Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 8:34 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Posted by Lawrence, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Okay: Oscar Meyer.
First, let's get the parameters in place; Laurence, do you believe in evolution?
Do you acknowledge climate change?
If it turns out you don't believe in the theory of evolution or scientific fact and consensus, then I'll stick with the comment "baloney" and let it go.
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 1:35 pm
"First, let's get the parameters in place; Laurence, do you believe in evolution?
Do you acknowledge climate change?"
Of course, to both. I fully accept that humans are the dominant species on earth, due to natural selection, and survival of the fittest (evolutionary theory). I also believe that climate changes, and always has.
I fail to understand your basic question/assertion. Very muddled thinking....
Posted by Lawrence, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Let's make it clear, don't want to offend L with muddled whatever...
Do you believe the recent accelerated climate change is caused by human activities, as generally outlined by the IPPC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 2:22 pm
"Do you believe the recent accelerated climate change is caused by human activities, as generally outlined by the IPPC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?"
I believe that the earth is slowly warming, for whatever reason, as it has in the relatively recent past. The IPPC report is so full of bogus holes, that is has lost most of its credibility. For example, it claimed that the Himalaya glaciers would be gone within a couple of decades...complete nonsense; forcing effect of IR in the stratosphere/troposphere are poorly understood, and should not be commented on; proxy analyis of prior warming/cooling periods is subject to much misinterpreation of the reported data (thus the climategate fiasco); ice core data shows that global warming precedes CO2 spikes, not the other way around; the funding mechanism to produce such bogus IPPC statements is carved into ideological and bureaucratic stone, not science. Alarmist science is not, in fact, science.
However, economic collapse is a real thing, in real time. The environmental extremists are causing it in real time. This is what the YouTube clip was about.
What does creationism have to do with this discussion? I already said that I accept evolutionary theory, coming out of Darwin. However, it sounds like you do not, since you seem to deny the dominance of the human species over all other species, due to natural selection.
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 3:03 pm
"(don't forget to stock up on tin foil)"
There is no need for tin foil on my part. I rely upon facts, and I do not accept the tin foil assertions of those who accept the IPPC report, as reported. I actually ask questions, and am willing to accept scientific results. I draw the line at the likes of Paul Ehrlich, and Al Gore and Piltdown Man, all of which satisfied the scientific consensus at the time (and Donald Duck, too).
America is being driven down, economically, by the environmetal extremists. This is what the YouTube clip is about. I suggest that everybody watch it, then make up your own mind.
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 7, 2012 at 9:36 pm
" but it's old news. This has all been done before. Last time, in the end, it failed"
I don't think we need to resort to old Nazi models. We can simply use rational anaysyis of current scientific data, taken with a skeptical view. The mere fact that the "greens" believe an IPPC report, is no reason for rational people to believe it. The IPPC is a very political report, although it does contain interesting data. The main problem with the IPPC is that it leaves out contrary opinions, based on the same data. It is political science at its worst.
Our economy should not be held hostage to the black holes of green irrationaliy. The true greenest future is the one that promotes a prosperous future for the most people, and that means low-cost energy.
Posted by Sir LaUrence, a resident of the The Greenhouse neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 9:19 am
- flash -
CostCo named best price on bulk tinfoil purchases!
Enough for all the conspiracy theorists and deniers, plus, includes 48 oz Redbull, for those late night search-fests of the denier websites.
You know, the ones that offer studies that haven't been peer reviewed, climate studies that have been done by geologists, or by folks who get money from big oil via Heartland, etc..
A sale on tinfoil and redbull - hallelujah!
Nice to see all the usual suspects here: S P OO WW etc...
Y'all have a nice day.
-it's kinda warm out there, what does it mean?!?!?
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm
"Ya knew he's bite, didn't ya......"
No. But you seem to think so.
The correct language would be "You knew he'd bite, didn't you...."
The true believers of the IPPC political science often fail to grasp facts, and they also don't expose their knowledge of the English language. However, the the main problem is that they could care less about the enormous negative economic effects of their true beliefs.
Posted by Sir LaUrence, a resident of the The Greenhouse neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Dude, or duddette, as the case may be,
You bit.
Again.
The tinfoil hats are good on a sunny day like this, keeps the rays reflecting off elsewhere instead of warning yer head. And warns us all what's coming down the street.
Uh-oh, I mentioned the weather again! Gotta quit doing that when in conversation with conspiracy theorists.
Posted by Laurence, a resident of the Palo Verde neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 5:19 pm
"I hear Al Qaeda is setting up a superPAC for Republicans."
Al Qaeda would support the destruction of America, by advocating on behalf of the enviromental extremists that want to constrain fossil fuels and nuclear energy That is what the YouTube clip is about..."If I wanted America to Fail". Please watch it.
Posted by Sir LaUrence, a resident of the The Greenhouse neighborhood, on May 8, 2012 at 6:23 pm
For shame, Larry, conflating AQ and folks who want to protect our environment.
In the nineties, bin Ladin published various long winded manifestos that, once you got past the anti America-the-great-satan, and anti-Israel stuff basically listed his goals:
1. Arabian oil was too cheap, around ten bucks in the nineties, he wanted it up over $100 a barrel, preferably $144 a barrel.
2. US troops off Saudi soil
3. get the US involved in a land war in Afghanistan or elsewhere so he could bleed the US the way he did to Russia
4. remove the secular dictators, like Saddam
With Bush's help, he pretty much got what he wanted.
He said nothing about environmentalists. So I'm more likely to consider "curmudgeon" and his flippant comment than your conflation.
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
