The Grand New Party

No, no one said stupid voters should be applauded their right to vote without having them qualify should be respect. If you bet me you will lose that bet. My beef is always centered around reason and policy.

We have to deal with lots of issues but lets not pretend America is getting worse. It isn't. Politics used to be much dirtier than it currently is. There's more money than use to be but money was always at play in Washington.

I leave you with this article (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-happiest-places-on-earth-are-heavily-taxed?siteid=rss) I found interesting. You may not like what it has to say...click it at your own risk.

In addition to the arguments by CRedskin, another point to be considered is the basic homogenous populations of these countries. The populations have similar cultural and economic goals with small populations and land mass that simply don't require the same complex solutions presented by our larger much more diverse population.

Well without global cooling we really don't have that leg to stand on. The Kyoto treaty was not brought up in a time like now, the economy was much better, but I do agree that it could have a major economic impact. It's not so much that we need to ratify a treaty, just we need to take better steps towards preserving the environment.

People call talk about skewered facts or whatever they'd like, but the huge emission of pollutants teamed with deforestation can certainly not be helping or neutral.



It could be well be neutral. We have evolved in an environment that contained a certain amount of CO2. More CO2 might be bad, or it might be good for humans. Who knows. We're on our own, hurtling through spacetime on a big unfriendly rock. The pretense of control displayed by the political Left reminds me of my fundamentalist Christian grandmother. The Liberals will fix everything. Bullshit. Don't sell me a cup of bullshit and call it progress.

If you eliminate God from the equation, I can argue freely for the Chomskyite anarchist position which is really easy intelectually. "We're all alone so **** you". My opinion is just as valuable as yours and don't talk to me about your bloody science because that's just religion by another name. Fairy stories made up by crotchety old men trying to get a leg up. You see where this leads.

3q3upFx4FcA

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

Are you so sure about that?
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)

Those scientists can usually be put into a list, the ones supporting man's impact is too long of a list to generate. It seems that quite a number of those who don't agree either say that it's too inconclusive or that man isn't the MAIN cause of it, which I didn't say that we were. In addition, a number of these professionals are geologists (many petroleum geologists) and many others are meteorologists, which may seem surprising, but they're more familiar with short term changes.

It is still of advantage of us to look into more efficient and responsible practices.

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.

I didn't state my self well there. There exists a large contingent of uncrackpot scientists who would argue that Global Warming doesn't even exist. Forget who or what caused it. The main arguments that I have studied, and as far as I can tell don't have any real dog in the fight, go like this.

Warming data collected over the last 100 years is rather spotty. Think about it. A 100+ years ago there was widespread, accurate and scientifically relevant amounts of temperature data available that could be used in a definitive manner? Sounds dubious to me. Forget about using data from before that...it doesn't even really exist. Most of the global climate change data is built using human-derived models. Models are really a fancy way of saying...we drew a picture and this is what it looks like. They're human-made. Maybe they're accurate and maybe they're not. But from a scientific standpoint they aren't evidence of anything other than the model-builder's ability to use a computer and code. The large "consensus" who "believe" in global climate change are driven by contingents just as politically motivated as the ones driven by the oil companies. In fact there is probably more money in total at stake on the climate change side than the other. All of this isn't to say that global climate change is a crock. I have no idea...but I am not willing to go blindly down a path that will cost the human existence enormous time, effort and money just to fix a problem that may or may not exist.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.
Me and you are pretty much on the same page. I find it funny that my weather man cannot get tomorrows weather right but can tell me wahts going to happen 10 to 25 years frm now.

FRPLG, nicely stated. I give your statement the "JoeRedskin Stamp Of Approval" (Recognized world-wide as the seal of quality posting).

My father, a retired airforce pilot who relied on accurate weather predictions for his safety, once said to me that weather prediction beyond the next three days is pretty much voodoo and tea leaves.

As I have studied the issues and opinions surrounding "global warming", I have become more and more convinced of the truth of my dad's statement.

Are you so sure about that?
.: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works :: Minority Page :. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7)

700? Is that the number of "international scientists" this report identifies as disputing a human connection to global warming? I'll bet you could find a greater number of "international scientists" who dispute a connection between smoking and cancer.

Now your point about finding energy alternatives anyways, I can get on board with. From a political standpoint we need a strategy for extricating ourselves from the tyranny of oil. It puts us in harms way when we have to rely on others for our basic needs. We ought to really be pursuing energy independence in a serious way.Agree with your whole post. Very well stated.

Well now this new party will have to take into account that the Pro-Life now has more supporters then Pro-Choice for the first time sensen they have been tracking this galup poll.More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx)
I did not want to start an abortion thread but I found this pool really interesting.