|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3017 days) Posts: 766 From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bin Laden and Al Gore are now two peas in a pod | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So a private US company is going to invest money in a venture that seems likely to return enormous profits.
Well ... I guess that that's a bad thing, but I can't quite figure out why. Please explain to me why capitalism is bad and why Americans shouldn't profit from it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If the planet survived the ice age, perhaps Ms Coral and other oxygen lubbing life will be so invigerated by all of the plant expelled oxygen that adaptation to the heat will not be a problem. Then too, who knows the Nevada desert may turn into a cactus or tropical jungle where there's lots of shade and water. Further, perhaps the heat will make the atmosphere less dense as it warms and rises further into space such as it likely was before the flood, forming a nice greenhouse canopy over the planet, diming the sun a bit and moderating the planet's temps so that man can live hundreds of years as it was before the flood. ABE: .........And as is implied in the Biblical prophecies relative to the emerging messianic millenium, requiring rather sudden climate change effected by global warming, now in the early stages of ever escalating climate change. The change will be rough, being the wrath of God time, so brace yourselves, ye yunguns, ole man Buz's Biblically inspired hypothesis will be vindicated and you'll see it!! So ... According to your political views, climate change is just fine and everything's going to be absolutely peachy. And according to your religious views, climate change is going to wreak disaster on us all as an aspect of Armageddon.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
Dr Adequate writes: According to your political views, climate change is just fine and everything's going to be absolutely peachy. And according to your religious views, climate change is going to wreak disaster on us all as an aspect of Armageddon. Hi Doc. No. As a matter of fact it will get very destructive in order to effect the ultimate peachy stage as per a literal reading of scripture. It will not be Armageddon perse as that's military action but it will definitely be apocalyptic, ever escalating to wreak disaster as per the prophecies. I didn't write them. I just look at all of the corroborating fulfilled evidence and go figure. Perhaps I will try to promote a thread on this apart from the science forums so as to explain it further and so as not to lead this thread further off topic. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
nwr writes: That seems to be disinformation from the usual right wing suspects. Hi NWR.
Here is the article from the WS Journal, hardly a right wing source. Did you see the part where Soros sold his common stock so as to profit by purchasing preferred instead, having previous inside info etc in the other cite? Your leftish wing source didn't tell you that bit and I have no idea where they got the China loan connection. That's why I said this is complicated as everything connected to this administration seems to be. There does appear to be an administration connection and certainly no repudiation of the loan from the US. In the mean time, dejavu as to our dependence on foreign energy from our enemies who ultimately want us destroyed. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Because this is an evil socialist capitalist that's going to profit on this one. (Why does my head always hurt after I try to think like Buz?) Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
subbie writes: What left me speechless, Buz old bean, was your use of the term "socialist buddy's business concern." Just to illuminate for you, socialist means government-owned business. So the idea of a socialist business concern is rather oxymoronic, even for you. And that takes some doing. Read it again, Subbie. Are you aware that Soros, one of Obama's admired ideological buds and major early supporter was and is an avowed socialist who has disdain for free enterprise and advocates government owned and controled businesses? BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
False!
Your link is not to the Wall Street Journal. It is a link to a right wing blog. Oh, and by the way, now that WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch, it is moving further to the right than it was previously. Oh, by the way, Soros is a private individual driven by the profit motive. What problem to you right wingers have with that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Hi Doc. No. As a matter of fact it will get very destructive in order to effect the ultimate peachy stage as per a literal reading of scripture. So, let's try to get this straight. According to you climate change will be absolutely horrible. We shouldn't listen to the conservative version of Buzsaw, who tells us that climate change is all going to work out just fine, and that climate change might perfectly well turn Nevada into a lush tropical paradise. No, we shouldn't listen to the conservative Buzsaw. Instead we should listen listen to the Christian version of Buzsaw, who tells us that climate change is going to be "very destructive". I'm just trying to sort this out. You seem to have two totally conflicting sets of opinions. You seem, indeed, to be two totally different people. According to the conservative Buzsaw, climate change is just fine and dandy. But according to the Christian Buzsaw, climate change is a "very destructive" thing that's part of the wrath of God and a sign of the approaching millenium. But you're the same person. The conservative Buzsaw and the Christian Buzsaw are the same person. There is only one Buzsaw. So when you have finished arguing with yourself, what does the one, the one, the one and only Buzsaw really believe about climate change? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Meldinoor Member (Idle past 4830 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
If I understand him correctly, it seems like he's saying that the current trend in climate change is going to be dandy, until the apocalypse when it all suddenly gets a lot worse.
Of course, in his opinion, neither of these changes are influenced by man, and so there is no moral imperative to do anything about climate change (in his opinion). Respectfully, -Meldinoor
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Buzsaw writes:
quote: First, your source wasn't the Wall Street Journal. Second, if the WSJ said it, chances are the exact opposite is true. Well, to be more accurate, the opinion page of the WSJ is notoriously inaccurate. The business section used to be fairly decent, but in the late 90s, it also began to go downhill in its attempt to become the Fox News of print. It routinely prints things that aren't true, fails to correct it, and then writes a second story based upon the falsehoods printed in the first story. So unless and until you can show the actual original story, I'm gonna have to call bullshit. For example, your article talks about the "rich oil reserves of Alaska." There are none. ANWR holds approximately six months-worth of oil at current US consumption rates. It would take more than a decade just to set up the equipment to start extracting it. This idea that if only we were allowed to "drill, baby, drill!" in Alaska and our energy problems would be greatly reduced if not cured is a lie. Similarly for Bloomberg. Your source was not Bloomberg. Until you can prove the actual source of the story, I call bullshit. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Coyote writes:
quote: Huh? Who said anything about building them out in the desert? Why do we have to build them out in the desert? There's plenty of space in the urban areas we currently occupy that would handily accept solar panels. There's no reason that most every municipal building can't be set up to have solar panels installed and there should be heavy incetives to get private buildings to invest in them, too. Germany, for example, is one of the largest producers of solar energy in the world, and they don't get that much sunlight. Why? Because their (*gasp!*) socialist government set up incentives to do so and thus, a large percentage of buildings have solar panels. That isn't to say that there is nothing to be gained by building solar farms, but it is hardly a requirement. Hint: Carter had solar panels installed on the White House. One of the first acts Reagan did was to take them down. Imagine just how far along we would be in the development of solar power if Reagan had decided to run with the idea rather than denounce it as "liberal" science? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Huh? Who said anything about building them out in the desert? Why do we have to build them out in the desert? There's plenty of space in the urban areas we currently occupy that would handily accept solar panels. There's no reason that most every municipal building can't be set up to have solar panels installed and there should be heavy incetives to get private buildings to invest in them, too. The biggest complaint about that? They're ugly. Who cares what good they do: they are unsightly. Same with the reason for not wanting to put windmills along the east coast: "we don't want to see those gawdy things out of our beach front property window" Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
hooah212002 writes:
quote: Says who? You? Why should we believe you? And on a building that's so much taller than you, what makes you think you'd even see them?
quote: And we believe them why? The wind farm outside Palm Springs is beautiful. Especially at night when the warning lights start flashing. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 823 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? You're awful defensive. I wasn't saying that's how I feel, I was saying that is what I have heard as the main complaint.
And on a building that's so much taller than you, what makes you think you'd even see them? I, personally, would love to see them up there. But again, your rebuttal was misguided.
And we believe them why? The wind farm outside Palm Springs is beautiful. Especially at night when the warning lights start flashing. I'm sure they are.... Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given. Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people -Carl Sagan For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.-Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
hooah212002 responds to me:
quote: Huh? Says who? You? Why should we believe you? Hint: You don't know my mental state. If you don't want me to take your comments as your personal statement, consider the possibility that I got it and that I am not responding directly to you.
quote: And I was responding with the same answer: Just because people claim that it's ugly doesn't mean it is. We should not coddle those who have some sort of mental block when it comes to changing our method of energy production.
quote: Not at all. I know those arguments. I've heard them before. Rather than let them simply rest, I presented the actual response that should be. Every time someone says, "But they're ugly!" the response is to say, "Says who?" In other words: Are we seriously saying that we should abandon our attempts at changing our method of energy production out of a sense of architectural aesthetics? Especially when such a claim is so purely subjective and quite often irrelevant since it will never actually be seen? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024