Amen...
and pass the potatoes...please.
and pass the potatoes...please.
- Status
I
In~Plain~Site
Over half?
The entire subject matter IS political, whether some want to realize it or not is irrelevant.
Like our friend, the 'head' is fond of saying, you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
D
DiiZZii3
Wow i just realized marijuana prohibition is alot like global warming. When a ANTI-drug organization wants to get results on the "safety" of marijuana, they pay scientists to coduct the test... and no doubt the scientist give them the exact results they "payed" for, marijuana kills brain cells, makes u crazy, makes u a failure. With global warming the alarmist, organizations pay scientists and get the results they want. Science these days is fucked up. IMO i gotta see more credible information that global warming exists, cuz as of now the argument in this thread against it is much more convincing.
sac beh
Member
I challenge you to post for us all here one example of me talking about anything else other than logical or scientific based arguments for the existence of an anthropogenic effect on global climate. I don't advocate any particular political or social solution to the problem, because that's not the topic here. All of my claims are quite moderate, and in the end, I don't care whether the answer to the OP question is yes or no. I have no political or financial investment in the answer.
Your posts are packed with emotional wordage and appeals to your political values. For someone who has stereotyped women so much as being purely emotional beings, and has insulted members of this forum, including me, for having feminine views, you show a glaring lack of rationality and restraint with your own emotions.
Wrong. Laws can be passed for the wrong reasons. It doesn't change the fact that all the footwork is done by cannabis advocates empowered with facts of the benefits of cannabis and growers who use the principles of botany to overgrow the world.
It will be legalized in spite of ideological efforts of people like you to make it all about money and politics.
sac beh
Member
Except for one glaring difference. Research pointing to the benefits or general benign character of cannabis far outweigh government manipulated studies that malign it. Your analogy, as I've said before, doesn't transfer to AGW how you'd like.
The scientific community is much more resistant to corrupting influences than you think, because of its size and diversity of members. Scientific truth always wins.
scientists do not make those claims about MJ... If you'll look closely you'll find most scientific studies are favorable toward MJ, but the media and pundits and propagandists get it twisted or twist it on purpose... If you'd go past the reporting and look into the actual studies, you'd find that the media rarely understands what they are reporting on.
If more people payed attention to the science, the myths you outlined would disappear.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/marijuana/factsmyths/
Last edited:
D
DiiZZii3
Yea i think it does, the scientist who are unbaised and aren't payed by anyone to come up with results are coming to the conclusion that global warming is a myth.
Grateful head... so basically your saying that scientists are coming to the "real" conclusion that global warming is myth, but the media is spinning it to be a real issue?
Global warming is another way that we are controlled by the goverment and the like. They put fear into the citizens. Fear is used to controll.
Im Drunk, i hope i makin sense lol
there are 2 camps here, at risk to my karma i will stake another flag
1 feels GW is happening and is going to be a very bad thing, possible catastrophe
another disses the mainstream IPCC - climatology/climatologists and the 'world government', thinks it's bogus
i believe the GW forecasts, and for the most part(i mentioned karma) look forward to them
being in upstate NY might be coloring this point of view a bit
so i'm a guilty GW supporter? had to get that off my chest
1 feels GW is happening and is going to be a very bad thing, possible catastrophe
another disses the mainstream IPCC - climatology/climatologists and the 'world government', thinks it's bogus
i believe the GW forecasts, and for the most part(i mentioned karma) look forward to them
being in upstate NY might be coloring this point of view a bit
so i'm a guilty GW supporter? had to get that off my chest
Of course not... where did I say anything of the sort?
I'm saying that the media is blowing every claim by both sides out of proportion, and confusing the issue by presenting rhetoric and opinion as though it were as pertinent as verifiable evidence.
The propagandists are desperately trying to make it look like a big controversial unsolved mystery, when in reality there is a significant enough portion of climate science that is well enough understood to call the core science demonstrating That the warming is happening, and man is a major contributor settled.
Last edited:
D
DiiZZii3
Thats why i asked bro
B
Ben Tokin
And in the end, we find most issues of our day have been over hyped.
It's always something. If it's not one thing, it's another. If it's not that, it's something else. It's always something.
It's always something. If it's not one thing, it's another. If it's not that, it's something else. It's always something.
C
Carl Carlson
http://blogs.reuters.com/columns/2010/12/09/oil-price-spike-points-to-inflationary-recovery/
The oil price spike reflects a broader trend in commodities. The Reuters-Jefferies CRB index of commodity prices has risen by 20 percent since the end of August. Copper, gold and silver are all muscling to records or at long-term highs.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704156304576003513500416454.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
...the price surge has been so rapid and so broad across nearly all commodities—not merely corn or soy, but also oil, gold, base metals, etc.—that it can't merely be a function of new demand for specific grains.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ard-pressure-to-tankers-maxim-group-says.html
Floating storage of crude and oil products saw a “slight rise” of 5.8 million barrels to 64.4 million barrels last month, the International Energy Agency said today in a report.
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2010/10/29/quantitative-easing-and-the-commodity-markets/
Quantitative easing and the commodity markets
...there are financial as well as real economy links between QE and commodity prices. Commodities have some of the characteristics of financial assets as well as physical consumption materials. Via portfolio effects, QE could boost the relative (real) price of commodities even if it did not boost employment and output in the United States by very much.
....If the direct impact on bond yields is difficult to estimate, even retrospectively, the forecast effect on commodity prices, which is far more indirect, is impossible to quantify. Massive uncertainty surrounding other variables, the transmission mechanisms, and how QE will interact with investor preferences dominates any price forecast. It is essentially meaningless to say that $X billion of QE would add $Y to the price of a barrel of oil or a tonne of zinc. The uncertainty is simply too large for the prediction to be useful.
But it is possible to predict the effect on prices will be positive (since all the transmission mechanisms point in the same direction, from higher QE to increased investor demand for commodity derivatives and inventories).
It seems likely the biggest impact will be felt in markets where fundamentals are already strongest (given the non-linear nature of commodity pricing relationships and the heightened potential for bubbles to form as a result of positive feedback loops and self-validating price movements)...
....If the direct impact on bond yields is difficult to estimate, even retrospectively, the forecast effect on commodity prices, which is far more indirect, is impossible to quantify. Massive uncertainty surrounding other variables, the transmission mechanisms, and how QE will interact with investor preferences dominates any price forecast. It is essentially meaningless to say that $X billion of QE would add $Y to the price of a barrel of oil or a tonne of zinc. The uncertainty is simply too large for the prediction to be useful.
But it is possible to predict the effect on prices will be positive (since all the transmission mechanisms point in the same direction, from higher QE to increased investor demand for commodity derivatives and inventories).
It seems likely the biggest impact will be felt in markets where fundamentals are already strongest (given the non-linear nature of commodity pricing relationships and the heightened potential for bubbles to form as a result of positive feedback loops and self-validating price movements)...
The Stunning Collapse of Iceland
On Oct. 9, the government took control of the country's largest bank, Kaupthing (KAUP.ST), and halted trading on the Reykjavik stock exchange until Oct. 13. Authorities also used sweeping new emergency powers to hive off most of the domestic assets of the country's second-largest bank, Landsbanki, into a separate entity to be called "New Landsbanki" that will be fully owned by the government.
In a stunning turn of events over the past week, the vast majority of Iceland's once-proud banking sector has been nationalized. The government has taken control of Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and the No. 3 bank, Glitnir. Kaupthing also was forced to take an emergency $702 million loan from Sweden to prop up its Swedish arm, while the Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund offered $819 million in liquidity support to the local unit of Glitnir.
Ireland facing tough annual budget to secure bailoutIn a stunning turn of events over the past week, the vast majority of Iceland's once-proud banking sector has been nationalized. The government has taken control of Kaupthing, Landsbanki, and the No. 3 bank, Glitnir. Kaupthing also was forced to take an emergency $702 million loan from Sweden to prop up its Swedish arm, while the Norwegian Banks' Guarantee Fund offered $819 million in liquidity support to the local unit of Glitnir.
Dublin, savaged by bank bailouts, a property market meltdown and recession-ravaged tax revenues, unveiled a four-year strategy last month to slash a huge deficit and save 15 billion euros by 2014.
Britain faces years of tax rises as bank bailouts add £1.5 TRILLION to public debtMore Than 53 Percent of Your Tax Bill Goes to the Military
Google search: record corporate profits unemployment
Companies move because all costs are lower, not just taxes. That also includes wages and salaries.
Companies also shift operations because they sell to those markets.
It almost sounds as if you are saying that most Americans should roll over and accept a much lower standard of living...
Britain faces the spectre of soaring taxes for years to come after it emerged today the bailout of failing banks could add a massive £1.5trillion to the country's public debt.
The Office for National Statistics indicated the rescue of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB could see the national debt soar to dizzying heights.
Even without the billions poured into the banks, the total has already reached a record high.
New data shows it hit £703.4billion in January - equal to 48 per cent of GDP and the highest percentage since 1978.
Adding the banks' debts on top would take the debt to the equivalent of between 70 and 100 per cent of Britain's total output, the ONS suggested.
The Office for National Statistics indicated the rescue of Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds TSB could see the national debt soar to dizzying heights.
Even without the billions poured into the banks, the total has already reached a record high.
New data shows it hit £703.4billion in January - equal to 48 per cent of GDP and the highest percentage since 1978.
Adding the banks' debts on top would take the debt to the equivalent of between 70 and 100 per cent of Britain's total output, the ONS suggested.
That figure includes the Pentagon budget request of $708 billion, plus an estimated $200 billion in supplemental funding, called "overseas contingency funding" in euphemistic White House-speak), to fund the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, some $40 billion or more in "black box" intelligence agency funding, $94 billion in non-DoD military spending, $100 billion in veterans benefits and health care spending, and $400 billion in interest on debt raised to pay for prior wars and the standing military.
Google search: record corporate profits unemployment
Companies move because all costs are lower, not just taxes. That also includes wages and salaries.
Companies also shift operations because they sell to those markets.
It almost sounds as if you are saying that most Americans should roll over and accept a much lower standard of living...
B
Ben Tokin
Companies move because all costs are lower, not just taxes. That also includes wages and salaries.
Companies also shift operations because they sell to those markets.
It almost sounds as if you are saying that most Americans should roll over and accept a much lower standard of living...
I would be most happy to engage you in a discussion of economics. While the climate fraud discussion has been put to rest, you seem more interested in a discussion about taxes and their effect on domestic and world economies.
So, just what would you like to discuss and what is your basis for beginning?
So these UN scientist and climatologist who now disagree with the IPCC's report aren't really scientist in your estimation?
In order for you to consider them scientists they would have to tote the IPCC line on AGW? Were they scientists before they dissented against the IPCC and now they are not?
I'm just trying to find out what your definition of a scientist is. It sounds a lot to me like it is only someone who espouses an alarmist view of AGW? And if a "scientist" who was once with the IPCC then changes his mind he no longer is a scientist, he is just pretending to be a scientist??? He becomes ostracized as a "stupid" person all of a sudden.
That doesn't sound very scientific.
Reread what I said again. I never said that anyone wasn't a scientist if they didn't agree with the IPCC. What I said was that anyone believing that unusually cold weather existing somewhere that is traditionally hot is proof global warming has stopped and/or reversed is an idiot, including some claiming to be scientists. I suppose you think that just because someone manages to obtain a title of scientist it automatically means they're smart?
Dude we've listened to your side too and it doesn't hold up. That's the arrogance of ignorance, you think that because someone doesn't agree with you they simply aren't listening. The possibility they've heard everything you've said and decided your arguments carry no real weight, never enters your mind. Also if you were actually reading and comprehending you would have seen already that pretty much everyone, including head have agreed that the cycles that give us the ice ages play a big role in climate change so on that one aspect we're all in agreement. Where we disagree is that you want to believe man has little to no impact at all and so any attempt to live in a more environmentally sustainable way is just a ploy for money and couldn't possibly have anything to do with making life healthier and longer lasting for people and the planet.
See what you fail to understand is even if it were possible to prove there is no threat of global warming from human produced CO2 there's still plenty of other reasons to change to a greener technology. Not the least of which is that on a daily basis we are genetically damaging the human gene pool breathing in the toxins in the air from exhaust, drinking toxins in our water from pollution and eating toxins from eating plants and animals also exposed to the toxins in the air and water.
Before you go there though, no I'm not promoting or in favor of Cap and Trade. I think everyone in this debate see's that for what it is, an attempt to look like were doing something to fix the problem even though we're really just making the rich, richer. I would say if we truely believe that global warming will do what we think then burning fossil fuels should be outlawed and anyone, and I mean anyone found using them will be deemed an enemy of the planet and will either be shot on site or capture, put on trial and then sentenced to death with no appeals. I mean seriously, global warming, whether it's man made, man influenced or all natural is responsible for the rate of ice melting in the polar regions. The melting of polar ice is responsible for raising sea levels which threatens roughly 2/3rds of the planet's population because man is so dependent on living near water for food, travel and recreation. So if indeed CO2 released into the air from burning fossil fuels is causing global warming then anyone doing it is a threat to virtually the entire planet.
op musta graciously put me on the ignore list cause he is yet to adress any of the rebuttal
links posted that indicate mans' contribution to gw is minimal at best.
this is how science is done...peer review...you don't seem to think there are any peers heres.
keep it one sided and you'll always be antagonized for it.
this link has a remarkable resemblence to refutation of the gw theory(not fact, since no one can predict the future).
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
then there are these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ&feature=related
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=385
check.
links posted that indicate mans' contribution to gw is minimal at best.
this is how science is done...peer review...you don't seem to think there are any peers heres.
keep it one sided and you'll always be antagonized for it.
this link has a remarkable resemblence to refutation of the gw theory(not fact, since no one can predict the future).
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
then there are these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzYfJP-HWcQ&feature=related
http://www.nzcpr.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=385
check.
The arrogance of ignorance again, clearly you're in the minority by your own comments but instead of maybe you being wrong, everyone that thinks different then you is wrong.
You're confused. Ben Tokin here is the OP and his position has consistently been that man made Global Warming is false. Head is just a participant, not the OP.
i sit corrected, man is my face red...
- Status
