling, cutting down on refuse, disposal of toxins, etc etc.  It is a single big issue and must be observed as such. 

  5a.  You are aware that we already have nationalized health care right?  You do know your fighting a battle you lost long ago.  The thing is we aren't getting the benefits, we're just getting the shit end.  We pay THE HIGHEST TAXES FOR HEALTH CARE IN THE WORLD already.  And we still have people going bankrupt.  Clearly what we have is not working. 

  6.  I'd like to see stats that we loose the same amount of people in accidents.  Besides you should be able to find stats for that in the US.  We controll less than 50% of the local market so if the stats are true you should be able to prove it stateside.

  7.  If you agree we should keep our planet clean and clean up the current messes then make that part of the national stance.  Start electing people who are going to make steps towards improving the current situation.  Don't force me to choose between shitting in the drinking water and driving the Flintstone car because that is what I'm seeing the choices as.

• D6fer said on Jun 04, 2009....

  sean.....are you aware of which President started the EPA? Nixon.....a Republican.......do you know which President has protected more ocean than any other?....it's George W. Bush....a republican
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 04, 2009....

  Appareance is everything.  If you do something and don't actually talk about it and make it part of your platform it doesn't matter.

  I could easily counter your points with you know which president signed Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants into law?  Ronald Reagan.  Not just A republican but in the last say fifty years I feel comfortable calling RR The Republican.  You know who tried to sign it into law again?  Bush.  You know who conducted the most raids in the last thirty years?  Clinton.

  Still who do you associate with strict laws against illegal immigrants and who do you associate with amnesty?  Maybe I'm a freak on this but when I think of the two parties I assume the R's will be tougher on Illegals than Dems (even though history would disagree with me)  Hell thus far Obama is proving me wrong as ICE raids seem to have been kicked up a notch.

  My point is that we are talking about politics here.  I know that nobody is pro-pollution.  But Republicans need to come up with a stance.  And making fun of the Democrat position does not consitute a stance. 

  Here is the basics of the position I would hold as a Republican/Conservative broken into a number of points.  They aren't perfected as this is the first time I've truly tried to articulate them.

  1.  We recognize the value of the enviroment.  We are pushing in the short term to convert from fossil fuels to nuclear power and support the advancement of alternative power sources.  However oil remains the most cost effective energy source and we will use it while searching for a new energy.  Specifically oil and oil dependent industries will receive subsidies for money used to research and improve new energy sources (or to significantly improve oil reserves.  There is a process that claims to be able to make oil from anything.)

  2.  We acknowledge that man has the ability to damage the enviroment.  One only needs to look at 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl or Hiroshima to prove this fact.  Further more we acknowledge that deforestation, oil spills and (blah blah blah) are a danger to our enviroment and we are taking the following steps to minimize the impact we are having.  Where we differ from the Democrats is that they would enact policies that would force us into the third world where our policies have been discussed with business leaders in ways we believe will create jobs.

  I almost wish I was a Republican but I could never suceed as a Republican because of my social stances.  So I'm stuck with these fuckers with their enviromental and economical whack jobs.

• javadewd said on Jun 05, 2009....

  So how much data is used to calculate this 1.33 degree rise? Less than 10 years? Less than 100 years? Less than 1000 years? Less than 10,000 years for all you Babylonians out there? Just curious...
  
  Oh, SR, great farmer extraordinaire... Tell us of the complexities of farming! We in middle America no nothing about the complexities of farming, because we produce all of the food you eat, you tool. Also, I would like a source as to the claim that the earth was warmer over the reign of the Roman Empire... Was there a weather coffin that scoured the earth and said "this is what the global temperature is, my Caesar."
  
  Farm subsidies happened to keep the domestic price of food from falling through the floor. Regulating supply keeps that intersection with demand higher. That's Economics 101... Or should I say "Capitalism" just to hear you morons boo me.
  
  And bloc, the sun can cause global warming while the earth is cooling due to that little thing we have called "atmosphere." Breathe it in...
  
  Sean -- Yes, Republicans are not pro-pollution. They like the idea behind clean air, they hunt, fish and golf in it all the time. They just think that there has to be a better way than raising the cost of a light bulb to $10, hence now there is mass production of the new ones and they are supposed to last forever. Same comparison with cars, coal and other "green" bullshit issues. I could even bring up HDTV, where the government is forcing people to stop using older televisions (environmental energy saving reasons) and then subsidizing the stupid boxes. The whole initiative is a joke. It simply should have been a free-market solution, but it wasn't. It was government interference from day one... And it continues!
  

• stopmediabias said on Jun 05, 2009....

  Sean-You've lost me here.  It is amazing how a point just zooms right over your head.

  "2.  No not everyone does.  Your stance CLEARLY does not.  Lowering emission standards and improving fuel economy has so many advantages that even if you think GW is a crock of shit (which most data suggests it isn't) it should need to.  Again how bout clean skies?  How bout lowered dependence on foriegn oil!"

  When I sold cars back in 2004 a selling point was modern car emissions have been knocked down to nothing.  California has destroyed it's economy on green nonsense and they are still the smog capital.  Smog is caused from industry and old cars and trucks.  Instead of actually dealing with this the government is forcing modern cars to reduce what little emissions they have, makes a lot of sense.  This is because this whole debate is not about the environment or emissions or oil, it is about soundbites and politics.  And NASA has just come out and said Sun cycles is causing the globe to warm up, not man.

  This dependence on foreign oil is a political soundbite.  We can get rid of foreign oil purchases by just getting oil from our own soil and ya know what?  It would actually create jobs and be better for the world because do you actually think these countries we buy oil from care about the environment or are held to the same standards as we are?  What about nuclear power?  Oh no can't talk about that.

  #5-How many billions of dollars is being pissed away on Global warming nonsense when that money would be better spent just cleaning up past messes?  From polluted landfills to toxic waste dumps the list is endless of things we could do but what are we doing?  Telling everyone the stuff we exhale from our lungs is a pollutant that needs to be reduced.

  #5a-According to the census bureau nearly 80% of Americans have health insurance.  With that 100% have access to an emergency room.  People in socialist countries pay 50 to 55% of their income in taxes and have to wait weeks and sometimes months for procedures.  Our healthcare cost too much because of corruption and government meddling.  What makes you think the government is going to do any better when they can't fix our schools and roads and a whole host of other things.  

   

• dyingman said on Jun 15, 2009....

  The key objection to DDT was that insects become resistant to it.
  If it could be restricted to indoor use, that might help, but folks have to walk outside sometime.  It's an imperfect tool.
  
  The history of its use was interesting.
  
  Global warming is not a myth and I don't doubt 300,000 die of its consequences.  There's 6 billion of us.  300k is 0.005%.  Is THAT so hard to believe?
  
  

• javadewd said on Jun 16, 2009....

  300k die of global warming? Oh, come on. 36k die of the flu every year!

• D6fer said on Jun 16, 2009....

  my question is: How many heat related deaths were there in the past before global warming was considered a problem? 

• javadewd said on Jun 16, 2009....

  And what about glaciers?

• D6fer said on Jun 16, 2009....

  "We're not sure why this happens," said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. "But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change."
  
  that's because glaciers are not as stupid as liberals.....they don't believe in man mad global warming either!
  

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 16, 2009....

  question:
  Has global warming ever been listed as a cause of death?
  
  

• javadewd said on Jun 17, 2009....

  Now that is an interesting question!

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2009....

  Of course global warming has been atributed to deaths.  It's just that it's very very fuzzy math.  Basically you look at say India and say they lost x amount of lives to malaria between 1990-2000 and then they lost x+y lives between 2000-2007.  Clearly because of the temprature spike (which ended in '99) all the extra lives lost sense are caused by global warming increasing the mosquito population.  Of course it could be anything else (including global warming making it easier for the virus/bacteria to multiply) or just population expansion.  Stats will lie if you let them.

  Also regardless of if it is man made or not (of which there is little logical doubt) the climate is changing.

• javadewd said on Jun 17, 2009....

  No, that's not what DTI is asking. She's asking if on a death certificate under "cause of death" that some hippie schmuck has ever listed "global warming." Somehow, I'm thinking no. What you are describing would be like the late Dr. Tiller having "Christianity" listed under "cause of death" on his death certificate... And actually just as absurd!

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 17, 2009....

  Old age contributes to death also.  So your answer is no. 
  
  I understand what you mean about fuzzy math and as far as statistics go, you give me statistics, I can "prove" anything.
  
  So Malaria, heat and hunger are the causes.  Why can't we send them some other chemical to reduce mosquito population, food (there's plenty) and air conditioners using the turtle money?  Then we can call it what it is, solve it and use the money in a somewhat useful manner.
  
  The climate is changing because we live in a universe that goes through cycles.  Arrogance makes people think they can change this.
  

• bloc said on Jun 17, 2009....

  @door
  "The climate is changing because we live in a universe that goes through cycles. "
  
  
  Are you saying that our actions can't affect the environment?

• javadewd said on Jun 17, 2009....

  I like her idea that it is human arrogance that believes that we can.

• stopmediabias said on Jun 17, 2009....

  How many years does our planet have to cool before people realize that man-made global warming is a myth?  Along with the Earth cycles we have cycles of lunacy.  We are now in the era of global warming and soon the new threat to all mankind will be global cooling after that it will be space garbage after that it will be gadget overdose, when does it end?

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 17, 2009....

  bloc - We have all stipulated no one wants to pollute the earth. 
  our actions can affect our environment.
  But not on a universal scale, NO.
  Complete arrogance.
  
  Thanks jav.  I don't articulate as well as you do!  :-)
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 17, 2009....

  You're right.  It's not like we haven't proven our ability time and time again to fuck with the enviroment on some pretty damned grand scales.  I mean there are tons of people living at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.  There isn't an island of trash floating, there also aren't dead spots in the sea. We've never turned a desert into. . .Los Angeles.  It's not like we artificially create lacks so we have water where we want it, when we want it.  We know how water and currents effect global tempratures but thousands of dams preventing the flow of millions of gallons of water probably has no mass effect.  Even though any idiot knows that MOST of the oxygen in the world is created by algae I'm sure massive deforestation has absolutely no effect on anything.  I could go on, but I'm bored.

  It's sheer ignorance to claim that mankind cannot and has not effected the earth.  Its no more arrogance to state that we can have effects on the planet than it is to say we have people living in outerspace. 

  One thing that people tend to forget however is that we don't know enough about the enviroment to know what the hell is going on and to what extent.  Lets remember that when the Vikings (or whoever if you want to debate me racial lineages fuck you very much) discovered Greenland it was green.  They were so taken with how lush it was that they named it Greenland!  When the Romans were running wild and you know civilizing all the silly barbarian tribes around them and basically laying the groundwork for modern everything.  It was warmer.  Dark Ages?  Cold snap.

  Also you have all stiuplated that no one wants to pollute but you've made NO effort to actually back those words.  They are hollow bullshit words.  Everytime a "liberal" tries to do ANYTHING to help cut pollution you scream and whine and cry.  The worst part as I've stated over and over again is that you have NO alternative stance. On most political issues there are two sides with distinct stances.  Abortion has pro-life every life is precious vs pro-choice it's not a life yet and it would cause problems for everybody.  Gun control has a man is not free if he can't defend himself (FACT) vs Guns cause lots of deaths that wouldn't otherwise occur, crimes of passion, accidental etc etc.  (FACT).  I err on the side of guns and you can bet I'll have me a nice big gun when I've got some money.  One day hell will fill up and Zombies will invade.  Or some scientist in a lab will create a virus.  Either way Zombies are coming and I intend to be prepared.  (FACT)  I could go on but I won't.  I"m bored.  On the enviroment you have the liberals screaming that if we don't recycle 100% of everything, cut emissions back to the records set at Tun Tavern Novermber 10, 1775 (A cookie for anybody who knows the significance of that time and locale) the world will blow up as soon as we have our first born child.  The opposing force says: You're stupid.  Acid rain never hurt nobody.

• doortoinsanity said on Jun 18, 2009....

  I have stated my beliefs.  There are more blogs than this one.  They were EVERYWHERE.
  
  READ.  It'll do u good.
  
  "One thing that people tend to forget however is that we don't know enough about the environment to know what the hell is going on and to what extent."
  
  THANK YOU!
  
  Case closed.
  

• D6fer said on Jun 18, 2009....

  malaria has increased 1000% since they stopped using DDT......does that figure into your fuzzy math Sean? 

• stopmediabias said on Jun 20, 2009....

  Sean-The title of this post states this is about global warming propaganda, not pollution.  There is a universal agreement that we should spend unGodly amounts of money if that is what it takes to clean up our messes and prevent future messes.  This is not what Conservatives are bitching about. 

  We are talking about the claim that mankind's emissions are heating the planet to levels that could threaten life on this planet.  Based on this the Left is spending and preparing to spend trillions of dollars on an unproven assumption.

  And the Zombies are all ready here, they are currently running our government :>

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 20, 2009....

  Pollution and Global warming go hand in hand.  All of the measures suggested to prevent global warming would by definition prevent polution as well.  They are clearly the same issue over all and there is no universal agreement.  There is lip service but no actual acttion.

• bloc said on Jun 20, 2009....

  "Based on this the Left is spending and preparing to spend trillions of dollars on an unproven assumption."
  By this standard we would never take any action. For example, WMD were never proven, but you felt it was worth trillions to invade anyway.
  What we have to do is understand the limits of our knowledge as well as the strength of the evidence. Evidence if never 100% proof. All the nuances of gravity aren't even 100% proven. The idea that cutting taxes is a good thing is 100% proven. The idea that the death penalty reduces crime isn't 100% proven, yet you want to kill people based on something less than proof.

• javadewd said on Jun 21, 2009....

  And you want to kill and torture unborn children based on unknowns. Congratulations, you're a tool.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2009....

  LoL.  First we don't kill unborn children based on unknowns.  It is a simple fact that children are expensive and if you are poor they will make the situation worse.  That's not an unknown.  Even if it wasn't you need to grow up and use debating points that have something to do with the subject, even remotely. 

  The point is simply that there are many many things, politics, economies, the ecology that are far too complicated for anybody to understand and to claim we'll never claim we understand 100%.  But Republicans sure as fuck think that cutting taxes on the rich will fix this tax problem and they have (extraordinarily weak) evidence to support this claim.  Democrats can point to California and New York (both top ten WORLD economies) both borderline hostile business locales with high taxes and regulations and say that taxes and regulations get rid of the weak and idiots and leave only the strongest who thrive.  Nobody really knows what is going to happen when you bring a new species into an enviroment.  Whether it will simply die out as has happened probably tens of thousands of times and we never know about it because it doesn't matter.  We only know about that critter that shows up and takes over.

  We still have loads of information and it's idiotic not to act on what we know.

• javadewd said on Jun 21, 2009....

  So you're irrefutable truth is the exact opposite of my existence, SR. Both my parents dropped out of high school... I'm not going to re-hash this. Your "knowns" of children ruining the lives of parents is a farce. Your claim that California and New York to be "top 10 world economies" is false. Your "Darwinian capitalism" is a farce. We still grow your food, especially meat.
  
  Your load of information is pulled out of your ass and I need a bucket, which is more than what you've got through this "rough" economic period. My biz has been booming regardless of the home of fruits, nuts and flakes in LA or the snotty bemmer tailpipe fuckers on the upper west side.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 21, 2009....

  Wow.  I'm just going to give you the benefit of the doubt and not call you a liar.  I refuse to respond to such idiocy other than to say you've generally been respectful so I'm going to refrain from using harsher language.  I'm going to assume it was a mistake that you looked FIRST to the GDP PPP instead of just the GDP like any sane person.  I'm going to assume you've never done any research and as a result you believe that the lives your parents lead were typical of high school drop outs .

• javadewd said on Jun 22, 2009....

  My parents went on to get masters degrees. My mother just retired a nurse and my dad just opened on his third business. My mother's mother wanted me aborted. Unlike the rest of the lazy shits in San Fernando valley, my existence actually spurred my parents to go beyond what they could have ever accomplished without me. I was hardly a burden. I would love to see one source that says that pro-choice folks actually ditch their kids because they think they would be a financial burden. If that was true and documented, pro-abortionists would be burned at the steak.
  
  Stop playing with your PP or your PPP. You can fiddle with your fuzzy math all day, but to grant California as a world economy would be like saying that Wisconsin is the "world economy" for cheese or beer. Your elaborations and generalities are but piss in the wind!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 22, 2009....

  You know I had an entire day to sit and figure out how best to respond.  I know now that you aren't a man with a differing opinion based on facts.  You are in fact a liar. 

  http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

  The two leading causes for why women get abortions are they are unready for the responsibility and cannot afford the child at that time.  They are tied at 21% for a combine of 42%.  When you toss in the next to highest reasosn which are concerned with how the child will affect her life at 16% and too young/immature to have a baby at 11% you are lookint at 69% of all abortions coming from I'm too young and I'm too broke.  But I think 21% one in five is a pretty sizable number don't you?  If you glance at the second chart, which is newer 73% of all abortions financial reasons was a large part of the decision.  This is true, and documented. 

  As for California being a world economy again denouncing this just makes you a liar.  I shouldn't have to post links for this anymore than I should have to post links proving that the sky is blue, water is wet or Bush was President of the United States.  But here goes anyway.

  Cal Facts has us as the worlds 6th largest economy.  http://www.lao.ca.gov/2004/cal_facts/2004_calfacts_econ.htm

  As for exports uh we feed you fucks.  We are the worlds 5th largest exporter of food, (Twice as large much as any other state) we are the largest produce of dairy products and oh yeah. . .we've got oil.  Sorry bout all that.  I wish you weren't a liar.

   

• stopmediabias said on Jun 23, 2009....

  See my point about the zombies is proven by bloc.  Subjugation of people, using WMD's on his own people, harboring terrorists, firing at planes in the no fly zone, and on and on but people like bloc it's like they are sleep-walking "no wmd's no wmd's no wmd's."
   
  Sean-Have you been spooning with bloc and kelly?  The fucking rich pay nearly all the taxes, so the rich get the biggest tax cut (meaning they pay less taxes) and the proof is the Kennedy, Reagan, and GW Bush economies where cutting taxes brought growth and growth lead to prosperity.
   
  I can't even fathom arguing abortion that way.  From the perspective of terminating human life how can rich or poor factor into that.  How many people in the midst of destructive behavior get slapped in the face by a pregnancy and determine they have nine months to get their shit together and straighten out?  Abortion just give's people an easy way out and adds a whole host of problems both physical and mental, which holy moly;  cost money.  Plus how many people that can afford a child get abortions?
   
  And if Libs are so concerned with saving money how about opening up the death rows and finally getting rid of some of these people who luckily will never see the light of day anyway.
   
  The main point is there is a better way, before, during, and after and abortion is a quick fix that is bad for society. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 23, 2009....

  1.  Of course the rich pay nearly all the taxes.  That is a problem for another day however.  Giving them tax cuts clearly doesn't work.  The only example to the contrary is Reagan.  The other Bush 1 tried the same shit and it didn't work (probably cus it wasn't really working under Reagan but who cares)  Clinton raised those taxes and general quality of life improved.  GW did the opposite and general quality declined.  Sure the economy continued to grow but that was largely fake money (but to be fair much of the money Clinton amassed was fake as well.

  2.  State funds abortion because it's cheaper than funding 18 years of living + jail time at the end.  How many get there shit together though?  We've covered it earlier, about one out of every one hundred.  And that is with them having a choice in the matter. 

  Of course abortion is bad for society.  Unwanted children are worse though.

  3.  Helly eah open death row.  Anybody who is never going to be free should be killed and withing five years.  For basically every other crime though we HAVE to get them back on the streets in under ten years.  Prison must become about reform and not revenge.

  Legalizing drugs would go a long way towards fixing that anyway.

• D6fer said on Jun 23, 2009....

  Sean.....with the state of Californias economy today.......I don't think I'd be bragging it up much......California should be an example to the rest of the nation on how not to do things.

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 23, 2009....

  The problem with California is the same problem with the nation.  And the horrible truth of it is that taxes are too low here or more accurately that the tax burden is improper.  While I'm a huge fan of closing any and all tax shelters, I prefer obscene luxury and inheritance taxes to the taxing of "real" earned income. 

  The problem here is clear to any idiot.  When 90% of the taxes are paid by 50% of the people and 70% of the taxes are paid by what is it?  10% of earners you are heavily invested in those ten people.  When those ten people are primarily (I said primarily there are obviously Bill GAtes in the world) make their money on the stock market the market CAN'T crash or you go with it.

  It's the same reason why we had to save the Banks and the Auto industry no matter how dirty it made us fell.  Directly and indirectly the Auto Industry employs one out of ten people in this nation.  They go the rest of us might as well pack it in. 

  Which leads me to my point that I've been making for a while.  When a company can be called too big to fail it needs to be broken up immediatly into multiple companies to keep the market competitive.  This should apply equally to Unions however.  No single group of people should be capable of basically dragging the world to a halt.

• bloc said on Jun 28, 2009....

  The problem with CA is weird. We have two giant problems. 
  
  
  1) Ballot initiatives. These tie the hands of those in charge and prevent them from reacting to changing circumstances
  
  
  2) CA requires 66% supermajority to pass a budget. 

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 28, 2009....

  Which is why our budget hasn't been on time in my lifetime.  But we are one of the highest taxed states already and it's not like we were making budget routinely prior to the recession (how long does it need to last to be officially a depression anyway?)  And fling whatever else you want there is a way to get within the budget, you start making deep and meaningful cuts.  Personally I'd start by setting free a bunch of people in jail for say possession of drugs AND cut an appropriate amount of prison guards and with any luck shut down a facility or two.

  I'd probably stick with the oil tax.  Oil is one of those odd little beauties that you can tax rather stiffly because honestly it's not like the stuff is found everywhere.  The CAN'T take their ball and play at home.  I'd take a long look at the schools as well because I swear that money is going int a black hole someplace and with my mother and one of my best friend's mother's being a teacher I don't get the impression that the teachers themselves are truly the drain.  I think they have WAY more admin than there is any proper use for getting paid way too much.  But I can't prove it but there are people with the facts and figures and I'd just tell teachers.  You know your system is corrupt.  Fix it.  I'm cutting funding by X.  So are you going to stand with me and stamp out the corruption or are you going to let the corrupt fire you to keep their BMWs cus you've got this whole Union thing.  I can't fix this for you.  However don't you dare wave how this will increase class sizes blah blah blah.  I don't care.  Your funding will be cut by X next year.  Figure it out and call me back.

  I'm curious how you feel about unions though.  Most specifically the statement I made about they should not be allowed to form monopolies on labor.

• javadewd said on Jun 29, 2009....

  Sub out prison space in other states. We could use the petty thieves as laborers! That would mean labor unions would be in prisons, along with the criminals, where they belong!!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jun 29, 2009....

  Odd.  I don't hate that plan.  Though I think there are probably better ways to deal with petty theives.

Comment on "More Global Warming propaganda"

Currently tagged	global warming scam politics liberals liars DDT duped statistics raw numbers drop in the bucket (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously