| |
Main
Date: 12 Dec 2006 18:44:50
From: annika1980
Subject: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
A. Because he's full of shit!
Tony Snow, that is. Here is what the Whitehouse spokesman said at
today's press briefing:
------------------------
Q Yes, that there is an acceptance within the American public to send
more troops.
MR. SNOW: Well, again, I will refer you to the data that may be -- in
fact, I think it's from your own poll.
Q CBS poll?
MR. SNOW: Yes, the CBS News poll. What happens is, there is a fairly --
I apologize, because I'm going through -- just 32 percent thinks the
U.S. should pull out significant numbers of troops in the next six
months, 64 percent believes the U.S. should keep troops there longer.
You put that together with 58 percent say that it's extremely or very
important that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, and 60 percent believe that
the U.S. can still win the war -- that's actually the Gallup Poll, but
in any event, the point here is, when you're dealing with a situation
like this, if you want to build public confidence you explain what's
going on and explain how you intend to go forward. And that's what the
President is going to do.
===================================
Sounds like most Americans are in favor of us staying in Iraq, right?
Well here is what the polls really showed:
--------------------------------------------
December 12, 2006
Two major polling organizations -- USA Today/Gallup and CBS News --
came out with big polls dissecting public opinion on the war in Iraq in
the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, and the results could be a
sobering wake-up call for the Bush administration. We say "could be"
because the public holds so much distrust and angst about the war in
Iraq that it may simply be too late for the Bush admin to turn things
around.
Some of the polls', well, low-lights:
A majority of Americans think neither side is winning the war (64% in
Gallup's, 63% in the CBS poll), though a slightly greater percentage
choose the Iraqi insurgency (17% and 18%, respectively) than the U.S.
and its allies (16% and 15%).
A majority thinks the U.S. should keep a significant number of troops
in Iraq for less than a year (55% in the Gallup survey), while in CBS's
poll, 59% say the U.S. should either decrease troop levels or remove
troops altogether.
The war, say majorities, was a mistake. That's nothing new - a majority
has agreed that the war was a mistake in most Gallup polls since early
May 2005, with few exceptions. 53% continue to agree, while 62% called
sending troops to Iraq a mistake in the CBS poll.
It's not getting any easier, either. Just 8% say the situation in Iraq
is getting better, while 52% say it's getting worse, according to CBS.
The same poll shows 71% believe U.S. efforts in the country are going
somewhat or very badly.
Is it worth it? The big number today is 64, the percent of Americans
who say the costs of succeeding in Iraq outweigh the benefits to the
U.S. Just 33% of the Gallup sample feel the opposite way. 53% in the
CBS poll say the U.S. is not likely to succeed. In a smaller Washington
Post/ABC News poll, only 36% say the war was worth it, as 61% say it
wasn't.
And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
(53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
It doesn't get any better in Gallup. 46% say they trust Bush "a great
deal" or "a fair amount" to recommend the right thing to do in Iraq,
far below the aggregates for Congressional Democrats (58%), the Iraq
Study Group (66%) and even Sen. John McCain (63%).
If the ISG report serves as a warning and a call for change, as Bush
has signaled - news reports today suggest a new strategy in Iraq will
be announced early next month - it is doubtful any action will be
sufficient to reverse these dismal numbers.
As Americans perceive everything in Iraq as going so poorly, Pres.
Bush's approval rating has actually sunk from last quarter (31% in the
CBS poll, 36% in the Washington Post/ABC poll and 38% in the USA
Today/Gallup poll), breaking a string of years in which, going into the
holiday season, his numbers have risen. It remains to be seen if
January's State of the Union -- typically a boost for presidential poll
numbers -- will provide Bush an opportunity to come back.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/the_big_number_22.html
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:35:50
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> >> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> >> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
> >>
> >> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> >> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> >> Bushtard the Wino?
> >
> > Read the thread you idiot.
>
> Actually Head Shot is correct. Read the first spelling of illegitimate.
> Then read yours. You're the only person that said "illigitemate".
Actually, YOU need to go back and read it. I spelled it correctly and
he was the one who had it wrong. You are an idiot just like him.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 13:30:57
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Carbon wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> >> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> >> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
> >>
> >> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> >> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> >> Bushtard the Wino?
> >
> > Read the thread you idiot.
>
> Actually Head Shot is correct. Read the first spelling of illegitimate.
> Then read yours. You're the only person that said "illigitemate".
Real strong arguement. Anyone who bases their point on a typo is very,
very weak.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:51:43
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> Head Shot wrote:
> >>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >>> crimes.
> >> Why?
> >
> > Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> > came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> > reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
>
> I see you have an excellent grasp of how the world really works.
>
> Define WMD please? It aint just nukes.
Before the invasion, Bush and his cronies defined them as chemical and
biological munitions and the ordnance required to deliver and/or
detonate them. I was present when the Deputy Secretary of State,
Richard Armitage, made a speech saying time was running out for SH and
if he didn't disarm, we would invade. He read a long laundry list of
WMDs that SH supposedly had. It included VX gas, sarin gas, anthrax and
20,000 artillery shells loaded with chemical munitions. Let's also
point out that Bush said repeatedly that if SH would come clean, we
wouldn't invade Iraq. That means the statement he made a few months ago
-- that if he knew in 2003 what he knows now, he would have invaded
anyway -- was a lie.
>
> By your logic, if that's what you call it, you would have Clinton
> brought up on the same charges for his extra constitutional war in the
> Balkans?
Funny how no one criticized Clinton for intervening in the Balkans
until it became convenient to use that as a way of accusing Iraq War
opponents of hypocrisy. Clinton stopped a genocide in Kosovo and US
forces didn't sustain one casualty. The Balkan region is now relatively
peaceful and stable. Suppose Clinton had intevened in Rwanda to stop
the slaughter there (which I think he should have done and so does he)?
Would you say he should be brought up on charges for that?
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:18:28
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> > > Head Shot wrote:
> > >> Carbon wrote:
> > >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> > >>> illegitimate fraud.
> > >>
> > >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> > >> crimes.
> > >
> > > Why?
> >
> > Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> > came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> > reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
>
> Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> "is an illegitimate fraud".
All polls show that a large majority of Americans are deeply unhappy
with the way the war is being run, and don't believe it should ever
have been started. If a pollster were to ask, "do you think the Iraq
war is an illegitmate fraud?" I expect a majority of respondents would
say yes.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 15:01:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 17 Dec 2006 06:18:28 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> If a pollster were to ask, "do you think the Iraq
>war is an illegitmate fraud?" I expect a majority of respondents would
>say yes.
I seriously doubt that. In any case, I'm happy that the US has a
President who doesn't get up every morning and decide policy according
to public opinion.
If Reagan would have done that during his presidency, the Soviet Union
would still be around.
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 06:14:36
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Carbon wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 22:22:30 -0500, Head Shot wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >
> >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an illegitimate
> >>> fraud.
> >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war crimes.
> >
> > As the disaster deepens over the next couple of years there probably will
> > be some sort of movement against Bush. But it would be better to round up
> > Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and the other architects of the failure in
> > Iraq. Bush is just the guy who tries to read the teleprompter.
>
> Why?
You're kidding, right?
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Head Shot wrote:
> >>>> Carbon wrote:
> >>>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>>>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>>>
> >>>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >>>> crimes.
> >>>
> >>> Why?
> >>
> >> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got
> >> Saddam and came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may
> >> not have been reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the
> >> first place.
> >
>
> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
>
> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
> Bushtard the Wino?
Read the thread you idiot.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 10:43:10
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 05:54:19 -0800, lobshot694 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
>> > please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
>> > "is an illegitimate fraud".
>>
>> Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
>> percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
>> Bushtard the Wino?
>
> Read the thread you idiot.
Actually Head Shot is correct. Read the first spelling of illegitimate.
Then read yours. You're the only person that said "illigitemate".
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:11:58
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Carbon wrote:
> >>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
> >>> illegitimate fraud.
> >>
> >> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
> >> crimes.
> >
> > Why?
>
> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got Saddam and
> came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may not have been
> reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the first place.
Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
"is an illegitimate fraud".
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2006 00:55:43
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>> Head Shot wrote:
>>>> Carbon wrote:
>>>>> As for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an
>>>>> illegitimate fraud.
>>>>
>>>> Some of us even think Blowhound Bushtard should be tried for war
>>>> crimes.
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> Putting Americans souls in Iraq to be killed long after he got
>> Saddam and came up empty on WMD's. I might even argue that it may
>> not have been reasonable for him to send Americans to Iraq in the
>> first place.
>
> Well, you might want to take that assertion up with congress. And
> please cite the poll that shows a majority of Americans feel the war
> "is an illegitimate fraud".
Who said "illigitemate fraud", other than you? On that subject; what
percentage of Americans are satisfied with the work done by Cokehound
Bushtard the Wino?
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 20:54:59
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166306178.481495.216790@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
>
> > Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
> > get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
> > and nice try with "rigtht".
>
> Little slow on the uptake, aren't you? You need things spelled out for
> you, I guess. Not worth the time.
>
> As far as being twisted around, you flatter yourself. I could care less how
> badly educated you are. I do sometimes find it entertaining to call out a
> hypocritical busy body such as yourself, with your unsolicited vocabulary
> lessons. If you at least would have been right...
>
> The entertainment value is pretty much exhausted, so why don't you take the
> last shot. Please try not to say anything stupid this time. It's painful
> to watch.
>
> Scott
Busy body? The original post to which you took exception wasnt even
addressing you. So who butted in?
So you could care less or you couldn't care less about my education.
Please make yourself understood. High school kids get that one mixed up
all the time also. Thanks for all the lessons chief.
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:56:18
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166304506.196058.318230@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >
> > Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
> > today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
>
> You're much too witty for me to spar with. I guess you win. But before I
> go, my advice to you concerned spelling, not punctuation. You understand
> the difference, rigtht?
>
> Scott
Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
and nice try with "rigtht".
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:20:45
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166306178.481495.216790@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Is that why you stressed the word "dont"? As far as spelling, if you
> get twisted around because of a typo, you must be a real fun guy. Oh,
> and nice try with "rigtht".
Little slow on the uptake, aren't you? You need things spelled out for
you, I guess. Not worth the time.
As far as being twisted around, you flatter yourself. I could care less how
badly educated you are. I do sometimes find it entertaining to call out a
hypocritical busy body such as yourself, with your unsolicited vocabulary
lessons. If you at least would have been right...
The entertainment value is pretty much exhausted, so why don't you take the
last shot. Please try not to say anything stupid this time. It's painful
to watch.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 13:28:26
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
S McFarlane wrote:
> <lobshot694@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1166280609.854591.80380@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a
> >> fucking
> >> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a
> >> word
> >> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
> >> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting
> >> from
> >> being a little tipsy myself.
> >>
> >> Anyway, just a thought.
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi.
>
> Only when dealing with vocabulary nazis, and only then when they're full of
> shit.
>
> Scott
Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 21:40:40
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166304506.196058.318230@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>>
>
> Dont (see, no apostrophe again) tell me, that is your thought for
> today? I know you are allowed only one per day. LOL What a potty mouth.
You're much too witty for me to spar with. I guess you win. But before I
go, my advice to you concerned spelling, not punctuation. You understand
the difference, rigtht?
Scott
|
| |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:50:09
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a fucking
> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a word
> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting from
> being a little tipsy myself.
>
> Anyway, just a thought.
>
> Scott
Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi. Was that your thought for the day?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 14:54:10
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166280609.854591.80380@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a
>> fucking
>> clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a
>> word
>> improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
>> appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting
>> from
>> being a little tipsy myself.
>>
>> Anyway, just a thought.
>>
>> Scott
>
> Ouch. Another apostrophe nazi.
Only when dealing with vocabulary nazis, and only then when they're full of
shit.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 19:54:38
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> > > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> > > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> > > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> > > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> > > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> > > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> > > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> > > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
> >
> > Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
> > with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
> > tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
> > that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
> > American serviceman.
>
> YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
> stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
> horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
> theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
> Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
> Americans is repulsive.
Your statements dont make sense. You were the one who brought up the
hypotheitical question, rigtht? So you get a hypothetical answer. Now
look at your response. You call someone nuts because he describes a
hypothetical threat that you dont happen to agree with. And your use of
the word sanguine makes me think you have been drinking.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 06:36:02
From: S McFarlane
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166239557.989596.10150@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> John B. wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might
>> > > have
>> > > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
>> > > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
>> > > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
>> > > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
>> > > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe
>> > > none
>> > > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
>> > > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to
>> > > the
>> > > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
>> >
>> > Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
>> > with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
>> > tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
>> > that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
>> > American serviceman.
>>
>> YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
>> stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
>> horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
>> theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
>> Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
>> Americans is repulsive.
>
> Your statements dont make sense. You were the one who brought up the
> hypotheitical question, rigtht? So you get a hypothetical answer. Now
> look at your response. You call someone nuts because he describes a
> hypothetical threat that you dont happen to agree with. And your use of
> the word sanguine makes me think you have been drinking.
Having read over your posts on the subject, I'm not surprised that John's
statements don't make sense to you. I very often disagree with John's
posts, but they usually are much more than comprehensible. Sometimes they
are actually challenging. Once in a blue moon, he's even right about
something :-). I have found that his posts are always lucid and sensible,
even if he does sometimes prove to be fallible in his opinion.
On the other hand, you seem to have lost the thread of thought on this one.
For that reason I haven't snipped according to my usual practise, in the
hopes that you will catch the scent. I won't try to persuade you one way or
the other on the topic at hand; who am I to try to point the way for you?
I'm often a little lost myself.
However - and this is the point I wished to make - I will take the
opportunity to suggest you check your spelling a little more closely when
you decide to cast doubts on someone's sobriety, especially if your
aspersions are based solely on usage. Your typing appears to be a bit
affected, and in the present context this gives the impression of hypocrisy.
It would also help your case immeasurably if you appeared to have a fucking
clue what you're talking about when you suggest that someone has used a word
improperly. Frankly, your statement 'dont' make sense. You do indeed
appear sanguine, but perhaps that is merely a misperception resulting from
being a little tipsy myself.
Anyway, just a thought.
Scott
|
| |
Date: 15 Dec 2006 07:53:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> > happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> > not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> > Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> > then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> > then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> > of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> > GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> > urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
>
> Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
> with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
> tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
> that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
> American serviceman.
YOU hold on, sport. I didn't complain about anything. I pointed out the
stupidity of the argument that invading Iraq and suffering the
horrendous consequences we've suffered in order to avoid a purely
theoretical possibility (which, by the way, was not why we invaded
Iraq) is insane. And being sanguine about the loss of 3,000 young
Americans is repulsive.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:37:10
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
> happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
> not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
> Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
> then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
> then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
> of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
> GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
> urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
Hold on! You are the one who asked the hypothetical question to begin
with so now you complain when you get hypothetical answers? Typical lib
tactic. As far as 3000 dead GI's, you are the only one being glib about
that stat. All the neanderthals are not worth the life of a single
American serviceman.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:05:44
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
>
> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
> massages that one.
He'll just say that when you combine the # of people who approve of
Bush's handling of the war (30%) with the people who think we're
winning (48%) as well as all those that think it's a war worth fighting
(38%), well, shit ...... that's 116% of the people that believe we
should stay the course!
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:53:03
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
> "By any means necessary," as the great Malcolm X said. If someone
> invades their country they'll fight to the death. Not unlike most
> Americans in that regard, I suppose. That's why there will always be
> increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
> for peace is for us to leave.
Let me say this slowly.............they are killing each other. If you
think it is bad now, the place would implode if we leave. Uh, come to
think of it, maybe we should let it implode.
Net gain for civilization.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:21:30
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
> >>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
> >>true for the US.
> >
> >Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
> >cost of keeping him.
>
>
> The problem is that you never know what would have happened if Saddam
> was left in power.
>
> Suppose that Britain, France and the Soviet Union immediately declared
> war on Germany in 1938 when Hitler took the Rhineland and the US
> joined the fight right away. Obviously this would have meant war
> rather than the policy of appeasement that actually occurred to try to
> avoid war.
>
> If an immediate response resulted in a war that killed 30 million
> people, I'm sure that the appeasers would say that the policies of the
> hawks led to a war that could have been avoided and thus caused the
> death of 30 million people. Of course, we now know that the actual
> war that resulted cost 60 million lives.
>
> Ultimately, history has shown that whenever a nation solves one
> problem, it is replaced by another problem. You can only hope that
> the new problem is smaller than the old one.
>
> Right now, the worst case scenario for the US is the threat of nuclear
> weapons in the hands of terrorists or a rogue nation. Saddam was a
> long term threat to develop nuclear weapons and that threat has been
> removed. An Iraq in chaos poses no direct threat to the US. The
> priy objective of the war was regime change and that has been
> achieved.
So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
of that would have happened. Who knows? Or cares? What do 3,000 dead
GIs really matter? What does $400 billion really matter compared to the
urgency of eliminating a purely hypothetical threat? Are you nuts?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 20:08:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 11:21:30 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>So, your rationale for this disastrous war is based on what might have
>happened if we hadn't invaded. Not what we knew would have happened,
>not what is likely to have happened, just what might have happened.
>Maybe someday SH would have been able to develop a nuclear weapon and
>then maybe he would have turned it over to some terrorist group who
>then maybe would have used it to kill Americans. But, then, maybe none
>of that would have happened. Who knows?
Who knows? I know that now it wont happen. That's the point.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:37:19
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
> massages that one.
...........and 72% cant find Iraq on a map. Opinion polls by the Wash.
Post? LOL
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 10:20:46
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:37:19 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
>> disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
>> think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
>> major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
>> massages that one.
>
>
>...........and 72% cant find Iraq on a map. Opinion polls by the Wash.
>Post? LOL
You don't have to know where a country is to want to stay away from
it. :-)
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:36:08
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
> There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
> You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
> Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
> Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
> stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
> last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
> day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
> coincidence that we have not been attacked?
I don't know, Do you think it was just a coincidence that we weren't
attacked by foreign terrorists on American from the 1993 WTC bombing
until Sept. 11, 2001?
I remember after the USS Cole bombing, people were talking about what a
failure Clinton was in fighting the terrorists. Maybe by the standards
we now apply to Bush, he was a colossal success.
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:27:25
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> > >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> > >game?"
> >
> > To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
>
>
> OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
> invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
> better off than it is now?
OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
coincidence that we have not been attacked?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:55:08
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:27:25 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
>> invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
>> better off than it is now?
>
>OK, you ask a hypthetical question and you get a hypothetical answer.
>There has not been an attack on the US mainland since the WOT began.
>You know the old cliche about the best defense is a strong offense.
>Take the fight to them. Terrorists had free reign for training etc in
>Afghanistan and Iraq. We are now smack dab in the middle of their
>stomping grounds. Ossama has been on the run from cave to cave for the
>last 4 years. You cant run much of an operation if your only goal every
>day is to find a new place to hide. Do you think it is just a
>coincidence that we have not been attacked?
Afghanistan and Iraq are two different countries. Osama was not
going to find refuge under Saddam. But maybe if our forces weren't
fighting two wars, they could have captured him by now.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:17:17
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> > explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> > what all Christians do?
>
> ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
> a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
> better than that.
Oh, I get it now. You are saying that we shouldn't judge or condemn a
whole large group of people (or religion) for the actions of a few.
Sounds rational to me.
So I guess this will put and end to your rants against Muslims and
Islam?
Do you think Muhammad Ali joined the Muslims because he wanted to blow
up cars and cut off heads? No, he joined them because they are peace
lovers. But they will fight back.
"By any means necessary," as the great Malcolm X said. If someone
invades their country they'll fight to the death. Not unlike most
Americans in that regard, I suppose. That's why there will always be
increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
for peace is for us to leave.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:20:29
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 07:17:17 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:
> That's why there will always be
>increased violence in Iraq as long as we are occupiers. The only hope
>for peace is for us to leave.
I suppose that you could be more naive, but I can't imagine how.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 06:45:16
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> >game?"
>
> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
better off than it is now?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 16:18:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 06:45:16 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>OK, just for the sake of argument, let's imagine that we had never
>invaded Iraq and SH was still in power today. How would the US be
>better off than it is now?
I think you mean worse off than it is now.
It would be worse off because Saddam was a madman who had the
potential to eventually develop nuclear weapons that could be used
against the USA. The Iraq that exists today can't even collect the
garbage, never talk about develop a nuclear weapon.
Saddam in power was an American problem. Sectarian violence in Iraq
is ultimately an Iraqi problem. The reason that the decision to go
into Iraq was so easy was that there was no outcome that was worse
than Saddam staying in power.
The same is true for Iran. There's no outcome that's worse than Iran
having nuclear weapons.
|
| |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 06:28:33
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > You're the neanderthal, pal.
> >
> > I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> > drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> > innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
> > with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>
> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> what all Christians do?
ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
better than that.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 11:23:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
<lobshot694@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:1166106513.707709.305200@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> annika1980 wrote:
>> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> > >
>> > > You're the neanderthal, pal.
>> >
>> > I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>> > drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>> > innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
>> > with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>>
>> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
>> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
>> what all Christians do?
>
> ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
> a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
> better than that.
>
No he can't.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 09:51:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 14 Dec 2006 06:28:33 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
>> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
>> what all Christians do?
>
>ALL Christians? Nope, just one nutjob. You try to make a comparison of
>a single act to a widespread pattern of behavior? C'mon, you can do
>better than that.
His debate tactic worked - the best way to win a debate is to get your
opponent to use your argument.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 21:00:23
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > You're the neanderthal, pal.
>
> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
> with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
what all Christians do?
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 00:33:19
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>>
>>> You're the neanderthal, pal.
>>
>> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at
>> it with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
>
> And I have no inclination to mix up a bunch of fertilizer and
> explosives and blow up some buildings in Oklahoma City. Isn't that
> what all Christians do?
That is what people do after the FBI kills unarmed women and children - they
blow up an FBI building. Don't agree with the idea - but it doesn't seem
that out of whack. Eye for an eye; and all that.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:17:40
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:33:19 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>That is what people do after the FBI kills unarmed women and children - they
>blow up an FBI building. Don't agree with the idea - but it doesn't seem
>that out of whack. Eye for an eye; and all that.
I agree with Gandhi that everybody would end up blind. People don't
agree when they are even and can stop killing.
Especially when their attacks hit something other than the target they
were trying to get even with.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 20:46:44
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> You're the neanderthal, pal.
I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 12:04:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 20:46:44 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
>drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
>innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at it
>with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
With the exception of the part about the virgins.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 00:32:05
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>> You're the neanderthal, pal.
>
> I have no inclination to pack 500 lbs of explosives into a car and
> drive it into a crowded downtown area so that I can kill as many
> innocent fellow Iraqis as possible so I can go to heaven and have at
> it with 52 virgins. Seems kinda stupid to me.
There is a reason Iraqi women are virgins - they are frugly.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> >rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> >that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> >came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> >might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> >as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> >freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> >there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
> In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
> of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
> true for the US.
The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
game?"
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 22:14:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
>And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
>game?"
To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 19:30:53
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article <2ag1o29l09d2el2hh4g6o2kg7ma4fnta9m@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young men.
> >And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead of the
> >game?"
>
> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
Or a first thought.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 23:27:56
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article <2ag1o29l09d2el2hh4g6o2kg7ma4fnta9m@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Dec 2006 17:53:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The US has spent $400 billion on this and lost almost 3000 young
>>> men. And Iraq is an irretrievable hell-hole. You call that "ahead
>>> of the game?"
>>
>> To get rid of Saddam, yes, without a second thought.
>
> Or a first thought.
Saddam has "been out of the game" for quite some time. USA does not know
how to "mop up" and I suspect that history bears out that there may not be
an elegant way.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:34:05
From: Ken Meltzer
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
> "Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
> fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
> Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
> especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
> creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
> asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
> They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
> controlling them.
If that is so obvious to you, why do you think George Bush was unable
to recognize it?
Best,
Ken
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:28:06
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Jack Hollis wrote:
> > > On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > >
> > > >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > > >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> > > >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
> > >
> > > Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> > > than an American failure.
> >
> > This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> > rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> > that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> > came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> > might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> > as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> > freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> > there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
>
> So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
> "Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
> fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
> Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
> especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
> creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
> asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
> They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
> controlling them.
You're the neanderthal, pal.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 15:02:11
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> > >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
> >
> > Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> > than an American failure.
>
> This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
> rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
> that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
> came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
> might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
> as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
> freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
> there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
So the Iraqis are not to blame for blowing themselves up? Somehow the
"Hate America First" crowd can always find a way to make everything our
fault. Why cant the Iraqi people step up to the plate? Answer: Because
Neanderthals cant understand complex concepts such as democracy
especially when it gets in the way of their backward religion. These
creatures will destroy everthing they have including the one single
asset they possess (oil) and will be living in caves within a decade.
They can only exist as a society when there is a Hitler type dictator
controlling them.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> >In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> >their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
> >live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
>
> Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
> than an American failure.
This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
>
> I was encouraged today the Saudi's said that if the US withdraws and
> the Shia attack the Sunnis that the Saudi's would protect the Sunni. I
> doubt that the US would really object to the Saudi's taking control of
> Iraq.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 20:45:30
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 13 Dec 2006 13:43:32 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>This is taking shape as the argument conservatives are going to use to
>rationalize this catastrophe: blame the Iraqis. It's all their fault
>that they have not embraced OUR designs for THEIR future -- designs we
>came up with without consulting them or even considering that they
>might not work. Ahmad Chalabi said the Iraqi people would welcome us
>as liberators and fall on their knees begging us to bring pluralism,
>freedom and democracy to them. That's not exactly what has taken place
>there, so obviously we're not to blame for anything.
In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
true for the US.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 18:12:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Did Saddam publicly announce that Saudi Arabia was next? Last I
> >> heard; Saddam always felt that Kuwait belonged to Iraq and that
> >> Kuwait was cross-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil.
> >
> > I don't know about the latter, but I am pretty certain that he never
> > openly threatened Saudi Arabia. He probably didn't think we would come
> > to Kuwait's rescue, but he knew damn well we'd come to SA's.
>
>
> He had no reason to think we would not support his decision to attack
> Kuwait. We supported his war against Iran for a decade. He openly declared
> in many OPEC meetings that Kuwait was illegally cross drilling and stealing
> Iraqi oil. Additionally; he declared they were producing more barrels per
> day from the shared fields than they agreed to. The pissing war was
> between Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was not thrilled with his secular
> government taking Kuwait; so they whined and dangled their oil production
> in our faces until we (USA) got involved. Fuck Saudi Arabia. They are a
> barbaric, rights violating, totalitarian regime. If Saddam wiped Saudi
> Arabia's government off the face of the earth they would be freeing a great
> many of her citizens from tyranny.
I know a guy who used to do security for the Saudi Royal Family when
they came to the US. He would bodyguard them when they went shopping at
Nieman cus or making the scene at some groovy NY night club. He said
the women always got really glum and depressed when it was time to go
back to SA. He said they were all gay, too -- the men and the women. I
told him he should write a book. He said that would get him killed.
Fifteen of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But, hey, what's a little
terrorism between friends? When GW Bush was about to attack Iraq as a
response to 9/11, he invited the Saudi fucking Ambassador to the White
House for a breifing on how it was going to go down. I live near the
Saudi ambassador's house in Virginia. It's a fucking monstrosity. May
be the biggest private home in the DC area. He's got a security command
post in front that's bigger than my house. He's got a disco, an indoor
olympic-size pool and a gigantic garage full of Maseratis, Ferraris,
Bentleys, etc. All paid for with oil income from the good ol' US of A.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 00:16:15
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Fifteen of 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis. But, hey, what's a little
> terrorism between friends?
So was Osama. And since you are bringing up that can of worms; OBL has no
issue with us if we never put our troops in Saudi Arabia and attack Saddam
with those troops. He never mentioned Israel until well after 9/11/01.
That is secondary to the first issue; which is that USA had no business
putting troops in the Middle East or getting involved in their pissing
contests. Fuck all of them. Let them do whatever they want to each other.
> When GW Bush was about to attack Iraq as a
> response to 9/11, he invited the Saudi fucking Ambassador to the White
> House for a breifing on how it was going to go down.
Blowhound Bushtard is.... well.... a Bushtard; basically. Just your
typical fucktard but with a bit more power and a basement full of coke and
Jack Daniels.
> I live near the
> Saudi ambassador's house in Virginia. It's a fucking monstrosity. May
> be the biggest private home in the DC area. He's got a security
> command post in front that's bigger than my house. He's got a disco,
> an indoor olympic-size pool and a gigantic garage full of Maseratis,
> Ferraris, Bentleys, etc. All paid for with oil income from the good
> ol' US of A.
He should go back to his land of sand and hump his butt fucking ugly black
eyed virgins.
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 06:56:40
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Head Shot wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >> Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>> Howard Brazee wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 21:25:55 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> You imply that there is one definition. There isn't. I gave a
> >>>>>> definition that mattered. The president's definition matters.
> >>>>> Then by using your definition WMD's were found in Iraq.
> >>>> We found WMDs that were a real danger to the U.S. and its allies?
> >>> Kuwait.
> >>
> >> Then Kuwait should have fought the war, not USA. Americans
> >> should not be forced to sacrifice their lives to save Kuwaitis from
> >> Iraqis.
> >
> > We fought GFI to save the Saudi oil fields.
>
> Did Saddam publicly announce that Saudi Arabia was next? Last I heard;
> Saddam always felt that Kuwait belonged to Iraq and that Kuwait was
> cross-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil.
I don't know about the latter, but I am pretty certain that he never
openly threatened Saudi Arabia. He probably didn't think we would come
to Kuwait's rescue, but he knew damn well we'd come to SA's.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 17:20:12
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >
> >>John B. wrote:
> >>
> SNIP
>
> >>
> >>Anyone, you included, that is a proponent of the human caused CO2
> >>increase has failed to quantify the amount of CO2 increase that is due
> >>to human activity or caused by humans. You rely upon science to
> >>reinforce your argument and I rely upon science to support my argument
> >>that this current warming trend is part of a continuous cycle. What is
> >>the difference between the science I rely upon and the science you rely
> >> upon.
> >
> >
> > Mine's right and yours is wrong. There is enough peer-reviewed
> > scientific research by respected atmospheric scientists supporting the
> > fact that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate to fill up
> > the Superdome. The "science" supporting your argument would fit in the
> > trunk of my car. To say that no one has quantified the growth of CO2 in
> > the atmosphere is ridiculous and proves that you have not studied this
> > issue at all.
>
> John B. falls back on the "mine is bigger then yours" argument. Science
> is not in itself right or wrong because the word really refers to the
> state of knowledge. Conclusions drawn from the state of knowledge can
> certainly be wrong. Validity of a conclusion is not a function of the
> number of scientists that support it.
So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
>
> John B. structures the argument in either / or terms, "Humans are
> causing the problem or they are not". This is a political argument not
> science. The facts are that mankind and our agriculture, manufacturing
> and distribution systems do add (net) green house gasses to the
> atmosphere and that these emissions modulate the impact of other factors
> which have a far greater effect.
"The facts?" Where did you find these "facts?" And what are these other
factors that have a far greater effect?
What is not clear is the scale of the
> respective impactors. As far as how much impact is caused by CO2 and
> other gasses, there are reputable studies that range from negligible to
> most of the temperature rise. A very sound study that I recently saw
> suggests that the human impact, including grazing animal flatulence, is
> approximately 30% of the total.
And to what did it ascribe the other 70 percent?
>
>
> >>>>>am not proposing drilling in the ANWR because that would not reduce our
> >>>>>dependence on foreign oil by any appreciable degree. There is not one
> >>>>
> >>>>Then you are not serious about reducing our dependence upon foreign oil.
> >>>>Anyone who states that they want to reduce our dependence upon foreign
> >>>>oil and in the same breath says that we can't drill in our own yard is
> >>>>an idiot.
> >>>
> >>>-- I am for reducing our dependence on ALL oil, regardless of its
> >>>source. Again, drilling in the ANWR would not substntially reduce our
> >>>dependence on foreign oil. I keep people who are for it to quantify the
> >>>reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
> >>>never gotten an answer.
> >>
> >>So, each time you state you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
> >>you are lying.
> >
> >
> > So now I'm an idiot AND a liar. And you are a nasty, belligerent little
> > prick.
>
> Playground language. My my.
>
> SNIP
>
> >>
> >>How much of your own money are you putting into developing non-fossil
> >>fuel energy sources?
> >
> >
> >
> > My own money? What kind of stupid question is that? If the govt. were
> > to propose a tax to finance the development of renewable energy
> > sources, I would be all for it.
>
> John B. believes so strongly in the need to switch to alternative
> sources that he is willing to use your money and my money. Investing
> his own money is a stupid thing to do though. Classic!
>
> Joe
Another ridiculous argument. What am I, Bill Gates? How on earth could
an investment by me make any possible difference in renewable energy
R&D? FWIW, I'm about to "invest" in a hybrid car.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 21:57:50
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>>Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>
>>>>Anyone, you included, that is a proponent of the human caused CO2
>>>>increase has failed to quantify the amount of CO2 increase that is due
>>>>to human activity or caused by humans. You rely upon science to
>>>>reinforce your argument and I rely upon science to support my argument
>>>>that this current warming trend is part of a continuous cycle. What is
>>>>the difference between the science I rely upon and the science you rely
>>>> upon.
>>>
>>>
>>>Mine's right and yours is wrong. There is enough peer-reviewed
>>>scientific research by respected atmospheric scientists supporting the
>>>fact that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate to fill up
>>>the Superdome. The "science" supporting your argument would fit in the
>>>trunk of my car. To say that no one has quantified the growth of CO2 in
>>>the atmosphere is ridiculous and proves that you have not studied this
>>>issue at all.
>>
>>John B. falls back on the "mine is bigger then yours" argument. Science
>>is not in itself right or wrong because the word really refers to the
>>state of knowledge. Conclusions drawn from the state of knowledge can
>>certainly be wrong. Validity of a conclusion is not a function of the
>>number of scientists that support it.
>
>
> So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
> from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
Yep! That is the way it works. Think Galileo. Or Jack Horner.
>
>>John B. structures the argument in either / or terms, "Humans are
>>causing the problem or they are not". This is a political argument not
>>science. The facts are that mankind and our agriculture, manufacturing
>>and distribution systems do add (net) green house gasses to the
>>atmosphere and that these emissions modulate the impact of other factors
>>which have a far greater effect.
>
>
> "The facts?" Where did you find these "facts?"
So you don't think that mankind is contributing to the warming issue?
My statement was a restatement of your own words. I was agreeing that
there is an impact
And what are these other
> factors that have a far greater effect?
John, are you having problems with short term memory? Solar cycles,
orbital mechanics and volcanism were previously discussed in the thread.
We could add sea water salinity and tectonics to the list.
>
> What is not clear is the scale of the
>
>>respective impactors. As far as how much impact is caused by CO2 and
>>other gasses, there are reputable studies that range from negligible to
>>most of the temperature rise. A very sound study that I recently saw
>>suggests that the human impact, including grazing animal flatulence, is
>>approximately 30% of the total.
>
>
> And to what did it ascribe the other 70 percent?
See my previous rek.
>
>
BIG SNIP
>>>>
>>>>So, each time you state you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
>>>>you are lying.
>>>
>>>
>>>So now I'm an idiot AND a liar. And you are a nasty, belligerent little
>>>prick.
>>
>>Playground language. My my.
>>
>>SNIP
>>
>>
>>>>How much of your own money are you putting into developing non-fossil
>>>>fuel energy sources?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>My own money? What kind of stupid question is that? If the govt. were
>>>to propose a tax to finance the development of renewable energy
>>>sources, I would be all for it.
>>
>>John B. believes so strongly in the need to switch to alternative
>>sources that he is willing to use your money and my money. Investing
>>his own money is a stupid thing to do though. Classic!
>>
>>Joe
>
>
> Another ridiculous argument. What am I, Bill Gates? How on earth could
> an investment by me make any possible difference in renewable energy
> R&D? FWIW, I'm about to "invest" in a hybrid car.
You could buy stock in a wind farm business, or solar cell research
firms as a simple example. You could build a solar home, or don't burn
as much power from the grid. The hybrid car is a nice gesture, not an
investment, but it won't have much impact because that electric power
will likely be generate by a hydrocarbon power plant. Don't eat much
meat and only use veggies that come from totally natural farms that
don't use fertilizer (hydrocarbon based you know.
All those things cost more today because the ket is small. Add
yourself to the size of the ket and help drive the costs down. If
enough of you folks do it, the invisible hand will solve the problem.
Or are only grand gestures suitable for you? You know what I mean,
putting your hand in my pocket but not yours.
Joe
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 29 Dec 2006 18:28:02 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Correlations mean nothing, There is absolutely no scientific proof
> >> that global warming is caused by human activity.
> >
>
> >There is no proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer.
>
> Nonsense, the epidemiological evidence is overwhelming as is the
> animal research. This is an issue that science is able to prove.
>
> >There is no proof that nicotine is addictive.
>
> Addiction is a complex physiological process with a significant
> psychological component. However, nicotine is a substance that mimics
> a naturally occurring human neurotransmitter and exogenous nicotine
> produces measurable changes in the structure of specific neurons that
> are associated with withdrawal symptoms if the use of nicotine is
> stopped.
>
> >There is no proof that second-hand smoke is harmful.
>
> It depends on how much and for how long, but if cigarettes smoke
> causes cancer then second hand smoke would as well.
>
> >There is no proof that exposure to PCBs has long-term
> >health effects.
>
> There are good scientific studies on many chemical agents (including
> PCB) that have proven them to be harmful. Like cigarettes, the
> evidence is from both animal studies and epidemiological studies.
>
> >There's no proof that sulfur dioxide emissions caused
> >acid rain.
>
> There are a number of chemical processes that turn SO2 into sulfuric
> acid. The process is well-known.
>
> >There's no proof that CFC emissions caused ozone depletion.
>
> The process by which CFC's deplete ozone is well-known.
>
> >I could go on.
>
> Please don't.
>
> There is no way that science could possibly prove that human activity
> is responsible for global warming.
>
> I quote from the MIT Professor's article in the WSJ, because I'm not
> sure that you will read it all.
>
> "Although no cause for alarm rests on this issue, there has been an
> intense effort to claim that the theoretically expected contribution
> from additional carbon dioxide has actually been detected.
> Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of
> climate change, this task is currently impossible. Nevertheless there
> has been a persistent effort to suggest otherwise, and with surprising
> impact."
>
>
> "First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with
> understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types,
> environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such
> claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists -
> especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given
> that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its
> use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a
> bait-and-switch scam."
>
>
> The pertinent parts are:
>
> 1. Given that we do not understand the natural internal variability of
> climate change, this task is currently impossible.
>
> 2. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely
> cannot be resolved,
>
> Do you understand that science cannot resolve the issue of what is
> causing global warming and that there is no consensus on the issue.
I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
most of his peers disagree with him.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 15:40:40
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
>highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
>most of his peers disagree with him.
Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
anything for sure.
Here is an excerpt from letter sent to the Canadian PM from sixty
scientists last April to ask him to revisit the climate change issue.
"However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be
permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the
climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that
there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative
importance of the various causes of global climate change, the
government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by
activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes,
and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing
air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to
"stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue
intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help
our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us
next."
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
"Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the
human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural
"noise."
This expresses exactly what I'm trying to get across. It's impossible
for science to determine what, if any, impact human activity is having
on climate change.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 23:00:59
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
> impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
> warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
> in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
> that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
> caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
> anything for sure.
This kind of arguement is totally bogus. Science cannot say something for
certain, therefore the scientific explanation is bogus. A cold hard fact is
that it is not known for sure if the next nuclear explosion won't incinerate
the entire atmosphere. We are more certain now than when the first one was
exploded. Science provides explanations called theories, and time has shown
that these sorts of explanations are more reliable, practically, than any
other sort of explanation.
People who oppose theories always trot out the same old arguements...you
can't prove it, you don't give "alternate theories" a chance. Doesn't matter
which crackpot antiscience you look at. Science goes on though. The issue
with global warming is the *RISK*.
A cold hard undeniable fact is that there have been no similar warming
periods in recorded history. I find it hilarious that certain people present
really hard explanations for so called "warming periods" of the past, for
which we have very scant information, but can't show these vaunted "factors"
at work today, whereas the evidence of global warming is everywhere.
Of course the people that claim global warming is going to cause some super
catastrophe are presenting equally bogus "science". There is no empirical
evidence that global warming will cause such a catastrophe.
My take on it is that global warming will cause the isolation of polar
circulation resulting in it getting a lot colder north/south of the tropics.
People who live north of the tropics think the world *IS* north of the
tropics, but the fact is a good part of it is between the tropics, and
certainly most atmospheric energy is contained there; and IMHO, if it warms
up a few degrees between the tropics you get a limitation on the mixing of
tropical and polar air masses because the temp differences at the boundaries
become sharper, but that's just MHO.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 21:41:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:00:59 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>A cold hard undeniable fact is that there have been no similar warming
>periods in recorded history.
This is absolutely wrong. There have been many periods in earth
history where the climate has been warmer than it is today with the
last being during Medieval times known as the Medieval Warming Period.
This is why it's impossible to tell if the current warming trend is
part of the natural cycle or caused by increased CO2 due to human
activity.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 03:42:28
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:00:59 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >A cold hard undeniable fact is that there have been no similar warming
> >periods in recorded history.
>
> This is absolutely wrong. There have been many periods in earth
> history where the climate has been warmer than it is today with the
> last being during Medieval times known as the Medieval Warming Period.
That is absurd. At best you have data from western Europe on temperatures.
Just because there was an apparent warming during medeival times (where
they skated on the canals in The Netherlands in the winter...and don't now
because they don't freeze now) doesn't mean there was any global warming at
the time.
You can also trot out supposed advances and retreats of ice sheets, but
that too is localized and rather dicey.
Bottom line is that there is no similar warming on record.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 14:41:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:42:28 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net >
wrote:
>> This is absolutely wrong. There have been many periods in earth
>> history where the climate has been warmer than it is today with the
>> last being during Medieval times known as the Medieval Warming Period.
>
>That is absurd. At best you have data from western Europe on temperatures.
>Just because there was an apparent warming during medeival times (where
>they skated on the canals in The Netherlands in the winter...and don't now
>because they don't freeze now) doesn't mean there was any global warming at
>the time.
There are well-established methods for meauring global temperature
back hundreds of thousands of years. Do some research in this area.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 21:49:14
From: Robert Hamilton
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:42:28 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> This is absolutely wrong. There have been many periods in earth
> >> history where the climate has been warmer than it is today with the
> >> last being during Medieval times known as the Medieval Warming Period.
> >
> >That is absurd. At best you have data from western Europe on temperatures.
> >Just because there was an apparent warming during medeival times (where
> >they skated on the canals in The Netherlands in the winter...and don't now
> >because they don't freeze now) doesn't mean there was any global warming at
> >the time.
>
> There are well-established methods for meauring global temperature
> back hundreds of thousands of years. Do some research in this area.
Mesuring long term past trends over hundreds of thousands of years is one thing.
Measuring over hundreds of years is another.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 17:06:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
>> highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
>> most of his peers disagree with him.
>
> Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
> impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
> warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
> in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
> that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
> caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
> anything for sure.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
Interesting graphs.
> Here is an excerpt from letter sent to the Canadian PM from sixty
> scientists last April to ask him to revisit the climate change issue.
>
> "However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be
> permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the
> climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that
> there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative
> importance of the various causes of global climate change, the
> government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
> reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
>
> "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by
> activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
> looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
> justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes,
> and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
> natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing
> air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to
> "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue
> intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help
> our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us
> next."
>
> http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
>
>
>
> "Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the
> human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural
> "noise."
>
> This expresses exactly what I'm trying to get across. It's impossible
> for science to determine what, if any, impact human activity is having
> on climate change.
|
| | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 13:08:15
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article <mgm3p2pur5t31s0n53r2j6fitn2sdrf3ai@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 13:47:35 -0800, The World Wide Wade
> > <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> >
> > >When you say you don't care what the UN authorizes, you are
> > >basically spitting on the US Constitution. The US is a signatory
> > >to the UN Charter, a treaty ratified by the US Senate. Such
> > >treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land" according to Article
> > >VI of the US Constitution (see below*). When the US federal
> > >government violates the UN Charter, as it has massively done
> > >numerous times since the founding of the UN (including the war on
> > >Iraq), it is acting illegally - not just in violating
> > >international law, but in violating its own law.
> >
> > US foreign policy is made by the President and the Congress.
US foreign policy is made by the president. Congress has a small and
trivial role. It provides the money and exercises oversight, and the
Senate ratifies treaties. But it has no role in the actual making of
foreign policy, i.e., negotiating with foreign governments, working
with the UN and other foreign organizations, negotiating treaties, etc.
>
> And if they do so in violation of the supreme laws of the land,
> they are derelict in their duty and subject to impeachment.
>
> > The UN
> > does not have veto power over them. End of story.
>
> Find another respondent to dicuss this ridiculous strawman with.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 22:44:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 28 Dec 2006 13:08:15 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>US foreign policy is made by the president. Congress has a small and
>trivial role.
Tell that to the South Vietnam when Congress cut off their funding in
1975. The House has considerable control of foreign policy because it
controls the purse strings. They also cut off funding for the Contras
during the Reagan Administration. The Senate, of course, must ratify
treaties, so they have their role as well, but it's not trivial.
|
| | | | |
Date: 21 Dec 2006 21:31:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>> Did Saddam publicly announce that Saudi Arabia was next? Last I
>> heard; Saddam always felt that Kuwait belonged to Iraq and that
>> Kuwait was cross-drilling and stealing Iraqi oil.
>
> I don't know about the latter, but I am pretty certain that he never
> openly threatened Saudi Arabia. He probably didn't think we would come
> to Kuwait's rescue, but he knew damn well we'd come to SA's.
He had no reason to think we would not support his decision to attack
Kuwait. We supported his war against Iran for a decade. He openly declared
in many OPEC meetings that Kuwait was illegally cross drilling and stealing
Iraqi oil. Additionally; he declared they were producing more barrels per
day from the shared fields than they agreed to. The pissing war was
between Iraq and Kuwait. Saudi Arabia was not thrilled with his secular
government taking Kuwait; so they whined and dangled their oil production
in our faces until we (USA) got involved. Fuck Saudi Arabia. They are a
barbaric, rights violating, totalitarian regime. If Saddam wiped Saudi
Arabia's government off the face of the earth they would be freeing a great
many of her citizens from tyranny.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2006 20:56:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 21:31:29 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>He had no reason to think we would not support his decision to attack
>Kuwait.
He should have gotten the hint when US forces, under full support from
the UN, started landing in SA.
>We supported his war against Iran for a decade.
The US aim was to insure that Iran didn't win the war. In that
respect, the aim was to hurt Iran rather than to help Iraq. The US
also took action against Iran to protect shipping in the Gulf.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 05:37:39
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >>John B. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Bert Robbins wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>
> >>SNIP
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Anyone, you included, that is a proponent of the human caused CO2
> >>>>increase has failed to quantify the amount of CO2 increase that is due
> >>>>to human activity or caused by humans. You rely upon science to
> >>>>reinforce your argument and I rely upon science to support my argument
> >>>>that this current warming trend is part of a continuous cycle. What is
> >>>>the difference between the science I rely upon and the science you rely
> >>>> upon.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Mine's right and yours is wrong. There is enough peer-reviewed
> >>>scientific research by respected atmospheric scientists supporting the
> >>>fact that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the climate to fill up
> >>>the Superdome. The "science" supporting your argument would fit in the
> >>>trunk of my car. To say that no one has quantified the growth of CO2 in
> >>>the atmosphere is ridiculous and proves that you have not studied this
> >>>issue at all.
> >>
> >>John B. falls back on the "mine is bigger then yours" argument. Science
> >>is not in itself right or wrong because the word really refers to the
> >>state of knowledge. Conclusions drawn from the state of knowledge can
> >>certainly be wrong. Validity of a conclusion is not a function of the
> >>number of scientists that support it.
> >
> >
> > So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
> > from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
>
> Yep! That is the way it works. Think Galileo. Or Jack Horner.
So, you think some climate change dissenter on the payroll of the
American Petroleum Instiitute is someday going to be remembered as
Galileo is today?
>
>
> >
> >>John B. structures the argument in either / or terms, "Humans are
> >>causing the problem or they are not". This is a political argument not
> >>science. The facts are that mankind and our agriculture, manufacturing
> >>and distribution systems do add (net) green house gasses to the
> >>atmosphere and that these emissions modulate the impact of other factors
> >>which have a far greater effect.
> >
> >
> > "The facts?" Where did you find these "facts?"
> So you don't think that mankind is contributing to the warming issue?
> My statement was a restatement of your own words. I was agreeing that
> there is an impact
>
> And what are these other
> > factors that have a far greater effect?
>
> John, are you having problems with short term memory? Solar cycles,
> orbital mechanics and volcanism were previously discussed in the thread.
> We could add sea water salinity and tectonics to the list.
>
>
> >
> > What is not clear is the scale of the
> >
> >>respective impactors. As far as how much impact is caused by CO2 and
> >>other gasses, there are reputable studies that range from negligible to
> >>most of the temperature rise. A very sound study that I recently saw
> >>suggests that the human impact, including grazing animal flatulence, is
> >>approximately 30% of the total.
> >
> >
> > And to what did it ascribe the other 70 percent?
>
> See my previous rek.
> >
> >
> BIG SNIP
> >>>>
> >>>>So, each time you state you want to reduce our dependence on foreign oil
> >>>>you are lying.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So now I'm an idiot AND a liar. And you are a nasty, belligerent little
> >>>prick.
> >>
> >>Playground language. My my.
> >>
> >>SNIP
> >>
> >>
> >>>>How much of your own money are you putting into developing non-fossil
> >>>>fuel energy sources?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My own money? What kind of stupid question is that? If the govt. were
> >>>to propose a tax to finance the development of renewable energy
> >>>sources, I would be all for it.
> >>
> >>John B. believes so strongly in the need to switch to alternative
> >>sources that he is willing to use your money and my money. Investing
> >>his own money is a stupid thing to do though. Classic!
> >>
> >>Joe
> >
> >
> > Another ridiculous argument. What am I, Bill Gates? How on earth could
> > an investment by me make any possible difference in renewable energy
> > R&D? FWIW, I'm about to "invest" in a hybrid car.
>
> You could buy stock in a wind farm business, or solar cell research
> firms as a simple example. You could build a solar home, or don't burn
> as much power from the grid. The hybrid car is a nice gesture, not an
> investment, but it won't have much impact because that electric power
> will likely be generate by a hydrocarbon power plant. Don't eat much
> meat and only use veggies that come from totally natural farms that
> don't use fertilizer (hydrocarbon based you know.
>
> All those things cost more today because the ket is small. Add
> yourself to the size of the ket and help drive the costs down. If
> enough of you folks do it, the invisible hand will solve the problem.
>
> Or are only grand gestures suitable for you? You know what I mean,
> putting your hand in my pocket but not yours.
>
> Joe
You're much better at sarcasm than at actually answering questions. Or
understanding them for that matter. As for this last point, I was asked
how much I'm willing to invest in "developing non-fossil fuel energy
sources," not how much I'm willing to invest in a green lifestyle.
Again, FWIW, I already don't eat meat and I eat organic produce
whenever I can.
BTW, the electicity used in a hybrid car is produced by the car itself,
not by an electric generating plant. You don't plug hybrids into an
outlet. Where does the elctricity that your car uses to run the lights
and the radio come from? Dick Cheney would certainly agree with you
that driving a hybrid is a "nice gesture," but the fact is that they
produce less CO2 than conventional cars.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 11:57:22
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>
SNIP
>>>>
>>>>John B. falls back on the "mine is bigger then yours" argument. Science
>>>>is not in itself right or wrong because the word really refers to the
>>>>state of knowledge. Conclusions drawn from the state of knowledge can
>>>>certainly be wrong. Validity of a conclusion is not a function of the
>>>>number of scientists that support it.
>>>
>>>
>>>So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
>>>from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
>>
>>Yep! That is the way it works. Think Galileo. Or Jack Horner.
>
>
>
> So, you think some climate change dissenter on the payroll of the
> American Petroleum Instiitute is someday going to be remembered as
> Galileo is today?
You just changed the argument again. Why can't you simply admit that
you were / are wrong.
>>
>>>>John B. structures the argument in either / or terms, "Humans are
>>>>causing the problem or they are not". This is a political argument not
>>>>science. The facts are that mankind and our agriculture, manufacturing
>>>>and distribution systems do add (net) green house gasses to the
>>>>atmosphere and that these emissions modulate the impact of other factors
>>>>which have a far greater effect.
>>>
>>>
>>>"The facts?" Where did you find these "facts?"
>>
>>So you don't think that mankind is contributing to the warming issue?
>>My statement was a restatement of your own words. I was agreeing that
>>there is an impact
>>
Didn't want to admit that you had it wrong here either.
>>And what are these other
>>
>>>factors that have a far greater effect?
>>
>>John, are you having problems with short term memory? Solar cycles,
>>orbital mechanics and volcanism were previously discussed in the thread.
>> We could add sea water salinity and tectonics to the list.
>>
>>
>>
>>> What is not clear is the scale of the
>>>
>>>
>>>>respective impactors. As far as how much impact is caused by CO2 and
>>>>other gasses, there are reputable studies that range from negligible to
>>>>most of the temperature rise. A very sound study that I recently saw
>>>>suggests that the human impact, including grazing animal flatulence, is
>>>>approximately 30% of the total.
>>>
>>>
>>>And to what did it ascribe the other 70 percent?
>>
>>See my previous rek.
Ignored this too.
SNIP
>>>>>>How much of your own money are you putting into developing non-fossil
>>>>>>fuel energy sources?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My own money? What kind of stupid question is that? If the govt. were
>>>>>to propose a tax to finance the development of renewable energy
>>>>>sources, I would be all for it.
>>>>
>>>>John B. believes so strongly in the need to switch to alternative
>>>>sources that he is willing to use your money and my money. Investing
>>>>his own money is a stupid thing to do though. Classic!
>>>>
>>>>Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>Another ridiculous argument. What am I, Bill Gates? How on earth could
>>>an investment by me make any possible difference in renewable energy
>>>R&D? FWIW, I'm about to "invest" in a hybrid car.
>>
>>You could buy stock in a wind farm business, or solar cell research
>>firms as a simple example. You could build a solar home, or don't burn
>>as much power from the grid. The hybrid car is a nice gesture, not an
>>investment, but it won't have much impact because that electric power
>>will likely be generate by a hydrocarbon power plant. Don't eat much
>>meat and only use veggies that come from totally natural farms that
>>don't use fertilizer (hydrocarbon based you know.
>>
>>All those things cost more today because the ket is small. Add
>>yourself to the size of the ket and help drive the costs down. If
>>enough of you folks do it, the invisible hand will solve the problem.
>>
>>Or are only grand gestures suitable for you? You know what I mean,
>>putting your hand in my pocket but not yours.
>>
>>Joe
>
>
>
> You're much better at sarcasm than at actually answering questions. Or
> understanding them for that matter. As for this last point, I was asked
> how much I'm willing to invest in "developing non-fossil fuel energy
> sources," not how much I'm willing to invest in a green lifestyle.
> Again, FWIW, I already don't eat meat and I eat organic produce
> whenever I can.
Actually John, I did address the point that you made. I just happen to
believe that ket forces are more effective at solving these kinds of
problems than a massive government program. Large government programs
tightly focused on specific engineering goals can be very effective.
Small government programs focused on fundamental research and science
can also be very effective when tightly focused.
The Manhattan Project and the Kennedy moon mission are to fine examples.
> BTW, the electicity used in a hybrid car is produced by the car itself,
> not by an electric generating plant. You don't plug hybrids into an
> outlet. Where does the elctricity that your car uses to run the lights
> and the radio come from? Dick Cheney would certainly agree with you
> that driving a hybrid is a "nice gesture," but the fact is that they
> produce less CO2 than conventional cars.
>
I guess that I need to admit that I was wrong here. I was thinking
about the one of the earlier hybrids.
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 18:43:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Jack Hollis wrote:
> > On 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
> >> highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
> >> most of his peers disagree with him.
> >
> > Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
> > impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
> > warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
> > in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
> > that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
> > caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
> > anything for sure.
>
> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
>
> Interesting graphs.
>
> > Here is an excerpt from letter sent to the Canadian PM from sixty
> > scientists last April to ask him to revisit the climate change issue.
> >
> > "However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be
> > permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the
> > climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that
> > there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative
> > importance of the various causes of global climate change, the
> > government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
> > reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
> >
> > "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by
> > activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
> > looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
> > justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes,
> > and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
> > natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing
> > air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to
> > "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue
> > intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help
> > our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us
> > next."
> >
> > http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
> >
> >
> >
> > "Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the
> > human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural
> > "noise."
> >
> > This expresses exactly what I'm trying to get across. It's impossible
> > for science to determine what, if any, impact human activity is having
> > on climate change.
Here is an article on the relative consensus among scientists that GHG
emissions are largely responsible for global warming.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:17:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 30 Dec 2006 18:43:19 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Here is an article on the relative consensus among scientists that GHG
>emissions are largely responsible for global warming.
>
>http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
John, this is the Naomi Oreskes article which has been found to be
bogus.
This is from the Richard Lindzen article"
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge
Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global
climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social
scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913
of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the
remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view.
Several actually opposed it."
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:09:28
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> On 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
>>>> highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
>>>> most of his peers disagree with him.
>>> Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
>>> impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
>>> warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
>>> in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
>>> that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
>>> caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
>>> anything for sure.
>> http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png
>>
>> Interesting graphs.
>>
>>> Here is an excerpt from letter sent to the Canadian PM from sixty
>>> scientists last April to ask him to revisit the climate change issue.
>>>
>>> "However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be
>>> permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the
>>> climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that
>>> there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative
>>> importance of the various causes of global climate change, the
>>> government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
>>> reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
>>>
>>> "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by
>>> activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
>>> looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
>>> justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes,
>>> and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
>>> natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing
>>> air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to
>>> "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue
>>> intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help
>>> our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us
>>> next."
>>>
>>> http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the
>>> human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural
>>> "noise."
>>>
>>> This expresses exactly what I'm trying to get across. It's impossible
>>> for science to determine what, if any, impact human activity is having
>>> on climate change.
>
> Here is an article on the relative consensus among scientists that GHG
> emissions are largely responsible for global warming.
>
> http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
>
My wife, a real scientist, gets "Science" and has read all of these
articles and I read them sometimes when sitting and thinking. There is
no proof that humans are responsible for the current warming trend that
we are experiencing. There is a faction within the scientific arena
whose monetary existence is dependent upon promoting human caused global
warming and the study of such.
If I were to compare Tuesday's high temperature with Wednesday's high
temperature I could say with proof that it was getting colder. However,
If I was to compare yesterday's high temperature with today's hight
temperature I could say with proof that it was getting warmer. Two data
points don't make a trend.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 15:22:48
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 07:39:22 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I am familiar with the work of this professor, Richard Lindzer. He is a
> >highly regarded climatologist whose views are not to be dismissed. But
> >most of his peers disagree with him.
>
> Some of them do, but that's not the point. The point is that it's
> impossible for science to pinpopint what is causing the current
> warming trend in our climate. There have been similar warming periods
> in the past centuries before the Industrial Revolution. Who can say
> that this warming period is not being caused by the same factors that
> caused the last warming period. The fact is that you can't say
> anything for sure.
Not "some of them." Most of them. And that is precisely the point.
Science can present extremely strong and virtually irrefutable
evidence, and in the case of global warming it has done so. None of
the other theories that dissenting scientists have put forth are backed
by one-tenth of one percent of the evidence showing the relationship
betweeen GHG emissions and warming. Note that even the signers of the
letter below don't say GHGs aren't responsible. They simply say it's
hard to tell.
>
>
> Here is an excerpt from letter sent to the Canadian PM from sixty
> scientists last April to ask him to revisit the climate change issue.
>
> "However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be
> permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the
> climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that
> there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative
> importance of the various causes of global climate change, the
> government will be in a far better position to develop plans that
> reflect reality, and so benefit both the environment and the economy.
>
> "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by
> activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is
> looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is
> justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes,
> and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this
> natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing
> air, land, and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to
> "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue
> intensive research into the real causes of climate change, and help
> our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us
> next."
>
> http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
>
>
>
> "Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the
> human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural
> "noise."
>
> This expresses exactly what I'm trying to get across. It's impossible
> for science to determine what, if any, impact human activity is having
> on climate change.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 22:08:07
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 30 Dec 2006 15:22:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Not "some of them." Most of them. And that is precisely the point.
>Science can present extremely strong and virtually irrefutable
>evidence, and in the case of global warming it has done so.
There is no evidence and there is no consensus. IF a consensus exists
it's only in the mind of some people who don't understand science. The
scientists are not in consensis on this topic at all.
This is from the Richard Lindzen article"
"More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge
Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global
climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social
scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913
of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the
remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view.
Several actually opposed it."
"In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of
climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related
matters. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, ch 1999 439-455.
[8] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a
response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000
scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists
believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy
action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the
likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive
ability of currently existing models was limited."
In 1997, the Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48
official state climatologists on questions related to climate change.
Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely
natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be
largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the
climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President
Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and
scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact,
that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the
climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and
measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made
factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that
fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human
influences such as burning fossil fuels."
I don't see any consensus here except that 89% of the State
climatologists say that "current science is unable to isolate and
measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made
factors,"
John, the point is that science can't reach a consensus on something
that it is unable to measure.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 00:11:11
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
>> We supported his war against Iran for a decade.
>
> The US aim was to insure that Iran didn't win the war. In that
> respect, the aim was to hurt Iran rather than to help Iraq. The US
> also took action against Iran to protect shipping in the Gulf.
It sent the signal to Saddam that we supported him; irrespective of our
motives. But the issue remains that we had no business putting troops
over there. Saddam vs. Kuwait was not our issue. We have plenty of oil
without Kuwait (as well as coal, nuclear power, natural gas, etc.); so
there certainly was no threat to USA falling into darkness.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 06:47:29
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:12:11 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
> >Sooner or later the oil will run out anyway - seems like alternative power
> >and alternative fuel has to occur at some point. So why not now using
> >today's dollars instead of at the last minute using tomorrow's dollars?
>
> It's a matter of economics. When there's a cheaper alternative, oil
> will either have to come down in price or no one will use it. There
> are some new discoveries in solar cell production that could change
> the balance between solar and oil use for electricity generation and
> home heating. Of course, if it wasn't for the environmentalists the
> US would be making most of its electricity from nuclear power a long
> time ago.
How did the environmentalists kill the nuclear power industry? Did they
cause Bhopal or Three Mile Island?
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 15:01:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 26 Dec 2006 06:47:29 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
> Of course, if it wasn't for the environmentalists the
>> US would be making most of its electricity from nuclear power a long
>> time ago.
>
>How did the environmentalists kill the nuclear power industry? Did they
>cause Bhopal or Three Mile Island?
Bhopal was a chemical plant. Personally, I'd much rather live next to
a nuclear power plant than a chemical plant any day.
In any case, the environmentalists have been at the vanguard of the
anti-nuclear power movement from the start. They've been very
effective in killing an industry that could have significantly reduced
CO2 emission in the US. Like many radical groups, their inability to
compromise has done more harm than good. It's a case of idealism
taken to the point that it hurts their cause.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 13:07:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:11:11 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>Jack Hollis wrote:
>>> We supported his war against Iran for a decade.
>>
>> The US aim was to insure that Iran didn't win the war. In that
>> respect, the aim was to hurt Iran rather than to help Iraq. The US
>> also took action against Iran to protect shipping in the Gulf.
>
>It sent the signal to Saddam that we supported him; irrespective of our
>motives. But the issue remains that we had no business putting troops
>over there. Saddam vs. Kuwait was not our issue.
Desert Storm was not a US action, it was a UN action. It was to
enforce a UN Security Council resolution ordering Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait. The Arab League also passed a resolution demanding Iraqi
withdrawal.
I can't imagine how anyone would construe that the US supported Iraq's
invasion. Even if Saddam did think so, he certainly had time to
correct his mistake and withdraw before the war started.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 10:58:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >>John B. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Joe wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> SNIP
>
> >>>>
> >>>>John B. falls back on the "mine is bigger then yours" argument. Science
> >>>>is not in itself right or wrong because the word really refers to the
> >>>>state of knowledge. Conclusions drawn from the state of knowledge can
> >>>>certainly be wrong. Validity of a conclusion is not a function of the
> >>>>number of scientists that support it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
> >>>from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
> >>
> >>Yep! That is the way it works. Think Galileo. Or Jack Horner.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, you think some climate change dissenter on the payroll of the
> > American Petroleum Instiitute is someday going to be remembered as
> > Galileo is today?
>
> You just changed the argument again. Why can't you simply admit that
> you were / are wrong.
-- Because I'm not. The argument that I originally made is that the
evidence tying greenhouse gas emissions to global warming vastly
outweighs the evidence pointing to other causes.
>
>
> >>
> >>>>John B. structures the argument in either / or terms, "Humans are
> >>>>causing the problem or they are not". This is a political argument not
> >>>>science. The facts are that mankind and our agriculture, manufacturing
> >>>>and distribution systems do add (net) green house gasses to the
> >>>>atmosphere and that these emissions modulate the impact of other factors
> >>>>which have a far greater effect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"The facts?" Where did you find these "facts?"
> >>
> >>So you don't think that mankind is contributing to the warming issue?
> >>My statement was a restatement of your own words. I was agreeing that
> >>there is an impact
> >>
>
> Didn't want to admit that you had it wrong here either.
>
> >>And what are these other
> >>
> >>>factors that have a far greater effect?
> >>
> >>John, are you having problems with short term memory? Solar cycles,
> >>orbital mechanics and volcanism were previously discussed in the thread.
> >> We could add sea water salinity and tectonics to the list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> What is not clear is the scale of the
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>respective impactors. As far as how much impact is caused by CO2 and
> >>>>other gasses, there are reputable studies that range from negligible to
> >>>>most of the temperature rise. A very sound study that I recently saw
> >>>>suggests that the human impact, including grazing animal flatulence, is
> >>>>approximately 30% of the total.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And to what did it ascribe the other 70 percent?
> >>
> >>See my previous rek.
>
> Ignored this too.
>
> SNIP
> >>>>>>How much of your own money are you putting into developing non-fossil
> >>>>>>fuel energy sources?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>My own money? What kind of stupid question is that? If the govt. were
> >>>>>to propose a tax to finance the development of renewable energy
> >>>>>sources, I would be all for it.
> >>>>
> >>>>John B. believes so strongly in the need to switch to alternative
> >>>>sources that he is willing to use your money and my money. Investing
> >>>>his own money is a stupid thing to do though. Classic!
> >>>>
> >>>>Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Another ridiculous argument. What am I, Bill Gates? How on earth could
> >>>an investment by me make any possible difference in renewable energy
> >>>R&D? FWIW, I'm about to "invest" in a hybrid car.
> >>
> >>You could buy stock in a wind farm business, or solar cell research
> >>firms as a simple example. You could build a solar home, or don't burn
> >>as much power from the grid. The hybrid car is a nice gesture, not an
> >>investment, but it won't have much impact because that electric power
> >>will likely be generate by a hydrocarbon power plant. Don't eat much
> >>meat and only use veggies that come from totally natural farms that
> >>don't use fertilizer (hydrocarbon based you know.
> >>
> >>All those things cost more today because the ket is small. Add
> >>yourself to the size of the ket and help drive the costs down. If
> >>enough of you folks do it, the invisible hand will solve the problem.
> >>
> >>Or are only grand gestures suitable for you? You know what I mean,
> >>putting your hand in my pocket but not yours.
> >>
> >>Joe
> >
> >
> >
> > You're much better at sarcasm than at actually answering questions. Or
> > understanding them for that matter. As for this last point, I was asked
> > how much I'm willing to invest in "developing non-fossil fuel energy
> > sources," not how much I'm willing to invest in a green lifestyle.
> > Again, FWIW, I already don't eat meat and I eat organic produce
> > whenever I can.
>
> Actually John, I did address the point that you made. I just happen to
> believe that ket forces are more effective at solving these kinds of
> problems than a massive government program. Large government programs
> tightly focused on specific engineering goals can be very effective.
> Small government programs focused on fundamental research and science
> can also be very effective when tightly focused.
>
> The Manhattan Project and the Kennedy moon mission are to fine examples.
>
> > BTW, the electicity used in a hybrid car is produced by the car itself,
> > not by an electric generating plant. You don't plug hybrids into an
> > outlet. Where does the elctricity that your car uses to run the lights
> > and the radio come from? Dick Cheney would certainly agree with you
> > that driving a hybrid is a "nice gesture," but the fact is that they
> > produce less CO2 than conventional cars.
> >
> I guess that I need to admit that I was wrong here. I was thinking
> about the one of the earlier hybrids.
>
>
> Joe
Your ignorance is outweighed only by your egotism. You really flatter
yourself in claiming that every failure to rebut one of your points is
a tacit admission of error. It may be that I have better things to do.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 16:32:51
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>
> Your ignorance is outweighed only by your egotism. You really flatter
> yourself in claiming that every failure to rebut one of your points is
> a tacit admission of error. It may be that I have better things to do.
>
John,
If you really had better things to do you would have abandoned this
thread and topic a long time ago. Since you haven't done so I can
conclude that you have a political agenda to push as opposed to trying
to learn and understand what is going on. I have never considered
arguing religion with anyone to have value so I guess that it is time to
let you go off in ignorance and hope that one day you will mature
mentally enough to understand just how complex the world is.
I wish you a happy and personally fulfilling New Year.
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 19:11:26
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 29 Dec 2006 10:58:34 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>-- Because I'm not. The argument that I originally made is that the
>evidence tying greenhouse gas emissions to global warming vastly
>outweighs the evidence pointing to other causes.
Nobody likes this argument - they all want "we can fix it" or "there's
no problem".
But "we can't do much about it" is an argument that doesn't satisfy.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:11:11 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack Hollis wrote:
>>>> We supported his war against Iran for a decade.
>>>
>>> The US aim was to insure that Iran didn't win the war. In that
>>> respect, the aim was to hurt Iran rather than to help Iraq. The US
>>> also took action against Iran to protect shipping in the Gulf.
>>
>> It sent the signal to Saddam that we supported him; irrespective of
>> our motives. But the issue remains that we had no business
>> putting troops over there. Saddam vs. Kuwait was not our issue.
>
> Desert Storm was not a US action, it was a UN action.
Remind me again - how many troops and planes did China and Russia send?
Yeah; thought as much. UN is an irrelevant puppet; and it's strings are
pulled by USA/UK, China, and Russia. In the case of Gulf War I, II;
the UN puppet is being tugged by USA/UK. USA used the irrelevant UN as an
excuse to go in Iraq and bomb them back to the third world. Our planes,
our cruise missiles, our bombs, our troops, our patriot defense systems,
our tanks, our aircraft carriers.
> It was to
> enforce a UN Security Council resolution ordering Iraq to withdraw
> from Kuwait. The Arab League also passed a resolution demanding Iraqi
> withdrawal.
The Arab Coalition did not vote for a war. They wanted sanctions. But
that's still not the point - nowhere in the US Constitution does it say we
can attack countries that are not a threat to USA.
> I can't imagine how anyone would construe that the US supported Iraq's
> invasion. Even if Saddam did think so, he certainly had time to
> correct his mistake and withdraw before the war started.
But he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He thought he was fixing
a wrong that was done to Iraq by Kuwait (cross drilling / oil theft).
Saddam was a thug, and Kuwait may or may not have deserved to be invaded;
but I am at a loss to understand why USA feels they have a right to declare
war in the Middle East against countries that do not own a Navy, global
capable Air Force, or ICBM's that can reach USA. Saddam could not hurt
USA even if he wanted to; and he most certainly did NOT want to. He liked
all the cool weapons we gave him to attack Iran with.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 10:21:11
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Joe wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>> > Joe wrote:
>> >
>> >>John B. wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>So, if 100 scientists support a particulary conclusion and one dissents
>> >>>from it, that ratio doesn't bear on the validity of the conclusion?
>> >>
>> >>Yep! That is the way it works. Think Galileo. Or Jack Horner.
>> >
>> > So, you think some climate change dissenter on the payroll of the
>> > American Petroleum Instiitute is someday going to be remembered as
>> > Galileo is today?
>>
>> You just changed the argument again. Why can't you simply admit that
>> you were / are wrong.
>
>-- Because I'm not. The argument that I originally made is that the
>evidence tying greenhouse gas emissions to global warming vastly
>outweighs the evidence pointing to other causes.
Regardless, the reference claiming Galileo as an example is
incorrect.
Galileo was *not* and example of one dissenter among many
scientist. He was the one scientist (amongst the vast majority,
all of whom well knew that the earth was not flat) to duel
against non-believing non-scientist who controlled government
(and religion).
Galileo would represent any modern individual that stands up and
says we have a climate change crisis on our hands... and gets
blasted for doing so. Hmmm... Al Gore, anyone?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 07:58:19
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2006 15:22:48 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Not "some of them." Most of them. And that is precisely the point.
> >Science can present extremely strong and virtually irrefutable
> >evidence, and in the case of global warming it has done so.
>
> There is no evidence and there is no consensus. IF a consensus exists
> it's only in the mind of some people who don't understand science. The
> scientists are not in consensis on this topic at all.
-- You've gone from saying there's no proof, which is arguable, to
saying there's no evidence, which is preposterous.
>
> This is from the Richard Lindzen article"
>
> "More recently, a study in the journal Science by the social scientist
> Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge
> Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global
> climate change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts
> supported what she referred to as the consensus view. A British social
> scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913
> of the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the
> remaining 913 explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view.
> Several actually opposed it."
>
>
> "In 1996, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch undertook a survery of
> climate scientists on attitudes towards global warming and related
> matters. The results were subsequently published in Bulletin of the
> American Meteorological Society Vol. 80, No. 3, ch 1999 439-455.
> [8] The paper addressed the views of climate scientists, with a
> response rate of 40% from a mail survey questionnaire to 1000
> scientists in Germany, the USA and Canada. Most of the scientists
> believed that global warming was occurring and appropriate policy
> action should be taken, but there was wide disagreement about the
> likely effects on society and almost all agreed that the predictive
> ability of currently existing models was limited."
-- This was 10 years ago. At that time, a lot of scientists were not
only saying that human activity was not causing warming, they wee
saying the warming wasn't even happening. No one is saying that now.
>
>
> In 1997, the Citizens for a Sound Economy surveyed America's 48
> official state climatologists on questions related to climate change.
> Of the 36 respondents, 44% considered global warming to be a largely
> natural phenomenon, compared to 17% who considered warming to be
> largely manmade. The survey further found that 58% of the
> climatologists disagreed or somewhat disagreed with then-President
> Clinton's assertion that "the overwhelming balance of evidence and
> scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact,
> that global warming is for real". Eighty-nine percent of the
> climatologists agreed that "current science is unable to isolate and
> measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made
> factors," and 61% said that historical data do not indicate "that
> fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human
> influences such as burning fossil fuels."
>
Nine years ago.
>
> I don't see any consensus here except that 89% of the State
> climatologists say that "current science is unable to isolate and
> measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made
> factors,"
That's because you're relying on old data.
>
> John, the point is that science can't reach a consensus on something
> that it is unable to measure.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 31 Dec 2006 14:38:53
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 31 Dec 2006 07:58:19 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> I don't see any consensus here except that 89% of the State
>> climatologists say that "current science is unable to isolate and
>> measure variations in global temperatures caused ONLY by man-made
>> factors,"
>
>That's because you're relying on old data.
Science hasn't developed any new methodology that can suddenly isolate
the effects of CO2 in a system as complex and as little understood as
global climate.
Let me pose the problem in a different way.
1. Is there consensus that the global climate is warming?
Yes
2. Is there consensus that humans have, and still are, adding Co2 to
the atmospheres?
Yes.
3. Is there consensus that this added CO2 is having an effect on
global warming?
Most researchers would agree with this, but there are a few serious
people who disagree. The reason that there is consensus on this issue
is not because there are studies that specifically have measured this
effect, but because CO2 is known to be a gas that traps heat in the
atmosphere. So it is logical to conclude that if there is more CO2 in
the atmosphere, that it will increase atmospheric temperature. I see
no problem in making this conclusion.
4. Is there consensus that the additional CO2 a major factor in
global warming?
No. The reason that there can't be consensus is because there is no
way for science to actually measure how much effect added CO2 is
having. Some researches say that the effect is so small that it's not
worth worrying about, others say it's the major factor driving global
warming and there are people who say everything in between.
However, you have to remember that all of these people are stating
what is basically an opinion rather than a fact that is backed up by
basic research. There is no way for science to answer this question
The issue has also become politicized to the point that scientists can
be ostracized for not towing the liberal line. Scientist are now
being labeled as "global warming deniers" if they say that CO2 is not
a major factor in global warming. NPR recently refused to allow a
climate researcher on the radio unless he stated that human activity
was a major factor in global warming. And of course, there are
members of the US Senate that are attempting to silence researchers
funded by the energy sector that report results that "deny" human
activity is a major factor in global warming.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 18:00:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:21:11 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>Galileo was *not* and example of one dissenter among many
>scientist. He was the one scientist (amongst the vast majority,
>all of whom well knew that the earth was not flat) to duel
>against non-believing non-scientist who controlled government
>(and religion).
>
>Galileo would represent any modern individual that stands up and
>says we have a climate change crisis on our hands... and gets
>blasted for doing so.
You've got it backwards. The orthodox academic view is that humans
are to blame for global warming. God help any academic that doesn't
come up with results that support this view. Any scientist who
disputes this view would never get tenure or get another grant for the
rest of his/her short academic career.
In any case, no matter what the orthodox academics say. There's
absolutely no proof that global warming has anything to do with human
activity. There are a lot of scientists who know this is true but are
afraid to say so lest they become the subject of the academic
inquisition. This is not much different from the scientists who knew
the world was not the center of the solar system but were afraid to
say so because of the Vatican.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Dec 2006 00:30:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:00:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>You've got it backwards. The orthodox academic view is that humans
>are to blame for global warming. God help any academic that doesn't
>come up with results that support this view. Any scientist who
>disputes this view would never get tenure or get another grant for the
>rest of his/her short academic career.
And the public looks at this view and believes that if the U.S.
follows the Koyoto Accords, then we will have fixed everything.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 21:52:34
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 00:30:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:00:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You've got it backwards. The orthodox academic view is that humans
>>are to blame for global warming. God help any academic that doesn't
>>come up with results that support this view. Any scientist who
>>disputes this view would never get tenure or get another grant for the
>>rest of his/her short academic career.
>
>And the public looks at this view and believes that if the U.S.
>follows the Koyoto Accords, then we will have fixed everything.
From the WSJ Dec 14, 2006
"But, lo, the U.S. has outperformed the EU-15 since 2000, according to
the latest U.N. data. America’s rate of growth in CO2 emissions from
2000-04 was eight percentage points lower than from 1995-2000.
By comparison, the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points. Only two EU
states, Britain and Sweden, are on track to meet their Kyoto emissions
commitments by 2010. Six more might meet their targets if they approve
and implement new, as yet unspecified, policies to restrict carbon
output, while seven of the 15 will miss their goals."
The Europeans have borrowed a page from the old 1980s US scheme of
trading credits. In the US the credits were for SO2 which causes acid
rain. The Europeans are selling CO2 credits. So high CO2 producing
industries don't have to meet their goals if they can buy credits from
other industries that exceeded their reduction goals. There is some
logic to this because it encourages industries that can economically
cut emissions to do so because they will get paid to do so. However,
the plan eventually loses steam as all the economic ways to reduce
emissions are used up. Then some real hard decisions have to be made.
It's also interesting that the EU is adopting a plan implemented in
the US during the Reagan years that was severely criticized by
environmentalists.
The bottom line, CO2 emissions are not going to be reduced.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 17:03:43
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 18:00:08 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 10:21:11 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Galileo was *not* and example of one dissenter among many
>>scientist. He was the one scientist (amongst the vast majority,
>>all of whom well knew that the earth was not flat) to duel
>>against non-believing non-scientist who controlled government
>>(and religion).
>>
>>Galileo would represent any modern individual that stands up and
>>says we have a climate change crisis on our hands... and gets
>>blasted for doing so.
>
>
>You've got it backwards. The orthodox academic view is that humans
>are to blame for global warming. God help any academic that doesn't
>come up with results that support this view. Any scientist who
>disputes this view would never get tenure or get another grant for the
>rest of his/her short academic career.
>
>In any case, no matter what the orthodox academics say. There's
>absolutely no proof that global warming has anything to do with human
>activity. There are a lot of scientists who know this is true but are
>afraid to say so lest they become the subject of the academic
>inquisition. This is not much different from the scientists who knew
>the world was not the center of the solar system but were afraid to
>say so because of the Vatican.
It's so great that we have you to tell the world the real truth. I
hesitate to ask, but would like to know where all of this deep
knowledge comes from? Ah...your ass. Otherwise, you'd be able to
prove those accusations.
bk
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 16:44:48
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Joe wrote:
SNIP
>>>
>>>You just changed the argument again. Why can't you simply admit that
>>>you were / are wrong.
>>
>>-- Because I'm not. The argument that I originally made is that the
>>evidence tying greenhouse gas emissions to global warming vastly
>>outweighs the evidence pointing to other causes.
>
>
> Regardless, the reference claiming Galileo as an example is
> incorrect.
>
> Galileo was *not* and example of one dissenter among many
> scientist. He was the one scientist (amongst the vast majority,
> all of whom well knew that the earth was not flat) to duel
> against non-believing non-scientist who controlled government
> (and religion).
You are correct and perhaps I should have used a different example but I
didn't think that John B. would know them. He obviously did not get the
Horner reference.
> Galileo would represent any modern individual that stands up and
> says we have a climate change crisis on our hands... and gets
> blasted for doing so. Hmmm... Al Gore, anyone?
Or in the case at hand, now that the trend to blame all of the warming
issue on mankind and CO2 in particular has become the current fashion,
anyone who suggests anything else will be the dissenter. Just a few
years ago anyone claiming that we were responsible was an
environmentalist wacko.
As for Gore... Don't you think that he is just a little over the top?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 11:00:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins wrote:
> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> I keep people who are for it to quantify the
> >>> reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
> >>> never gotten an answer.
> >> It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
> >> that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
> >> fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
> >> crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
> >> purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
> >
> > You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
> > information missing.
> >
> > First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
> > than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
> > report
>
> Last time I checked 7 was between 6 and 16.
>
> Due to the fact that have problems with basic math we won't bother
> looking at the rest of your arguments :)
I nominate this for stupidest post of 2006.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 16:16:34
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I keep people who are for it to quantify the
> >reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
> >never gotten an answer.
>
> It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
> that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
> fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
> crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
> purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960
This is a political issue at least as much as an economic one. If all
our suppliers were as stable as Canada, then importing oil wouldn't be
a problem. Unfortunately, we're dependent on unstable, authoritarian
regimes whose citizens despise us and want to do us harm. If we were to
produce oil from ANWR, which of these countries would we be able to say
goodbye to? As far as I can tell, none of them. ANWR production
wouldn't make an appreciable difference in our dependence on foreign
sources.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 21:50:12
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 26 Dec 2006 16:16:34 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>This is a political issue at least as much as an economic one. If all
>our suppliers were as stable as Canada, then importing oil wouldn't be
>a problem. Unfortunately, we're dependent on unstable, authoritarian
>regimes whose citizens despise us and want to do us harm. If we were to
>produce oil from ANWR, which of these countries would we be able to say
>goodbye to? As far as I can tell, none of them. ANWR production
>wouldn't make an appreciable difference in our dependence on foreign
>sources.
The oil in ANWR is not going to solve the US energy problems or the US
dependence on foreign oil, but the possibility of taking up to a
trillion dollars that would have gone to foreign sources and spending
it on domestic sources is nothing to sneeze at.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 16:07:57
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 26 Dec 2006 06:47:29 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, if it wasn't for the environmentalists the
> >> US would be making most of its electricity from nuclear power a long
> >> time ago.
> >
> >How did the environmentalists kill the nuclear power industry? Did they
> >cause Bhopal or Three Mile Island?
>
>
> Bhopal was a chemical plant. Personally, I'd much rather live next to
> a nuclear power plant than a chemical plant any day.
I meant Chernobyl.
>
> In any case, the environmentalists have been at the vanguard of the
> anti-nuclear power movement from the start. They've been very
> effective in killing an industry that could have significantly reduced
> CO2 emission in the US. Like many radical groups, their inability to
> compromise has done more harm than good. It's a case of idealism
> taken to the point that it hurts their cause.
Effective how?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 21:39:02
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 26 Dec 2006 16:07:57 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>> In any case, the environmentalists have been at the vanguard of the
>> anti-nuclear power movement from the start. They've been very
>> effective in killing an industry that could have significantly reduced
>> CO2 emission in the US. Like many radical groups, their inability to
>> compromise has done more harm than good. It's a case of idealism
>> taken to the point that it hurts their cause.
>
>Effective how?
There hasn't been one licence issued to build a nuclear power plant
since TMI and environmental activists were successful in stopping
construction on a number of plants that were under construction at the
time of TMI and even preventing the opening of a couple that were
finished.
I live on Long Island and we have a perfectly good 800 megawatt plant
that was low power tested and ready to produce cheap power for at
least 30 years and it never opened. The height of stupidity.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:01:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>But he didn't think he was doing anything wrong. He thought he was fixing
>a wrong that was done to Iraq by Kuwait (cross drilling / oil theft).
>Saddam was a thug, and Kuwait may or may not have deserved to be invaded;
>but I am at a loss to understand why USA feels they have a right to declare
>war in the Middle East against countries that do not own a Navy, global
>capable Air Force, or ICBM's that can reach USA.
What threat was Germany to the US in 1941?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 13:35:18
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Joe wrote:
> John B. wrote:
>
> > Joe wrote:
> >
> >
> > Your ignorance is outweighed only by your egotism. You really flatter
> > yourself in claiming that every failure to rebut one of your points is
> > a tacit admission of error. It may be that I have better things to do.
> >
>
> John,
>
> If you really had better things to do you would have abandoned this
> thread and topic a long time ago. Since you haven't done so I can
> conclude that you have a political agenda to push as opposed to trying
> to learn and understand what is going on. I have never considered
> arguing religion with anyone to have value so I guess that it is time to
> let you go off in ignorance and hope that one day you will mature
> mentally enough to understand just how complex the world is.
>
> I wish you a happy and personally fulfilling New Year.
>
> Joe
I had abandoned it until you jumped in with responses to statements I
had made to someone else. Your pompous and supercilious tone is really
quite disgusting.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 29 Dec 2006 16:53:21
From: Joe
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
John B. wrote:
> Joe wrote:
>
>>John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Joe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Your ignorance is outweighed only by your egotism. You really flatter
>>>yourself in claiming that every failure to rebut one of your points is
>>>a tacit admission of error. It may be that I have better things to do.
>>>
>>
>>John,
>>
>>If you really had better things to do you would have abandoned this
>>thread and topic a long time ago. Since you haven't done so I can
>>conclude that you have a political agenda to push as opposed to trying
>>to learn and understand what is going on. I have never considered
>>arguing religion with anyone to have value so I guess that it is time to
>>let you go off in ignorance and hope that one day you will mature
>>mentally enough to understand just how complex the world is.
>>
>>I wish you a happy and personally fulfilling New Year.
>>
>>Joe
>
>
> I had abandoned it until you jumped in with responses to statements I
> had made to someone else. Your pompous and supercilious tone is really
> quite disgusting.
>
Now here is a Pot and Kettle example if I ever saw one.
Joe
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 10:49:59
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:
>Bert Robbins wrote:
>> Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I keep people who are for it to quantify the
>> >>> reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
>> >>> never gotten an answer.
>> >> It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
>> >> that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
>> >> fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
>> >> crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
>> >> purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
>> >
>> > You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
>> > information missing.
>> >
>> > First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
>> > than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
>> > report
>>
>> Last time I checked 7 was between 6 and 16.
>>
>> Due to the fact that have problems with basic math we won't bother
>> looking at the rest of your arguments :)
>
>I nominate this for stupidest post of 2006.
He just topped that one though, suggesting there are no caribou
in ANWR!
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 07:05:57
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>>> On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I keep people who are for it to quantify the
>>>> reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
>>>> never gotten an answer.
>>> It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
>>> that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
>>> fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
>>> crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
>>> purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
>> You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
>> information missing.
>> First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
>> than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
>> report
>
>Last time I checked 7 was between 6 and 16.
Last time you stretched 6.4 billion barrels to be worth $960
billion, how far did you get before someone said mean things
about your intelligence?
>Due to the fact that have problems with basic math we won't
>bother looking at the rest of your arguments :)
Logic isn't your strong point, eh?
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Dec 2006 18:06:44
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
>On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I keep people who are for it to quantify the
>>reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
>>never gotten an answer.
>
>It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
>that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
>fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
>crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
>purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
information missing.
First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
report
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
Note that for ANWR the _technically recoverable_ oil is
estimated at 7.668 billion barrels (see Table 1), while (see
Figure 6) the economically recoverable oil is obviously
something less.
Second, it would be *at least* ten years before any of that oil
would be in production, and would take *at least* thirty years
to pump it all out. Hence, while the numbers might appear to be
large (though not nearly as large as what you say above), they
are, on an annual basis, a little more than a drop in the bucket.
However, you also have to put even that into perspective. The
potential estimates for ANWR and NPR-A are relatively the
same... and there has been drilling activity in NPR-A since the
late 1940's without discovering even a single reservoir large
enough to produce. The point of course is that it may well be
that it will take 20 years of exploration to actually find *any*
oil in ANWR, or it might simply be that there isn't any there!
p(The closest producing field to ANWR, named Badami, was
expected to be a real winner... but has in fact barely been
able to sustain itself due to high wax content that makes it
nearly impossible to pump.)
And then there are two other problems with pumping ANWR. One
has been mentioned by others, which is simply a case of if the
world is going to run out of oil, we should *not* squander what
we have by pumping it now while there is a great plenty
elsewhere.
The other problem is a question of just what good it does, as
far as our "dependence" on foreign oil is, to have foreign oil
companies pump out our oil? British Petroleum is the biggest
North Slope producer, and all that profit leaves the country.
For that matter, even the so called US producers are in fact
multinational corporations, and the effect is *exactly* the
same. We export the profit, whether we buy Canadian or Mexican
crude (our two largest suppliers) or have BP pump our own oil.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:16:04
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
>It will also result in a mean value of 10.4 billion barrels of oil
>that the US wont have to buy from foreign sources. Basically, in a
>nut shell, it makes good economic sense to do it.
We've been over your bogus numbers before. You continue to
demonstrate that you are not perceptive enough to research this
topic and understand what is or is not significant.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 01 Jan 2007 16:12:57
From: Floyd L. Davidson
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:
>On Sat, 30 Dec 2006 12:45:55 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
>Davidson) wrote:
>
>>>Read it and I don't see anything that could be described as "dramatic
>>>and disastrous" as you state.
>>
>>You clearly are not very perceptive then. (And I would guess
>>that is intentional?)
>
>Terms like dramatic and disastrous are value judgments.
True, but the 78% average reduction in use of the calving areas
near oil infrastructure that have been recorded for the Central
Arctic Caribou herd are *dramatic* in any rational perception.
Likewise the 19% average productivity drop from Porcupine herd
cows who calve outside the very small "prime calving" area in
ANWR is dramatic, given that it puts the average productivity
below the 70% figure that is considered essential for the herd
to avoid decline.
"... impacts that would cause a long-term decline in calf
survival could lower average population size over time, with
serious consequences for many residents in both Canada and
the U.S."
Ken Whitten's testimony to Congress
That may not seem either dramatic or disastrous to you, but as
Whitten noted there were "21 arctic caribou biologists from the
US and Canada" who wrote to then President Clinton about it, and
later over *500* "prominent North Amercian scientists" sent a
letter to President Bush, all urging efforts to "safeguard
caribou and other natural resource values."
Do you think virutally *every* caribou biologist that has done
field work on the North Slope would be signing letters to
presidents if they did not see the effects as "dramatic and
disastrous"?
>So it's not
>so much that I'm not very perceptive, but rather that I have a
>different perspective than you do. It's not necessary to invalidate
>other people's perspectives if they disagree with yours. Rather you
>could acknowledge that people have different values that result in
>different perspectives.
Your article clearly indicated a lack of perception. You were
provided impecable documentation, which you claimed (almost
certainly falsely) to have read. If you don't see anything
dramatic or disasterous about destroying the Gwich'in people or
about destruction of a unique national wildlife refuge, then by
definition you are not perceptive.
If you post an invalid perspective, and claim that as valid
reasoning in suggesting various actions such as exploration of
ANWR, then I have a *responsibility* to "invalidate" your flawed
perspective lest others take it as the truth.
Look, for example, at what you posted about the Central Arctic
Caribou herd:
"Sounds like oil development was the best thing that ever
happened to the Central Arctic Herd."
In fact the Central Arctic Herd immediately abandoned virtually
all calving areas close to oil infrastructure. Not only did
that happen immediately, but 30 years later when the herd peaked
at 6 times larger than it was, the use of the areas around oil
facilities was *still* less than it had been before the
infrastructure was built, when the herd was 1/6th the current
size.
"Conservative calculations yielded an estimated 78% decrease
in use by caribou and a 90% decrease in their lateral
movements (Cameron et al. 1995), all changes apparently in
response to intensive development of the Prudhoe Bay to
Kuparuk oil field region over the past 3 decades."
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
That kind of shift is *dramatic*. And if the same were to happen
in ANWR it would be a dramatic disaster.
And your *clear* message (which is false) was that if oil
development is good for the caribou at Prudhoe Bay, then oil
developement could not cause a disaster in ANWR. Just as
obviously your statement indicates you did not read what the
biologists said their studies have shown and do not understand
the significance of the relationship between oil development and
the Central Arctic Caribou Herd, much less to the ANWR/Porcupine
Herd issues.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson >
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 12:22:20
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:06:44 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>The other problem is a question of just what good it does, as
>far as our "dependence" on foreign oil is, to have foreign oil
>companies pump out our oil? British Petroleum is the biggest
>North Slope producer, and all that profit leaves the country.
BP successfully bid on the North Slope oil and gas contracts and is
Alaska's single biggest investor, taxpayer and employer. Naturally,
BP makes a profit from its North Slope operations, but so would any
other oil company. However, in a competitive bidding process, Alaska
decided that they would go with BP. Ultimately, no matter who
operates the oil fields and pipelines, it's domestic oil.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Dec 2006 00:50:30
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:22:20 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>BP successfully bid on the North Slope oil and gas contracts and is
>Alaska's single biggest investor, taxpayer and employer. Naturally,
>BP makes a profit from its North Slope operations, but so would any
>other oil company. However, in a competitive bidding process, Alaska
>decided that they would go with BP. Ultimately, no matter who
>operates the oil fields and pipelines, it's domestic oil.
Which doesn't really matter as long as we can produce other goods. If
Alaskan oil gets sold to Japan for enough money to buy Venezuelan oil,
do whatever is most efficient.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 20:29:43
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:50:30 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>BP successfully bid on the North Slope oil and gas contracts and is
>>Alaska's single biggest investor, taxpayer and employer. Naturally,
>>BP makes a profit from its North Slope operations, but so would any
>>other oil company. However, in a competitive bidding process, Alaska
>>decided that they would go with BP. Ultimately, no matter who
>>operates the oil fields and pipelines, it's domestic oil.
>
>Which doesn't really matter as long as we can produce other goods. If
>Alaskan oil gets sold to Japan for enough money to buy Venezuelan oil,
>do whatever is most efficient.
The ANWR oilfields are not that far from the existing pipeline so the
oil would probably stay in the US, but you're right. If they can sell
Alaskan crude to a foreign country for more than they can buy it from
another, that's what they do.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 12:05:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:06:44 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>Second, it would be *at least* ten years before any of that oil
>would be in production, and would take *at least* thirty years
>to pump it all out. Hence, while the numbers might appear to be
>large (though not nearly as large as what you say above), they
>are, on an annual basis, a little more than a drop in the bucket.
All the more reason to get started right away.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 12:03:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 18:06:44 -0900, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:
>>It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
>>that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
>>fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
>>crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
>>purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
>
>You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
>information missing.
>
>First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
>than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
>report
Here's the results of the assessment from your link.
"Assessment Results
The total quantity of technically recoverable oil within the entire
assessment area is estimated to be between 5.7 and 16.0 billion
barrels (95-percent and 5-percent probability range), with a mean
value of 10.4 billion barrels. Technically recoverable oil within the
ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be
between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability
range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.
You seem to have trouble understanding these results, which are
exactly what I reported. The estimate is between 5.7 billion and 16
billion with a mean value of 10.4 billion. Basically what this is
saying is that there's a 95% chance that there is 6 billion, a 50%
chance that there is 10.4 billion and a 5% chance that there is 16
billion.
In addition, there is an estimated 35 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas to be had, which makes the drilling project even more valuable.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 10:18:41
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Dec 2006 07:03:55 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I keep people who are for it to quantify the
>>> reduction in oil imports that ANWR production would cause and I've
>>> never gotten an answer.
>> It would reduce the need to import oil by exactly the amount of oil
>> that the fields would produce. If the estimates are correct, the oil
>> fields contain somewhere between 6 billion and 16 billion barrels of
>> crude oil. With crude prices at $60 a barrel, that would reduce the
>> purchase of foreign crude by between $360 billion and $960 billion.
>
> You have the wrong numbers and there are a few key bits of
> information missing.
>
> First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
> than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
> report
Last time I checked 7 was between 6 and 16.
Due to the fact that have problems with basic math we won't bother
looking at the rest of your arguments :)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Dec 2006 12:24:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006 10:18:41 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:
>> First, the amount of oil in ANWR that could be produced is less
>> than 7 billion barrels, not 6 to 16 billion. See the USGS
>> report
>
>Last time I checked 7 was between 6 and 16.
Actually, the mean value of the area survey was 10.7 billion. I have
no idea where he came up with the 7 billion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:32:02
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> What threat was Germany to the US in 1941?
Um; they sunk MANY US ships in the Atlantic Ocean prior to USA's
Congressional Declaration of War.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 17:59:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>nowhere in the US Constitution does it say we
>can attack countries that are not a threat to USA.
Actually the Constitution says that the President is the Commander in
Chief and has wide authority to authorize military activity.
It also says that only Congress can declare war. In the case of
Desert Storm, both houses of Congress authorized military action.
"1991: US Congress votes for war in Iraq
The United States Congress has voted to authorize the use of military
force against Iraq to end its occupation of neighboring Kuwait.
The vote seals the United Nations' 15 January deadline for the Iraqi
President, Saddam Hussein, to order his troops out of Kuwait, or face
military action.
After three days of sometimes heated debate, the House of
Representatives passed the motion authorizing use of force by 250
votes to 183.
The Democrat-controlled Senate vote was far closer, at 52 to 47, but
was not as narrow as had been feared."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/12/newsid_4534000/4534588.stm
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:30:42
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> nowhere in the US Constitution does it say we
>> can attack countries that are not a threat to USA.
>
> Actually the Constitution says that the President is the Commander in
> Chief and has wide authority to authorize military activity.
>
> It also says that only Congress can declare war. In the case of
> Desert Storm, both houses of Congress authorized military action.
It further clearly states that such action cannot last more than two years:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
> "1991: US Congress votes for war in Iraq
>
> The United States Congress has voted to authorize the use of military
> force against Iraq to end its occupation of neighboring Kuwait.
Iraq has not been in Kuwait for what must now be closing in on about two
decades. Are you suggesting that Blowhound Bushtard did not need Congress
to declare war on Iraq in 2002? Further, is the War Powers Resolution of
1973 no longer valid? Because Blowhard Bushtard is in direct violation of
that Congressional Resolution.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 20:37:04
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:30:42 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> It also says that only Congress can declare war. In the case of
>> Desert Storm, both houses of Congress authorized military action.
>
>It further clearly states that such action cannot last more than two years:
>"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use
>shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
What action can't last more than two years?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 01:51:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:30:42 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>>> It also says that only Congress can declare war. In the case of
>>> Desert Storm, both houses of Congress authorized military action.
>>
>> It further clearly states that such action cannot last more than two
>> years: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money
>> to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
>
> What action can't last more than two years?
You cannot use taxes to fund a military action for more than 2 years.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 11:04:46
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:51:12 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> What action can't last more than two years?
>
>You cannot use taxes to fund a military action for more than 2 years.
I think you misunderstand how Congress funds wars.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 14:15:23
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:51:12 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>>> What action can't last more than two years?
>>
>> You cannot use taxes to fund a military action for more than 2 years.
>
> I think you misunderstand how Congress funds wars.
Nope. Congress funds wars outside of how the Founding Fathers defined the
rules within the US Constitution.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 20:33:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 14:15:23 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> I think you misunderstand how Congress funds wars.
>
>Nope. Congress funds wars outside of how the Founding Fathers defined the
>rules within the US Constitution.
Look at it this way. Prior to the War Powers Act of 1973, the
President had the power to begin and engage in warfare, but Congress
had the power to declare war.
In 1973, Congress attempted to assert some authority in making war by
stating that:
"The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to
introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into
situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a
declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a
national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its
territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
Both Iraqi wars were supported by "specific statutory authorization."
Even so, the President could claim the power to wage war due to a
national emergency following 9/11. This is a moot point because
Congress approved the use of military force for both wars.
The constitutionality of the WPA is in question but the President has
acted within the guidelines of the act so this is not an issue.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 17:56:08
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to "raise and support armies."
Nothing is said about how, why, when or where to fund wars.
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:2lAjh.10118$cB6.8231@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> Jack Hollis wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 01:51:12 -0500, "Head Shot"
>> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> What action can't last more than two years?
>>>
>>> You cannot use taxes to fund a military action for more than 2 years.
>>
>> I think you misunderstand how Congress funds wars.
>
> Nope. Congress funds wars outside of how the Founding Fathers defined the
> rules within the US Constitution.
>
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Dec 2006 13:11:45
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sun, 24 Dec 2006 17:56:08 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Article I Section 8 grants Congress the power to "raise and support armies."
>Nothing is said about how, why, when or where to fund wars.
They fund wars the same way as they fund anything else. But they
*declare* wars.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 17:49:38
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>> Desert Storm was not a US action, it was a UN action.
>
>Remind me again - how many troops and planes did China and Russia send?
>Yeah; thought as much.
Who cares if they sent troops or not. Russis voted in favor of the
resolution to use force to remove Saddam from Kuwait and China
abstained.
>UN is an irrelevant puppet; and it's strings are
>pulled by USA/UK, China, and Russia.
I agree that the UN is irrlevant.
>In the case of Gulf War I, II;
>the UN puppet is being tugged by USA/UK. USA used the irrelevant UN as an
>excuse to go in Iraq and bomb them back to the third world. Our planes,
>our cruise missiles, our bombs, our troops, our patriot defense systems,
>our tanks, our aircraft carriers.
Actually, 34 nations were in the coalition, but I can't help it if the
US is so good that the UN depends on it if force is needed.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 18:25:46
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 13:45:31 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>>> Desert Storm was not a US action, it was a UN action.
>>
>> Remind me again - how many troops and planes did China and Russia
>> send? Yeah; thought as much.
>
> Who cares if they sent troops or not.
Are you kidding? If USA sent the majority of the troops, it was a US
action. If UN forces were there and USA had 1/x of the troops (where 'x' =
the number of UN member nations); then it's a UN action.
> Actually, 34 nations were in the coalition, but I can't help it if the
> US is so good that the UN depends on it if force is needed.
It's not a matter of USA being good - it's a matter of USA being in a Middle
East country attacking it under the thinly veiled auspices of the UN. USA
has a Constitution. It should not be trumped by whatever the irrelevant
assholes in the UN want (Please see the Supreme Court position further down
in this document).
1) Did the President violate the War Powers Clause (A1 S8 C11)of the US
Constitution?
2) Is the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Constitutional?
3) Did te President violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973?
4) If the President violated the War Powers Clause; did he therefore
voilate his Oath of Office ( "Ido solemnly swear and affrim that I will
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to
the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States").
5) Does the US Constitution only give Congress the ability to call forth
the National Guard, Air National Guard, and National Guard / Air National
Guard Reserves (A1 S8 C16)?
6) Did President Bush violate War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. § 1547(a),
War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §§ 1545, 1546, 1546a ?
Some facts to consider as you answer these items (though I do not mean to
sway your answers; I want to throw the following on the table:
A) President Bush applied the armed forces of the United States of America
in hostilities in Iraq without a congressional Declaration of War in
violation of the US Constitution and in violation of War Powers Resolution
50 U.S.C. § 1544(b).
B) On December 20th, 2005 Vice-President Cheney described the War Powers
Resolution as an "infringement on the authority of the President."
C) The Supreme Court of the United States stated: "It would be manifestly
contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution...let alone
alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition to construe Article
VI (The Supremacy Clause) as permitting the United States to exercise power
under an international agreement without observing constitutional
prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that
document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V." -- REID V. COVERT,
354 U.S. (1956)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2006 20:35:36
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:25:46 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:
>1) Did the President violate the War Powers Clause (A1 S8 C11)of the US
>Constitution?
No
>2) Is the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Constitutional?
Probably not.
>3) Did te President violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973?
Even if it is Constitutional Bush didn't violate it.
>4) If the President violated the War Powers Clause; did he therefore
>voilate his Oath of Office ( "Ido solemnly swear and affrim that I will
>faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to
>the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
>the United States").
No.
>5) Does the US Constitution only give Congress the ability to call forth
>the National Guard, Air National Guard, and National Guard / Air National
>Guard Reserves (A1 S8 C16)?
No.
>6) Did President Bush violate War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. § 1547(a),
>War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §§ 1545, 1546, 1546a ?
No.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 24 Dec 2006 01:50:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 18:25:46 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) Did the President violate the War Powers Clause (A1 S8 C11)of the
>> US Constitution?
>
> No
Oh yes he did. He attacked Iraq in 2002 without Congress declaring war on
Iraq.
>> 3) Did te President violate the War Powers Resolution of 1973?
>
> Even if it is Constitutional Bush didn't violate it.
That is a lie. He violated the WPR of 1973.
>
>> 4) If the President violated the War Powers Clause; did he therefore
>> voilate his Oath of Office ( "Ido solemnly swear and affrim that I
>> will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United
>> States, and will to the best of my ability; preserve, protect, and
>> defend the Constitution of the United States").
>
> No.
He violated the USC A1 S8 and therefore violated his oath. He went to war
against Iraq without Congress declaring war. He further used tax money for
that war for more than 2 years.
>> 6) Did President Bush violate War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §
>> 1547(a), War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §§ 1545, 1546, 1546a ?
>
> No.
You didn't even read it. You are disengenuous.
--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Dec 2006 22:19:20
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:45:30 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid of
> Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is true
> for the US.
You have no idea what the majority of Iraqis feel. Therefore you can not
know if they're ahead of the game, whatever that is supposed to mean. As
for the US, a majority of Americans feel the war is an illegitimate fraud.
Other than that you're totally correct.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 20:45:30 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:
>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
>true for the US.
Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
cost of keeping him.
|
| | | | |
Date: 14 Dec 2006 13:47:03
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:19:15 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:
>>In any case, a majority of Iraqis still feel it was worth getting rid
>>of Saddam. So democracy or not, they're ahead of the game. Same is
>>true for the US.
>
>Only if they believe the cost of getting rid of him was less than the
>cost of keeping him.
The problem is that you never know what would have happened if Saddam
was left in power.
Suppose that Britain, France and the Soviet Union immediately declared
war on Germany in 1938 when Hitler took the Rhineland and the US
joined the fight right away. Obviously this would have meant war
rather than the policy of appeasement that actually occurred to try to
avoid war.
If an immediate response resulted in a war that killed 30 million
people, I'm sure that the appeasers would say that the policies of the
hawks led to a war that could have been avoided and thus caused the
death of 30 million people. Of course, we now know that the actual
war that resulted cost 60 million lives.
Ultimately, history has shown that whenever a nation solves one
problem, it is replaced by another problem. You can only hope that
the new problem is smaller than the old one.
Right now, the worst case scenario for the US is the threat of nuclear
weapons in the hands of terrorists or a rogue nation. Saddam was a
long term threat to develop nuclear weapons and that threat has been
removed. An Iraq in chaos poses no direct threat to the US. The
priy objective of the war was regime change and that has been
achieved.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:51:09
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
annika1980 wrote:
> A. Because he's full of shit!
>
> Tony Snow, that is. Here is what the Whitehouse spokesman said at
> today's press briefing:
> ------------------------
> Q Yes, that there is an acceptance within the American public to send
> more troops.
>
> MR. SNOW: Well, again, I will refer you to the data that may be -- in
> fact, I think it's from your own poll.
>
> Q CBS poll?
>
> MR. SNOW: Yes, the CBS News poll. What happens is, there is a fairly --
> I apologize, because I'm going through -- just 32 percent thinks the
> U.S. should pull out significant numbers of troops in the next six
> months, 64 percent believes the U.S. should keep troops there longer.
> You put that together with 58 percent say that it's extremely or very
> important that the U.S. succeed in Iraq, and 60 percent believe that
> the U.S. can still win the war -- that's actually the Gallup Poll, but
> in any event, the point here is, when you're dealing with a situation
> like this, if you want to build public confidence you explain what's
> going on and explain how you intend to go forward. And that's what the
> President is going to do.
> ===================================
>
> Sounds like most Americans are in favor of us staying in Iraq, right?
> Well here is what the polls really showed:
>
> --------------------------------------------
> December 12, 2006
> Two major polling organizations -- USA Today/Gallup and CBS News --
> came out with big polls dissecting public opinion on the war in Iraq in
> the wake of the Iraq Study Group report, and the results could be a
> sobering wake-up call for the Bush administration. We say "could be"
> because the public holds so much distrust and angst about the war in
> Iraq that it may simply be too late for the Bush admin to turn things
> around.
>
> Some of the polls', well, low-lights:
>
> A majority of Americans think neither side is winning the war (64% in
> Gallup's, 63% in the CBS poll), though a slightly greater percentage
> choose the Iraqi insurgency (17% and 18%, respectively) than the U.S.
> and its allies (16% and 15%).
>
> A majority thinks the U.S. should keep a significant number of troops
> in Iraq for less than a year (55% in the Gallup survey), while in CBS's
> poll, 59% say the U.S. should either decrease troop levels or remove
> troops altogether.
>
> The war, say majorities, was a mistake. That's nothing new - a majority
> has agreed that the war was a mistake in most Gallup polls since early
> May 2005, with few exceptions. 53% continue to agree, while 62% called
> sending troops to Iraq a mistake in the CBS poll.
>
> It's not getting any easier, either. Just 8% say the situation in Iraq
> is getting better, while 52% say it's getting worse, according to CBS.
> The same poll shows 71% believe U.S. efforts in the country are going
> somewhat or very badly.
>
> Is it worth it? The big number today is 64, the percent of Americans
> who say the costs of succeeding in Iraq outweigh the benefits to the
> U.S. Just 33% of the Gallup sample feel the opposite way. 53% in the
> CBS poll say the U.S. is not likely to succeed. In a smaller Washington
> Post/ABC News poll, only 36% say the war was worth it, as 61% say it
> wasn't.
>
> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
> It doesn't get any better in Gallup. 46% say they trust Bush "a great
> deal" or "a fair amount" to recommend the right thing to do in Iraq,
> far below the aggregates for Congressional Democrats (58%), the Iraq
> Study Group (66%) and even Sen. John McCain (63%).
>
> If the ISG report serves as a warning and a call for change, as Bush
> has signaled - news reports today suggest a new strategy in Iraq will
> be announced early next month - it is doubtful any action will be
> sufficient to reverse these dismal numbers.
>
> As Americans perceive everything in Iraq as going so poorly, Pres.
> Bush's approval rating has actually sunk from last quarter (31% in the
> CBS poll, 36% in the Washington Post/ABC poll and 38% in the USA
> Today/Gallup poll), breaking a string of years in which, going into the
> holiday season, his numbers have risen. It remains to be seen if
> January's State of the Union -- typically a boost for presidential poll
> numbers -- will provide Bush an opportunity to come back.
>
> http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/12/the_big_number_22.html
Tony Snow is just a trained seal, paid to cast his boss in a positive
light, no matter what the extenuating circumstances are. When he leaves
the White House, he'll probably go to work for Exxon or Philip Morris
or some other corp. known for its good works and altruism.
A Wash. Post/ABC News poll released today shows that 70% of Americans
disapprove of Bush's handling of the war, 52% think we're losing, 62%
think it was "not worth fighting," and solid majorities support the
major recommendations of the ISG. I'tll be interesting to see how Tony
massages that one.
|
| |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 08:12:51
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
The World Wide Wade wrote:
> In article
> <1165979495.672947.217880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > >
> > > And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> > > war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> > > just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> > > all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> > > according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> > > (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> > > CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> > > make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
> >
> > Well, that just about says it all about the American
> > public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
> > they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
> > about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
> >
> > In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> > their inability to understand the concept of democracy.
>
> Those stupid people. How dare they not embrace a government
> foisted on them by an occupying miltary power?
>
> > They deserve to
> > live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
>
> That certainly was the US viewpoint while Saddam committed the
> worst of his atrocities - with US support.
So your think that the neanderthals (also known as Iraqi's) are going
to be able to form some type of organized central government on their
own? LOL Occupying military power? Let's ask Kuwait how they were
treated by the Iraqi's occupying military power. Did the neanderthals
build schools, establish elections, promote democracy, feed the people
or did they pillage, loot, and rape?
Let's just sit back and see what the Dems do now that they control the
purse strings. They had all the answers before the elections, now they
get to make decisions.
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35
From:
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
>
> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
Well, that just about says it all about the American
public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
|
| | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 16:16:21
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
>their inability to understand the concept of democracy. They deserve to
>live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
Ultimately, the problems in Iraq are much more of an Iraqi failure
than an American failure.
I was encouraged today the Saudi's said that if the US withdraws and
the Shia attack the Sunnis that the Saudi's would protect the Sunni. I
doubt that the US would really object to the Saudi's taking control of
Iraq.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:15:37
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article
<1165979495.672947.217880@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
> > war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
> > just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
> > all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
> > according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
> > (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
> > CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
> > make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
> Well, that just about says it all about the American
> public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
> they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
> about Iraq. Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even vote.
>
> In reality, the entire problem is caused by the stupid Iraqi people and
> their inability to understand the concept of democracy.
Those stupid people. How dare they not embrace a government
foisted on them by an occupying miltary power?
> They deserve to
> live under the iron fist of a brutal dictator.
That certainly was the US viewpoint while Saddam committed the
worst of his atrocities - with US support.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 21:34:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
On 12 Dec 2006 19:11:35 -0800, lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
>>
>> And as President Bush talks about his administration's strategy for the
>> war, it's not clear he's helping his own case. The WaPo/ABC poll shows
>> just 28% approving of his handling of the situation in Iraq, an
>> all-time low. That's actually 7 points better than the CBS sample. Also
>> according to CBS, Americans trust Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1
>> (53%-27%) over Bush in making the right decisions about Iraq. Finally,
>> CBS shows just 28% of Americans have confidence in Bush's ability to
>> make the right decisions about Iraq, while 70% are uneasy.
>
>Well, that just about says it all about the American
>public...........most of which couldnt find Iraq on a map........that
>they trust Congressional Democrats 2-1 to make the right decisions
>about Iraq. <clip>
>
That's not what the poll said. It said that "Americans trust
Congressional Democrats nearly 2-1...over Bush in making the right
decisions about Iraq", not that they would be right.
They can't be any more wrong than Dubya has been.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:45:32
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"Bobby Knight" <bknight@conramp.net > wrote in message
news:h1tun210khj9don1gcagjkf20827i9lbq4@4ax.com...
>
> They can't be any more wrong than Dubya has been.
>
Sure they can, time will tell.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:24:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
> vote.
I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty. It
would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
|
| | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 09:44:06
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:2oKfh.248$_z6.94@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
>>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
>> vote.
>
> I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty.
> It would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
I've voted every year since I could and have never been called for JD. Of
course now that I said that I'll be getting a letter in the mail next week.
|
| | | | |
Date: 13 Dec 2006 10:54:42
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Q. Why should you never eat Snow?
|
In article <4uale7F1774h8U1@mid.individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
> news:2oKfh.248$_z6.94@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > lobshot694@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >>Dont forget, most of the American public doesnt even
> >> vote.
> >
> > I am guilty of that. I don't want to to get on the list for jury duty.
> > It would bankrupt me to take 6 months without a paycheck.
> I've voted every year since I could and have never been called for JD. Of
> course now that I said that I'll be getting a letter in the mail next week.
IMO, voting is not only a right, it is an obligation of citizenship.
When someone tells me they don't vote, regardless of reason, their
political opinions are just hot air with no impact.
Kind of like Limbaugh before '95. All talk, no vote!
|
|
