|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted September 09, 2002 06:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
For those who have been wanting more proof....I earlier said that I believed more would be comming out as the regime replacement gets closer...and here is some of the latest news from the leftest tabloid New York Times
Interesting that this came out with such convenient timing... Seriously, though, I don't deny that Saddam Hussein is seeking nukes. The issue at hand is whether the US has the right to attack on this basis. As I said earlier, I do not feel the US can attack unilaterally with this as a justification. Can the former coalition? Yes, but Bush/Powell have to do some phone work for this one if that is the approach they want to take.
Like I said, the only thing I think would give the US the right to attack unilaterally is aiding/harboring terrorists which, to use your words on global warming, there is no "incontrovertible evidence" for (at least none that has been made available to the public or, apparently congress). Interestingly enough, as I understand it, Al Qaeda is not a big fan of Saddam's regime since they feel it is too secular and not fundamentalist enough. I wouldn't be especially surprised if they join together on the "enemy of my enemy" basis, but it's not a foregone conclusion that they are buddy buddy. It would sort of be like the leftist radicals who rail against global trade joining with the right wing militias who rail against the world government - if you just read their pamphlets, you have trouble distinguishing them, but they certainly don't like eachother. Or it would be like PETA joining up with the aryan nation, both nuts, but nuts that don't like eachother.
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 10, 2002 02:54 AM |
|
|
According to recent news, Saddam hussein is planning to create mass supplies of nuclear weapons to add to his already deadly arsenal of chemical and biological warfare, a British tabloid wrote.
Well, it looks like that Saddam Insane is tring to tell America and its Allies (including Australia) that "If you want to attack my country or the Middle East, you infidelic greedy scum, I am ready when you are so that I can kick all of your stupid Western @$$e$! Jihad! All hail to our great Allah!" Yeah, right, you wait until America sends its nasty nuclear bombers, you infidelic dictator! 
Now, as we approach September 11, America is ready to mourn its loss on that fateful day back in 2001. We hope that this time September 11 will pass away trouble free. God bless America.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2002 07:27 AM |
|
|
global warming
Quote “Ah yes... "the petition" Here's my main problem with the petition…”
The petition’s words are “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (http://www.sepp.org//pressrel/petition.html )
Quote “It should also be pointed out that, as intelligent as Seitz (the originator of the petition) he is a solid state physicist, not a meteorologist or geologist or anything like that.”
From my understanding there are only like 60 PhDs in climatology in the US (http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html).
I know this…this petition was in part a response to Clinton/Gore team marching out 2500 scientists of the IPCC (all types of scientist mind you-not just climatologists) to try to make the impression that there is unanimity among scientist about global warming. Also it is funny that the IPCC didn’t even have consensus among itself according to members as interviewed in Stossels “tampering with Nature”.
Also it is reported “How did the IPCC come up with 2,500 scientists? If one were to add up all contributors and reviewers listed in the three IPCC reports published in 1996, one would count about 2,100. The great majority of these are not conversant with the intricacies of atmospheric physics, although some may know a lot about forestry, fisheries or agriculture. Most are social scientists -- or just policy experts and government functionaries. Every country in the world seems to be represented -- from Albania to Zimbabwe -- though many are not exactly at the forefront of research. The list even includes known skeptics of global warming -- much to their personal and professional chagrin.” (http://www.sepp.org//glwarm/hotair.html)
Quote “ It should also be pointed out the review "article" used was neither peer reviewed nor published.”
That is unfortunate indeed.
As far as consensus in the scientific community….I think meteorologist Richard S. Lindzen has some interesting points (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html)
Predictive computer models? As far as computer models…junk in junk out. It is funny indeed that theses models that people ascribe predictive value can’t even predict the current temperature correct (Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D http://www.heartland.org/earthday96/gwfacts.htm)
Quote “It is true that there has been climate change in the past, but never at the incredible rate it's happening at now.”
What about the ice age? That was a serious change of climate and without evil man around to create it
Earlier quote by Dargon ”Greenhouse gases cannot explain the rise in global temperature prior to 1940 and cannot explain the temperature drop between 1940 and 1970?, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D
Earlier Response Quote “I don't deny that this quote was made, but I'd like to see in what context.”
Here is where I found it http://www.heartland.org/earthday96/gwfacts.htm
Earlier quote by Dargon-”The hottest years in the 20th century in America were in the early 1930s.
Earlier response quote -“I don't know where you got this information. It's not true, though. The 1990s was the warmest decade since they've been measuring it.”
Here are some of the places I found it- http://www.co2science.org/ushcn/ushcn.htm
http://www.vision.net.au/~daly/
Earlier quote by Dargon-“A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the Geophysical Society believe that the warming trend of the 20th century is a result of greenhouse gas emissions. Data also exist to refute global warming. NASA satellite measurements show no net warming over the last two decades, and December 1997 was the coldest month on record.”
Earlier response quote- “Dunno what to tell you on this one. Source? (Not because I'm denying it but because I would very much like to read it.) “
Some of the places I found it
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.publicsectorconsultants.com/PSR/Periscop/1998/042498.cfm
Quote ”Well of course the upper-air temperature went down - remember, the point of the greenhouse effect is that heat is trapped and unable to escape to, for instance, the outer atmosphere. “
The measurements are in agreement with the balloon readings. Also many argue that they are more accurate due to heat island effect- the temperature on the ground is prone to error given the landscape (ie lakes would be cooler, cities would be hotter due to concrete, etc.) (http://users.erols.com/dhoyt1/index.html). I found people saying that lots of the ground measurements were in error particularly because they were measured near urban areas which would increase the temperature.
One political commentator stated “To this date not a single scientist, or layman has put forward as convincing an argument for the use of land based readings over those of the satellites and weather balloons, because it just doesn't exist.” (http://newstrolls.com/news/dev/heller/col1.html)
Quote ” 7,677 in those fields that signed the petition hardly seems impressive (especially since they don't specify that all 7,677 have advanced degrees). they do say that 2/3 have advanced degrees of some sort, which would be 11,400 advanced degree signatories”
True that there was likely a mix, but still even if you throw half out of the petition due to errors, unrelated fields, etc…you still have 8,500 signers in general and 6,200 with advance degrees. There is not such petition to the opposite to my knowledge and even if there was it would still indicate global warming is in dispute.
I think that the petition speaks pretty clearly especially to those who just finished their indoctrination of liberal banter in college who think there is total consensus about the issue. There clearly is not, but it will take those kids who just got out of college 5-7 years to escape the brain washing they received and wake up to the whole world not just what was preached to them in high school and college.
Quote ”I do think there is pretty indisputable evidence. I'm not going to say indisputable, because if you put three scientists in a room they'll come up with four opinions.”
Funny but true I had a feeling you weren’t a die hard and could see that there are a lot of ifs and buts.
Quote “Is global warming occurring and are humans at least partially responsible? Yes.”
Fair enough. As I said earlier I think the horrific global warming idea is a theory…you obviously are more in support of the theory and I am more skeptical. I just get pretty frustrated when naive people treat it as an absolute fact that humans are causing global warming and there will be horrible consequences.
”Will the worst case scenario happen? Probably not. Manhattan isn't going to be under water, and Europe isn't going to be plunged into another ice age… I think that since you need absolutely the best possible case to happen to even minimize the effects, I think action is warranted.”
I think one of our main disagreements is that you believe the earth has a precarious balance and I think it is more resilient.
Regarding a change that might affect say diseases and mosquitoes or such…. epidemiologist Mark L. Wilson of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, stated “"What's biologically possible isn't necessarily epidemiologically likely or important." (http://www.junkscience.com/news/taubes2.html)….I think some scientist may forget this important distinction.
I get tired of all the doomsayers…we have had them forever in both the religious and the scientific community…in both the liberal and conservative party….I wish people wouldn’t act so extremist and try to be more reasonable.
Quote ”As to Kyoto, I don't know if I would have signed it if the decision were mine. I would need to read more of the actual document, but I do think that there are flaws in it. I think it unfairly rewards certain nations whose emissions are "low" simply because much of their industrial output shut down during that last century because it was unable to compete and I think it rewards those same nations who, because they have been settled and urbanized for so long cut down much of their forest a long time ago. I think it also gives too many allowances to developing nations.”
I agree with you wholeheartedly there
Quote “A certain large nation that produces a lot of CO2 also fixes a lot of CO2. You know all those high yield genetically engineered crops people are complaining about? High yield = high carbon fixation.”
Exactly….Sierra Club kiss my axe People like that talk out of both sides of their mouths. The religiously obsessive environmentalist irk me the most (interesting that “The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis” http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend – not that that means you shouldn’t be an environmentalist…but still interesting)….you seem to be more of a scientific mindset that doesn’t throw technology out with the bath water so to speak.
Quote “ I'd rather be unfairly treated and sitting on the beaches of the outer banks of NC ….than sitting on a large pile of money and wishing there was a good vacation spot to spend it on.”
I can understand your feelings…but historically water and ice have always moved and made some land inhabitable and others habitable with or without man's alleged impact
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 10, 2002 07:46 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 10 Sep 2002
|
Iraq
More news on the home front... the independent British International Institute for Strategic Studies came out with a report "Iraq could build a nuclear bomb in a few months if it obtained radioactive material, and its arsenal contains powerful chemical and biological weapons that can be quickly mass produced, according to a report Monday. Developing weapons of mass destruction is one of Iraq's top priorities, and Saddam Hussein devotes enormous resources to such weapons"....we learn more and more everyday
Quote "as I understand it, Al Qaeda is not a big fan of Saddam's regime since they feel it is too secular and not fundamentalist enough"
Interesting and good point...but on the other hand these are the same hypocritical terrorists who were going to bars in the US and hitting Vegas before 9/11 attack..so much for their hatred of America's decadence!
Quote "Or it would be like PETA joining up with the aryan nation, both nuts, but nuts that don't like eachother."
Wow we agree with each other...rare times indeed
Speaking of bed partners...I have never been able to understand how the democratic party holds its coalition together...you got the greens versus the union guys, the atheist and homosexual activist versus the devout catholic Latinos and the black church...you got the bilingual crowd versus blacks and white "English only"...you got the educational elites versus the city dwelling minorities who prefer school choice, etc. etc. I really don't understand what keeps the democratic party together...any thoughts?
Quote "I still would like clear evidence of just why members of my family need to risk their lives in a war. Just a simple rundown of the reasons with definite proof"
I don't know what level of proof you would like. I would imagine the kind of proof we are use to in our courts would be quite impossible as Iraq is a police state. I think the proof we are hearing from all the Iraqi deserters, various government intelligence agencies, and independent research groups gives proof enough.
Quote "Another interesting one was that A canadian friend told me of this program done for Canadian telly, where a comic went around an american city"¨
Do you get Jay Leno's Tonight Show out where you live? Speaking of ignorance...he goes on the street to do interviews and asks very basic history/political question and the answers people come up with are hilarious.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 10, 2002 10:35 AM |
|
|
Well I personally don't get it, but I imagine that any country doing that would get pretty much the same reaction. As for proof, No I don't believe we have absolute proof yet of anything much, most is circumstantial at present. As much as they may hate this the US cannot fight this one without some sort of backing from either Britain or the UN. Obviously either Blair and/or Bush have some sort of proof to hand, yet presumably we are not permitted to be allowed in on this great secret just yet. I just fear for sending our troops into a war where heavy casualties may occur, yet no-one explains properly to the troops why the hell they are there in the 1st place!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:20 AM |
|
|
It seems that America is extremely concerned about another terrorist attack on their homeland as their day of mourning approaches nearer. Not far from at the time of writing this will the Americans be mourning the tragic event that happened on September 11, 2001 - the day where two hijacked planes crashed into the WTC towers, killing 2,801 people, including all on board and 300+ firefighters and police officers. Security has been beefed up around the country in order to try to prevent another terroist attack on their country.
Not long ago Britain's Tony Blair has moved his stand on Saddam Hussein to stand down as dictator and to get rid of his chemical and biological weapons. However, I don't think Saddam Hussein will listen. It looks like he is planning for a jihad either on or shortly after September 11 with America and its allies.
God bless America on September 11.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:25 AM |
|
|
I think if you were planning an assault on America it would make more (perverse) sense to attack after 9/11/02 as the Yanks will have every mainland plane armed and ready, high alert checks and sams dotted all over their cities. To attack tommorow would be insaner than they already are. They may be mad, but unfortunately they are far from stupid when it comes to planning.
As for Hussain I doubt he will begin the war as that would destroy his vauge credibility he has outside of Iraq. He would be wiser to stick to hoping that America can't drum up support for an assault. I don't doubt though that if it comes to it Hussain has got the power to unleash a pretty hash attack of terror on nearby countries and perhaps even UK and USA through terrorism. He will bide his time though
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Darion
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:28 AM |
|
|
Urgh.. that's scary. I really really don't want to think about what would happen if we attacked Saddam and instead of the soldiers fighting, innocent would be taking the casualties.
Hmm... maybe far northern canada is looking real nice
____________
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:32 AM |
|
|
Ah, but don't forget that Saddam Hussein hates America and the Western World! You should know that Saddam Hussein is an Islamic Extremist, just like Mullah Omar and Osama Bin Laden (and Qaddafi and Arafat as well). Yes, Saddam may be stealthy, cunning and clever, but I really think he wants nothing more than a jihad against america (Muslim holy war).
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:41 AM |
|
|
Can everyone please stop using the word Jihad?
It means a PERSONAL war of each muslim against evil. It cannot be "called" or demanded as such. Also their belief at it's core is basically that it should be peacefull (ie diplomatic). You are misusing it to make it sound like some sort of damn holy crusade called by the equivalent of the pope!
And I very much doubt Sadam is madly trying to declare war on america. Sadam is a dictator, but not damn stupid. He knows as soon as he launches proven assaults on anyone the British and Americans will stamp all over him and no-one will support him. He wants to retain power first and foremost and he won't gain that by bombing america. He will only strike at the west when it is beyond doubt that he will loose his power. He's like quadaffi, who has been involved in terror for decades, but proven links are difficult. The reason for that is because quadaffi wants power and to remain in power, not be bombed out of power in retaliation. If either wanted to attack the USA why haven't they done so before now? They have had the opportunity beforehand, why all of a sudden are these people stupid enough to risk their lives when they have not in the past?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 04:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think one of our main disagreements is that you believe the earth has a precarious balance and I think it is more resilient.
Er?c can I say both are correct? From what I see, earth, or rather ?gnature?h is like an equation full of variables (hence, earth is only one of the variables). Any figures can be substituted to the variables, but the equation will always balance - hence ?gresilient?h. However, a very small change in a variable on one side will definitely render a change (big or small) in outcome on the other side of the equation – hence ?ghas a precarious balance?h. It does not matter if global warming is caused by this ?gevil?h Homos or mother nature, or even if it is actually occurring or not. However, we can be sure that if we manipulate (and I think we are) one or more of the variable(s) over this side of the equation, the outcome on the other side will be manipulated as well. If this is true, I suppose that only leaves us with the question of HOW do we want to balance, or rather influence the balance of the equation?
Bort/dargon: Thanks for all the references.
Privatehudson : I think you are a very good man. But I suppose no prove will be good enough for one who is not convinced; just as to one who is convinced, no prove is actually required. The only one who can be 100% sure is Hussein himself, but unfortunately we are not him, or her (like I said, we can?ft be 100% sure ). So seems to me that at the end of the day, it all boils down to ?gsubjective?h judgment. To answer the thread, I don?ft wish for a war when I think of the innocents who are going to be sacrificed (in everyway). But if I do have the power to make the decision (lucky I never will) of to fight or not to fight, I?fll say depends on my mood that day!
Quote:
I hope in future posts to not get so personally involved and to put things in perspective?Epeople matter more than ideas.
"People matter more than Ideas"!! Now, is this not one of the best comments in the whole thread!?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 09:29 AM |
|
|
Snogard- good and balanced post
It seems you have the same problem I have when I cut and paste....I go back and try to edit the post again...kind of bugs me to have to do that all the time...I guess I am not computer literate enough to know how to cut/paste without all those weird symbols popping up....irritating
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 03:05 PM |
|
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 05:39 PM |
|
|
Well in answer I can be convinced by evidence from independant sources, NOT those compiled by either the USA or the UK which unfortunately are likely to be biased towards weapons. It may be these reports exist, but given the fact that I have not seen them or heard of them then I am still concerned about launching a campaign with unclear objectives and unclear motives
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 11, 2002 11:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok .. perhaps somebody already said this but here are a few keywords anyways ...
* Bush
* election
* economic situation of USA (the are giving money away .. interest versus inflation)
* Oil
* war
* booming economics
* long term conjuctur waves (did I spell that correct?)
Are u guys getting the idea yet?
No comments?
Does that mean everybody agrees?@
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 11:18 PM |
|
|
Well it prob just got lost with all that global warming stuff back then. I can't say they are not a factor, but I doubt they are the only ones though
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Hexa
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 11, 2002 11:35 PM |
|
|
oh well I just made a long post about that global warmth thingy ... untill I hit that #&*!#&#!@_# escape button and my post went to digital heaven..
I will sumuraize it because I'm too sleepy to type it again:
* human interference can't warm up the earth like that (except for nuclear holocaust etc.)
* not so long ago we were in the Ice Age (few thousand years)... who knows what the concequences of that are...
* the guys that discovered this whole gobal warmth stuff is now disclaiming it all ...
The thing is that over time there has grown an entire industry (thousands of people working in that field) in this stuff ...
Now that same guy that made all te newspapers with his idea's/findings is now being almost "silenced" ...
Ohh well u guys have the internet .. do your research ...
Ps: excuse me if this post is a bit incoherent ... I'm sleepppyyy!@ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZzzzzzzzzzzzz
____________
If you want to realize your dreams >>> you have to wake up!@
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted September 12, 2002 12:01 AM |
|
|
Sleepy or not I totally agree, I don't think humans can affect earth this much without trying very hard. And nobody actually has a proof that global warming is because of human activity.
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted September 12, 2002 02:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It seems you have the same problem I have when I cut and paste....I go back and try to edit the post again...kind of bugs me to have to do that all the time...I guess I am not computer literate enough to know how to cut/paste without all those weird symbols popping up....irritating
Sorry about that. I suppose it?fs due to my Japanese OS?c I think cut/paste is good, though. I?fve had a couple of experience like that of Hexa?fs above, and I find that even more annoying! * Looking at Hexa and *
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 12, 2002 03:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
That's interesting Dargon, but I still would like clear evidence of just why members of my family need to risk their lives in a war. Just a simple rundown of the reasons with definate proof would be nice, but Blair an Bush won't even bother to do us the courtesy of doing that.
An interesting opinion I heard on another site basically revolved around a question an American asked about why Europe and the Arab nations are so frightened of war. Many people seemed to think simply that they were scared, but I prefer to think that these nations are simply saying that without proof then there should be no invasion. Why risk destabalising the area if your own allies won't even be straight with you? I would support a strike (non-air) if only I had some sort of clue as to why rather than vauge hints.
Another interesting one was that A canadian friend told me of this program done for Canadian telly, where a comic went around an american city asking the question should we bomb saskatchewan(prob spelt wrong)? Apparently at least 1 in 5 americans were in favour of bombing the area. Interesting really to see sometimes what people will do to avoid looking stupid on camera and asking where the hell it is!
It is true, many Americans and people around the world are very stupid. But if you asked people in Britan or Canada if they should Bomb Omaha Nebraska, U.S. probably some would say they should.
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
