USDoT cooks the books

[spike]

I gave you two examples where permanent damage to the environment should have been evident; and it isn't.

The enviros claim that oil pollution is permanent and devastating yet there is no evidence of any lasting damage from WWII.

The enviros claim that nuclear disasters will be permanent and devastating yet there is no evidence of any lasting damage from two atomic blasts over thriving cities which thrive to this day.

Have you sen Prince William Sound? The oil is almost all gone; and not from any "clean up" efforts by humans.

Jim the holes in your argument are gigantic. You've made up some fictional group you've called the "enviros" and then attributed some claims to all its fictional members and then you really didn't even disprove these claims.

That is a ridiculous straw man argument without even any overall point. Unless your point is "environmental irresponsibility is good".

Since there is no evidence of permanent enviromental damage due to man,

Actually there is tons. It's just one of those things you stick you head in the sand about.

 

[Gonz]

By your logic, if I decided to start murdering homeless folks who nobody would miss, and I did so quietly and completely disposed of the bodies, there would be nothing wrong with it.

If I beat the crap out of anyone I think is an idiot, but only to the point of being black and blue with no lasting damage that would be OK.

If I had a restaurant and served people feces and there was no noticeable lasting effect that would be fine too?

Environmental studies would have to span many generations before one could say anything definite, and since technology wasn't there until recently looking back is not proof of any kind.

Murder...evidence of permanent damnage.

Assault...evidence of damage, perhaps permanent. A few tests can prove that out.

Bacterial poisoning...evidence of damage, permanent and temporary.

We've been using coal for several hundred years & other fossil fuels for generations. The tree's are still standing & the grass is still green.

I do not advocate intentional wanton destruction. That's pointless. Neither do I advocate lowering the standard humans have set. There's nowhere to go but up. Reversing our advances is deadly.

 

[spike]

We've been using coal for several hundred years & other fossil fuels for generations. The tree's are still standing & the grass is still green.

Some percentage of the trees are still standing and some percentage of the grass is still green. Hardly a meaningful measurement of anything anyway though.

Neither do I advocate lowering the standard humans have set. There's nowhere to go but up. Reversing our advances is deadly.

Exactly, we should raise our environmental standards. There is nowhere to go but up. Focus on advances in responsible and sustainable methods.

 

[Gonz]

Again, you're absolutely right. I expect you to have some viable plans before the President come Monday.

 

[spike]

Not my line of work. Other people who do that sort of thing have viable plans though.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Not my line of work. Other people who do that sort of thing have viable plans though.

Don't you know those people can't be trusted? They just want to rain on our parade! Better we risk long term, and potentially at some point irreversable damage, than we suffer one minute of discomfort or lost profit!

Human beings can rationalize all manner of manner mistruths all the way to major atrocities, and the fanatical wing of most movements do that all the time and will not relent to the death. It doesn't make extremism any less dangerous, especially when it's on a global scale. Many peolple are in denial that smoking kills, so should we just sell tobbacco to grade schoolers? I mean don't they have the right to look cool?

I tend to believe in erring on the side of caution in the case of the global environmental situation, and it seems ludicrous that so many of you, who are not served at all by your beliefes are so fanatically sure of anything as to not care. I realize all of us discussing this will be long dead before anyone has proved or disproved global warming one way or the other, but is it really an issue to be taken so lightly? Is it really fair to be so selfish as to not care since we will likely be in the grave before it really matters who was right or wrong?

Gonz, arguments could be made to rationalize all of the ridiculous examples I put out there, but is it any more ridiculous to say it's all nonsense one way or the other on an issue where it is only in the last few generations that we have even had a real need to ponder?

 

[jimpeel]

Don't you know those people can't be trusted? They just want to rain on our parade! Better we risk long term, and potentially at some point irreversable damage, than we suffer one minute of discomfort or lost profit!

Human beings can rationalize all manner of manner mistruths all the way to major atrocities, and the fanatical wing of most movements do that all the time and will not relent to the death. It doesn't make extremism any less dangerous, especially when it's on a global scale. Many peolple are in denial that smoking kills, so should we just sell tobbacco to grade schoolers? I mean don't they have the right to look cool?

Apparently the WHO thinks so also.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

I tend to believe in erring on the side of caution in the case of the global environmental situation, and it seems ludicrous that so many of you, who are not served at all by your beliefes are so fanatically sure of anything as to not care. I realize all of us discussing this will be long dead before anyone has proved or disproved global warming one way or the other, but is it really an issue to be taken so lightly? Is it really fair to be so selfish as to not care since we will likely be in the grave before it really matters who was right or wrong?

You would stop the world economy, kill millions, spend trillions; and all for an unproven theory that is based on cataclysmic happenings which have happened already numerous times to no effect?

Gonz, arguments could be made to rationalize all of the ridiculous examples I put out there, but is it any more ridiculous to say it's all nonsense one way or the other on an issue where it is only in the last few generations that we have even had a real need to ponder?

The computer models have been declared inaccurate; Gore's movie has been declared a fraud in a court of law; and over 32,000 scientists and PhDs have signed a petition that declares the entire global warming theory to be a fraud. Yet you still believe in the unbelievable.

 

[Gonz]

It's really simple. Do your part. If you think we're gonna become an easy bake ove, then ride your bike. Turn off your AC. Live in poverty & express your undying loyalty to Mother Earth.

I find it arrogant to think that humans have such power over something so immense & powerful.

 

[randomJACKASS]

Apparently the WHO thinks so also.

You would stop the world economy, kill millions, spend trillions; and all for an unproven theory that is based on cataclysmic happenings which have happened already numerous times to no effect?



The computer models have been declared inaccurate; Gore's movie has been declared a fraud in a court of law; and over 32,000 scientists and PhDs have signed a petition that declares the entire global warming theory to be a fraud. Yet you still believe in the unbelievable.

I have not even really stated my beliefs, but it seems clear to me you are trying to convince yourself of something and hell bent on a mission of being right, without ever considering any evidence that disagrees with you or your desired beliefs. People like you are not worth arguing with, in my opinion, and frankly scare the hell out of me.

A lot can be assumed or guessed at about my beliefs, but yet I've still not actually said anything definite, but you seem to me to be the kind of guy who thinks way too highly of himself and his beliefs, and will not for a second open his mind. Seems to me there are a lot of Arab types blowing things up, along with themselves, who you have a lot in common with, if not actually sharing the same beliefs.

....express your undying loyalty to Mother Earth.

Sounds like you think that is really a contemptible thing Gonz? At least you don't seem insane, like some of what I have read in my short time around here....

 

[spike]

Apparently the WHO thinks so also.

Jim, he wasn't talking about passive smoking. How did you miss that?

You would stop the world economy, kill millions, spend trillions; and all for an unproven theory that is based on cataclysmic happenings which have happened already numerous times to no effect?

He didn't mention stopping the economy, killing anyone, or spending trillions.

This is another doomsday straw man argument of yours. You misrepresent someone's position and then argue against the fictitional position. It's not working at all.

The computer models have been declared inaccurate; Gore's movie has been declared a fraud in a court of law; and over 32,000 scientists and PhDs have signed a petition that declares the entire global warming theory to be a fraud. Yet you still believe in the unbelievable.

Actually more scientists stand behind global warming Jim. Your petition has already been shown to be a farce here. Yet you still cling to the bullshit from the lobbyist website you frequent.

Why do you fight so hard to be irresponsible?

 

[Gonz]

Sounds like you think that is really a contemptible thing Gonz?

It's irrelevant. The other option is NONE.

I'm not against many of the actions stated by the former VP. I'm against government forcng us to participate, against our will. I'm against our freedom being denied us in the interest of unproven science. I'm against government intervention into private industry. I'm against our lowering of our standard of living because of doomsayers worrying about natural Earth cycles.

Somewhere, I believe it's Seattle, I heard that they're considering a $500. fine if you fail to, or incorrectly, particpate in recycling.

Oops, not Seattle, it's in Georgia.

While neighboring counties encourage recycling, Gwinnett County’s new solid waste management ordinance puts teeth into it. The ordinance provides for a civil fine of $500 for violations, which includes those who fail to “source separate residential recovered materials.”

AJC

Educated & voluntary conservation is wonderful. Making me do things I don't wanna do is

Why do you fight so hard to be irresponsible?

The same reason you fight so had to end freedom & increase government intervention?

 

[spike]

The same reason you fight so had to end freedom & increase government intervention?

Actually you are the one that fights against freedom with that "maybe we'll fix it later" bullshit. Littering, dumping toxic waste in rivers, and filling landfills with recyclable material are all stupid irresponsible actions NOT flexing your freedom.

The real freedoms from warrantless searches or being held indefinitely without trial you're not so concerned about.

 

[catocom]

Oops, not Seattle, it's in Georgia.

it won't last long

 

[Gonz]

Littering and filling landfills with recyclable material are stupid irresponsible actions NOT flexing your freedom.

Please elaborate.

 

[H2O boy]

my God, you actually want him to say something else?

 

[Gonz]

I don't understand his point.

 

[H2O boy]

i bet he doesnt either

 

[jimpeel]

I have not even really stated my beliefs, but it seems clear to me you are trying to convince yourself of something and hell bent on a mission of being right, without ever considering any evidence that disagrees with you or your desired beliefs. People like you are not worth arguing with, in my opinion, and frankly scare the hell out of me.

Your handle is so apropos.

I have considered the "evidence" which disagrees with me. That is why I disagree with it. Well, DUH!

You are the one who marches to the tune of those who want to scare the hell out of you. That's what they do when they want you to relinquish power to them. They need useful idiots.

I am going to give you links to various sites which show that GW is, at best, a tenuous theory; and a theory is all that it is. Whether you go to these sites and do the research yourself will be far more telling about you than me. You say that I am unwilling to consider "any evidence that disagrees with you or your desired beliefs" so let's see how you are at that consideration. If you are, as we all believe, just another Spike you will simply ignore what is presented and go back to the "Uh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" debating style he has made famous on this board.

So here goes:

The GW proponents (GWP) declared that the "hockey stick" proved that GW was occurring. That was thoroughly debunked and is now considered to be a joke. All you have to do is to ignore the Maunder and Sporer minimums and the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum and the Medieval Warm Period. You also have to believe that the polar bears did not survive the last warm periods and simply popped back into existence since the last warming period.

More on that.

http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Over 32,000 scientists, PhDs and achedemics have signed a petirion that GW is a hoax.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26922

A court of law found 11 glaring inaccuracies in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25906

In the meantime, Gore and his ilk are getting rich off of schlubs like you.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26017

Real weather trends belie the GW fraud.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26922

The same people who declared that we were entering an ice age in the seventies are now declaring GW as fact.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

Global warming and cooling have been declared on numerous occasions since the 1800s.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/FireandIce.pdf

Noted scientists now believe that there actually is a greater possibility of cooling which would be far more devastating than warming.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26373

The IPCC cooked the books on the number of scientists who believe in GW.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=586419&postcount=72

The International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651] (December 2007) says climate warming is natural, not human caused.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=26243

The evidence of the climate models being inaccurate grows daily.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316566,00.html

The list of notable scientific skeptics is growing.

http://www.otcentral.com/forum/showpost.php?p=585776&postcount=30

And you cannot see that this is simply a way for the rich countries to be milked into third world status by socialistic entities like the U.N.

"U.N. climate change meeting aims at rich countries" - Reuters

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN3124057820070731

Global carbon tax

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6&Issue_id=

And then there are the other lies.

the hottest year on record was 1998 until it was debunked and it was found that 1934 was the hottest year on record.


CO2 precedes warming -- LIE. CO2 LAGS warming by as much as 800 years.

James Hansen was just caught lying about October being the hottest on record.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2008/11/11/record-hot-october-in-james-hansons-oven/

And then there's that pesky extraterrestrial global warming.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

Sometimes this fraud gets just plain comical.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Professor Bob Carter gives a good presentation on why GW is not what you have been led to believe.

Here is the video set.

YouTube Video:
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1;
Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2;
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 3;
Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 4.

A lot can be assumed or guessed at about my beliefs, but yet I've still not actually said anything definite, but you seem to me to be the kind of guy who thinks way too highly of himself and his beliefs, and will not for a second open his mind. Seems to me there are a lot of Arab types blowing things up, along with themselves, who you have a lot in common with, if not actually sharing the same beliefs.

Well, there is no guessing involved when it comes to my beliefs; and I have stated in the most definite terms exactly what they are. Good to know that you believe that anyone who adheres to what they believe in, and are not wishy-washy about those beliefs, are the same as terrorists and murderers.

You just keep blowing in whatever direction the wind carries you; but what you believe in will kill far more people worldwide than any terrorist or terrorist group.

 

[catocom]

Jim, looks like you have toooo much time on your hands.

 

[spike]

Please elaborate.

What part don't you understand? You accused me of fighting to end freedom. I pointed out that littering and filling landfills with recyclable material is not really flexing your freedom as it is stupid and irresponsible.

And yet yet you remain so unconcerned about real freedoms from warrantless searches and the ability for your government to hold you without trial.

my God, you actually want him to say something else?

Obviously participating in the debate is much more interesting than your useless posts. What have you contributed so far except encouraging everyone to break the law and not pay their taxes?

Your handle is so apropos.

Hye random, notice Jim will immediately try to resort to lame insults when his arguement starts to go wrong. He's been warned about this in the past by the mods but he really can't help himself. Like a little kid throwing a tantrum.

I have considered the "evidence" which disagrees with me. That is why I disagree with it. Well, DUH!

You are the one who marches to the tune of those who want to scare the hell out of you. That's what they do when they want you to relinquish power to them. They need useful idiots.

Jim has been a useful idiot for the Bush administration for years now. He's let them scare the hell out of him until marching to their tune and he's completely happy relinquishing power and freedoms to them. He's actually become so afraid of all muslims that he thinks they are all planning on taking over the country and hanging him in a soccer field or something.

He's projecting his extreme irrational fears of environmental responibility on you know even though you have given him no factual basis for declaring this.

I am going to give you links to various sites which show that GW is, at best, a tenuous theory; and a theory is all that it is.

See what Jim has done here is setup another straw man argument. This is indiciative of the ridiculous illogical debating style that he has made famous on this board. Well that and his non stop generalizations as if he can only think in the most simplistic of terms.

The straw man here being that even though you never argued the global warming case he is now arguing aginst it as if you had. Now since he's taken up this arguement against a postion you never put forth about global warming he will misrepresent the evidence and link you to lobbyist websites, blogs, and all manner of homemade youtube videos trying to argue against his straw man.

That is his signature move....misrepresent someones position and then argue against it. That and trying to use a single instance to make illogical sweeping generalizations. And then when all else fails try insults.

just another Spike you will simply ignore what is presented and go back to the "Uh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" debating style he has made famous on this board.

If you recognixe Jim's lobbyist sites, blogs, and youtube videos for what they really are then he will laughably try and accuse you of ignoring the "facts" or some such asburdity. If you logically disprove his claims, which is pretty easy, he will throw another tantrum, clasp his hands over his ears, and accuse you of saying "nuh-uh".

For example: Jim finds some article about someone using liposuctioned fat as fuel and declares the "save the earth crowd is wacky".

Someone will point out that a very very high percentage of people that don't oppose environmental responsiblity do not use fat as fuel. Therefore his statement is an illogical generalization.

Jim just hears "nuh-uh" and continues to believe that he has definitively proved that anyone pro-Earth also uses fat as fuel in vehicles.

what you believe in will kill far more people worldwide than any terrorist or terrorist group.

Of course the "be afraid and march in lockstep like I am" mantra.

He has setup this straw man arguement where your killing millions of people without ever actuall stating what part of your statements would be killing all these people or how they would die.

Pretty comical huh?