A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Ford Mustang
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

HEY ENVIRO-LEFTIES; How about a little challenge???



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old June 30th 05, 06:41 AM
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

pawn wrote:
> rw wrote:
>
>>
>> I think they're in denial about the scientific evidence of the
>> seriousness of the problem, which is overwhelming.

>
>
> Please elaborate. Seriousness of what problem? Global warming (which
> could be man made, but has a much more established natural cyclical
> trend) is a given, so please be creative, or ar least relevant.


Sorry if I'm not relevant, pawn. I'm putting a Mustang reference in this
post.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, for about 200 years
more or less, we've been polluting our atmosphere with not only CO2 but
with also with lots of other noxious crap. The CO2 level has risen
dramatically and inexorably, and it's accelerating.

We don't understand what the consequences will be. We're not that smart.
It could be global warming, or it could be radical global cooling. The
system is nonlinear and unpredictable. Whichever, the consequences will
likely be horrific. We're like a colony of monkeys poking and prodding
at a complex machine, pulling out parts and jamming in sticks and
watching with ignorant curiosity what happens. But the machine we're
****ing with is the only planet we live on. Imagine letting a chimpanzee
work on your vintage Mustang.

Any rational look at the recent history of our climate (like over the
past 100,000 years or so), even ignoring human-caused problems, makes
one fear for the future of our children. We are very complacent. The
universe is a cold, hard, unforgiving place. If we don't look out for
ourselves, be assured that no one else will be looking out for us.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
Ads
  #12  
Old June 30th 05, 08:42 PM
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd say, everyone, except trolls like hurc, are relevant, and I
imagine even they serve some purpose at some point.

While there is reason to be "concerned" for our environment, and we
should do things to lessen man's impact upon it, there's no sound
reason for panicked knee jerk reaction when science can't make up it's
mind which way the wind is blowing, or whether it is man-made or a
natural, perhaps cyclic, condition. Even their predictions can't
establish solid time factors. Does mankind have a decade to fix
things, or a million years?

Perhaps less worry should be placed upon pollution than on population
growth in developing nations especially, as well as the rest. Less
people, less resources to consume, less need for manufacturing, so
less pollution. And less need for sheep and cows polluting the air
with their noxious methane gas eruptions. In turn, more room on the
roads for our Mustangs to run wild and free without all the pollution
control crap that robs us of power, coupled with more available fuel
for a much longer period of time. : )


On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 05:41:24 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>pawn wrote:
>> rw wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think they're in denial about the scientific evidence of the
>>> seriousness of the problem, which is overwhelming.

>>
>>
>> Please elaborate. Seriousness of what problem? Global warming (which
>> could be man made, but has a much more established natural cyclical
>> trend) is a given, so please be creative, or ar least relevant.

>
>Sorry if I'm not relevant, pawn. I'm putting a Mustang reference in this
>post.
>
>Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, for about 200 years
>more or less, we've been polluting our atmosphere with not only CO2 but
>with also with lots of other noxious crap. The CO2 level has risen
>dramatically and inexorably, and it's accelerating.
>
>We don't understand what the consequences will be. We're not that smart.
>It could be global warming, or it could be radical global cooling. The
>system is nonlinear and unpredictable. Whichever, the consequences will
>likely be horrific. We're like a colony of monkeys poking and prodding
>at a complex machine, pulling out parts and jamming in sticks and
>watching with ignorant curiosity what happens. But the machine we're
>****ing with is the only planet we live on. Imagine letting a chimpanzee
>work on your vintage Mustang.
>
>Any rational look at the recent history of our climate (like over the
>past 100,000 years or so), even ignoring human-caused problems, makes
>one fear for the future of our children. We are very complacent. The
>universe is a cold, hard, unforgiving place. If we don't look out for
>ourselves, be assured that no one else will be looking out for us.


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce
Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Speech
  #13  
Old June 30th 05, 10:42 PM
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Spike wrote:
>
> While there is reason to be "concerned" for our environment, and we
> should do things to lessen man's impact upon it, there's no sound
> reason for panicked knee jerk reaction when science can't make up it's
> mind which way the wind is blowing, or whether it is man-made or a
> natural, perhaps cyclic, condition.


You're wrong that, Spike. Peer-reviewed scientific opinion is unanimous
that man-made green-house-gas pollution is affecting the climate. It's
completely consistent with common sense if you look at the trend for CO2
in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...o2_change.html

We're basically driving this car called the earth and not changing the oil.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
  #14  
Old July 1st 05, 12:03 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:42:29 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>>
>> While there is reason to be "concerned" for our environment, and we
>> should do things to lessen man's impact upon it, there's no sound
>> reason for panicked knee jerk reaction when science can't make up it's
>> mind which way the wind is blowing, or whether it is man-made or a
>> natural, perhaps cyclic, condition.

>
>You're wrong that, Spike. Peer-reviewed scientific opinion is unanimous
>that man-made green-house-gas pollution is affecting the climate. It's
>completely consistent with common sense if you look at the trend for CO2
>in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution:
>
>http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...o2_change.html
>
>We're basically driving this car called the earth and not changing the oil.


your wasting your time rw
spike is a baby killer from nam and a pigboy
he is incapable of free thought
he only understands orders and what the govt
tells him

h
u
r
c
a
s
t

  #15  
Old July 1st 05, 01:50 AM
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Perhaps, but I read an awful lot of scientific journals where quite a
number of people in the scientific communities disagree with their
peers. Sometimes in toto; sometimes on point of a thesis. Even among
those who support the contention, a large enough number are in
disagreement as to the extent of man's impact. Those are the ones who
are most open in an admission that science is not so able to make such
determinations with absolute certainty. So, it's not a case of I am
wrong, IMHO, but that I disagree with the ones you happen to agree
with. I think that there is room for more than one viewpoint, as
members of the scientific communities have shown by their open
disagreements. The concensus may support you position, and yet there
have been past conditions where the concensus was totally in error.

It just might be that to jump in with both feet and try to correct a
problem, mankind has proven on many occasions that corrective action
is worse than no action, or taking a slower, more subtle approach.
Killing a cockroach with a nuclear weapon doesn't always come out the
way it is expected.

Notice, I don't accuse you of being wrong simple because we hold
opposing views. I make allowance for the possibility that you might be
right.


On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:42:29 GMT, rw >
wrote:

>Spike wrote:
>>
>> While there is reason to be "concerned" for our environment, and we
>> should do things to lessen man's impact upon it, there's no sound
>> reason for panicked knee jerk reaction when science can't make up it's
>> mind which way the wind is blowing, or whether it is man-made or a
>> natural, perhaps cyclic, condition.

>
>You're wrong that, Spike. Peer-reviewed scientific opinion is unanimous
>that man-made green-house-gas pollution is affecting the climate. It's
>completely consistent with common sense if you look at the trend for CO2
>in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution:
>
>http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...o2_change.html
>
>We're basically driving this car called the earth and not changing the oil.


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce
Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Speech
  #16  
Old July 1st 05, 04:14 AM
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Spike wrote:
>
> Notice, I don't accuse you of being wrong simple because we hold
> opposing views. I make allowance for the possibility that you might be
> right.


Whatever, Spike. Keep drinking that Kool Aid, and don't bother thinking
for yourself.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
  #17  
Old July 1st 05, 04:39 AM
Spike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

It's so nice to live in a world where some believe that their answer
is the only answer and that any other opinion couldn't possibly be
even part right. Among many others throughout history, I'll bet
Columbus was glad to find that someone was willing to keep an open
mind, and I believe he was in a minority.

A recent report by National Geographic in coverage of the Eskimo
plight brought about by disappearing and thinning ice, also reported
that ice was piling up faster and thicker in the Antarctic. Should I
expect it to be removed from your list of approved journals since that
would seem to be a minority view.

It was not that many decades ago when the fear was global winter and
it was the minority in the scientific community who rejected that and
opted for the greenhouse affect. Now they are a majority and the
global winter supporters are the minority. Both have held forth reams
of supporting documentation. What's next?

It is my personal view that the final evidence is not in, and until it
is, I think I have a right to continue to examine and weigh the
evidence presented by both sides without being derided for holding an
opposing view. I consider that no more fence sitting than I would
when weighing the evidence presented by both sides in a death penalty
case.... for surely, whether it be a natural course or created by man,
death of the planet could be the end result... or perhaps just the end
of man and the rise of a new order of life.

And I did state that mankind should attempt to lessen it's impact upon
the environment, not continue to do damage to it, whether that impact
is great or small.

At least I believe I have extended the courtesy to acknowledge that my
view might be wrong, and to keep an open mind and not condemn those
who don't happen to agree with my views. How often through history has
a minority view been found to be the correct one over the majority
view?

I don't look down on you for not agreeing with me. Would that you
might grant me, or anyone else, the same consideration, even if I
should be wrong. Some of man's greatest advances have been born of
differing views.

Essentially, your response appears to be, and correct me if I am
wrong, that all opposition to your position is due to personal bias
rather than attempting to take a balanced view; or for self
aggrandizing political motivations; and similar justifications for
disagreement with what you consider the main stream view.

You cite an author who has a stake in what he writes for to state
something opposite to his book would likely hurt sales. Yet, you must
hold a view that he could not possible be biased. Is it only those
journals and authors whose view agrees with yours which are
acceptable? Is that the world we have come to? Should we begin banning
and burning books which might suggest an alternative view to global
warming?


On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 21:06:37 -0500, William Claude Dukenfield <William
Claude > wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:50:01 -0700, Spike > wrote:
>>Perhaps, but I read an awful lot of scientific journals where quite a

>
>Here's a good article on the subject:
>
>Get off the fence over global warming
>
>From issue 2505 of New Scientist magazine, 25 June 2005, page 25
>Mark Lynas
>
>CLIMATE change is not a scientific issue. No, really, I'm serious. It
>is far more important than that. It forces us to make fundamental
>choices about our most basic belief systems. If policy-makers and the
>public could forget about the science, we'd have a much better chance


Spike
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior
Vintage 40 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce
Radial 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins

"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Speech
  #18  
Old July 1st 05, 05:41 AM
pawn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rw wrote:

> pawn wrote:
>
>> rw wrote:
>>

>
> Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, for about 200 years
> more or less, we've been polluting our atmosphere with not only CO2 but
> with also with lots of other noxious crap. The CO2 level has risen
> dramatically and inexorably, and it's accelerating.


First off, you're calling CO2 pollution. It's a natural chemical which
has comprised a significant part of our atmosphere for billions of
years. Almost every animal on the planet creates it.

> We don't understand what the consequences will be. We're not that smart.
> It could be global warming, or it could be radical global cooling.


It could be nothing.

> The system is nonlinear and unpredictable. Whichever, the consequences will
> likely be horrific.


You see, you just provided a bunch of fluff, with zero substance or
fact, followed by the typical arm flapping conclusion that does not
follow from your fluff. Nothing you have said before this point yields
any sensible, let alone scientific, evidence that humans are affecting
the planet's weather trends.


> We're like a colony of monkeys poking and prodding
> at a complex machine, pulling out parts and jamming in sticks and
> watching with ignorant curiosity what happens. But the machine we're
> ****ing with is the only planet we live on. Imagine letting a chimpanzee
> work on your vintage Mustang.


I appreciate your attempt at relevance. Please adjust your analogy
though, to include that the Mustang in question is 4000 miles in
diameter (upwards of 5 or 6 times that when including the
atmosphere...which is what we're discussing).


> Any rational look at the recent history of our climate (like over the
> past 100,000 years or so), even ignoring human-caused problems, makes
> one fear for the future of our children. We are very complacent. The
> universe is a cold, hard, unforgiving place. If we don't look out for
> ourselves, be assured that no one else will be looking out for us.


What do you think you know about rational? Nothing in this post is in
any way whatsoever rational. However, I'm willing to give you another
chance. What is your theory on why the Earth's average temperature was
higher than today in the 15th century, and does this established fact
provide any insight at all as to whether we are or aren't affecting the
Earth's atmosphere?


  #19  
Old July 1st 05, 06:19 AM
pawn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rw wrote:

>
> You're wrong that, Spike. Peer-reviewed scientific opinion is unanimous
> that man-made green-house-gas pollution is affecting the climate. It's
> completely consistent with common sense if you look at the trend for CO2
> in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution:


Junk plain and simple. You're simply spewing the same crap the sprout
eaters have been blabbing to the media for years. There was never any
pier review involved in the so-called consensus, which was never
unanimous, ever, even in the wildest dreams of the most sprout eating
sprout eater.

If you're looking for facts by real scientists, you can look he

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

The synopsis, the most basic research upon which the so called
"consensus" was based, was misguided, in some part fabricated and in
large part fraudulent, and was never once pier reviewed, ever, by a
single scientific or government body in the entire world, before being
included as the main evidence in the IPCC's report to the UN, which was
the beginning of the magic show upon which Kyoto was sold to (some)
industrialized nations. We're talking about the very premise of
supposed man made global warming. It's one of the most heinous snake
oil sales jobs in the history of the world, supported in large part by
people like yourself who simply repeat the unfounded rhetoric that there
was ever a real consensus.

>
> http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/...o2_change.html
>


More snake oil meant to fool the masses. Read similar to this a dozen
times, it's always the same bunk. I guarantee there's an extreme
concentration of CO2 two inches from the lips of every one of these
pseudo scientists every time they open their mouths on the subject. But
since they baited you so well, and since I want to help you, I'll let
you in on a little secret: they use the term "concentration" because it
conveniently avoids the unfortunate fact that the overall level of CO2
in the atmosphere is exactly what it has been for centuries, about
..035%. That's what it said in text books when I was a kid, and that's
what it says in text books today. The bait and switch of measuring
concentrations over industrial areas, which has nothing to offer when
discussing the planet as a whole, is more of the same.

> We're basically driving this car called the earth and not changing the oil.
>


Beautiful rhetoric of no substance. Repeat it a million times, and I
have no doubt the sheep will accept it as a true analogy, just like the
consensus junk.
  #20  
Old July 1st 05, 06:21 AM
pawn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

rw wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>
>>
>> Notice, I don't accuse you of being wrong simple because we hold
>> opposing views. I make allowance for the possibility that you might be
>> right.

>
>
> Whatever, Spike. Keep drinking that Kool Aid, and don't bother thinking
> for yourself.
>



Beautiful misdirection. But when you have a consensus, why have a
point? Right?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GT4 Rrius Challenge. [email protected] Simulators 0 April 5th 05 04:56 AM
Need opinions on F1 Challenge multiplayer Pickaxe Simulators 0 March 18th 05 03:52 AM
1st Enviro Teaming up with Green Prix... Developing Formula F3 Game and Need Drivers for 100 Real Events... Don Wilshe Simulators 3 January 8th 05 05:18 PM
Most realistic mod for F1 Challenge Jiyang Chen Simulators 0 January 3rd 05 07:54 PM
Press Release: Russell Harrison Communication's challenge to the men's lifestyle publication industry Russ Harrison Audi 0 August 19th 04 02:42 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.