"During President Bush's first term, outsiders often suspected that Karl Rove was really behind virtually everything. Now it's official. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9308-2005Feb8.html)

Rove, the political mastermind behind two presidential elections, yesterday was named White House deputy chief of staff in charge of coordinating domestic policy, economic policy, national security and homeland security.

But many in the White House said the new position largely formalizes what was already true, noting that Rove has quietly played a vital role in shaping domestic policy from the inception of the Bush presidency. Now, for the first time, he will have a formal hand in foreign policy as well."

*

Could there (possibly) BE any better example of how FUCKED-UP this country's become (http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen1101.html)??!!!!!!!!

Yeah.........other countries are REALLY gonna take us more seriously, now!! :@@:

*

http://www.mind.net/basile/rovecard.jpg

The Chickenhawks favorite PIMP!!!!!!:mad:

That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin. No sooner does the second term start, you are crititzing not only the president but his staff. What did they ever do to you?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
[B]That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin. No sooner does the second term start, you are crititzing not only the president but his staff. What did they ever do to you?[/B
If you have to ask, you haven't been paying enough attention. Besides which, this is a very stupid post. OF COURSE WE'RE CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT...we've been doing so for four flippin' years.

He's got a point there, CM.

Well Bush is gonna be President for Four More Years, so deal. Why dont you try thinking about his policies rather than insulting the man. I mean I know you liberals all you can do is complain and polarize, but come on try thinking about what lower taxes and cutting non needed programs can do for the country.

Gee lets think

Cut 150 social programs
increase 4%+ DoD budget
Still have $290 Billion dallar deficit
Still dont factor in Iraq.
Still pretend we have more than enough money and give americans tax returns.

Seems pretty fucking stupid and heartless to me. Anyone else?

Shamen. There is no need for all your bold marks. It just makes your post 20xs harder to read. People will either read it or they wont but at the moment the [b] stuff make me not want to.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Well Bush is gonna be President for Four More Years, so deal. Why dont you try thinking about his policies rather than insulting the man.
I've been complaining about his policies for three years. When I was younger, I insulted him plenty, but I've matured since then. I challenge you to find a recent post of me insulting Mr. Bush.
I mean I know you liberals
PLEASE don't insult me. I'm not a liberal. I'm a libertarian.
all you can do is complain and polarize, but come on try thinking about what lower taxes and cutting non needed programs can do for the country.
Are you even PAYING attention to my posts before shooting your mouth off? Lower taxes are a great idea: I don't like cutting them primarily for the rich though. And not in the middle of a recession, either: lower taxes during an economic boom would make a bit more sense. And finally, lowering taxes to the point where our debt reaches record levels is absolutely negligent.

Cutting non-needed programs? Great idea! Haven't seen much of it from him, though. It has taken him four years to start the talk about privatizing Social Security, and to tell you the truth, he's doing it now only to make it his "legacy." He wants to privatize Social Security to get his name spoken favorably of in history books as some sort of magical savior.

And as for this post of yours...the irony of you saying that I am polarizing is incredible. You're the one who's trying to pigeonhole everyone into "liberal" or "conservative", not me. I mean, look at your fucking screenname, for chrissakes! And you have the audacity to say that it's my (well, actually, liberals', but you said "you liberals" so you must have been including me in there somehow) fault that we're polarized? Despicable.

Its like being $50,000 in debt to credit cards and still giving your kids $50 a week so they'll like you.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
No sooner does the second term start, you are crititzing not only the president but his staff. What did they ever do to you?

What did they do?!?

You mean besides emptying the Treasury and running up a few trillion dollar debt that will likely backrupt the country??

---you mean besides failing to prevent the 9/11 attacks???

---you mean besides alienating this nation from the rest of the world nations and making a few billion people fear and despise this country??

---you mean besides lying to start an unecessary and totally bogus war that has cost hundreds of billions ofr taxdollars and 1300 American servicemen's lives??


---you mean besides cutting out myriad regulations that restrict pollution and that promote worker health standards, thus causing the deaths of untold millions more Americans due to the poisonous effluvia spewed into the atmosphere 24/7 by huge Corporations???


---you mean besides all that????!?!?!


There are quite a few more. You'll get to see them all firsthand in the next 4 years.

Conversely, keep your head deep in the sand where it's at, and you won't have to look at any of the coming abominations caused by Bush and his co-conspirators.

I should however, offer my condolences to you for the excruciating violation to your anus you are about to recieve at the hands of the Bushites while your head is buried in the sand and your ass is stuck up in the air.

On second thought; cancel the condolences.

You and the other Bush supporters are about to get exactly the reaming you deserve.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Well Bush is gonna be President for Four More Years, so deal. Why dont you try thinking about his policies rather than insulting the man.
HIS policies????????????? :confused:

Your reading-comprehension is (about) as fine-tuned as Travh20s!!!!!

"During President Bush's first term, outsiders often suspected that Karl Rove was really behind virtually everything. Now it's official."

Exactly, when is Bush gonna start DOING his job.......rather than jumping, every time Karl Rove snaps one o' his STRINGS??!!! :confused:

Originally posted by 500lbguerilla
Shamen. There is no need for all your bold marks. It just makes your post 20xs harder to read. People will either read it or they wont but at the moment the [b] stuff make me not want to.
Cool.

Move on.

Originally posted by Freethinker
What did they do?!?

You mean besides emptying the Treasury and running up a few trillion dollar debt that will likely backrupt the country??
Let's be fair, now.

That's an old, family accounting-trick. (http://news4florida.tripod.com/indexfraud.html)

"When Bush left the White House, the last debt numbers published by the Bush Regime was $5.66 trillion, when, in fact, the actual size of the debt was about $14 trillion. In other words, the national debt was about three times the stated numbers.

The Bush Administration had publicly stated that the federal budget deficit for fiscal 1992 was $360 billion. As it turned out, the fiscal budget deficit for 1992 going into calendar year 1993 was over $700 billion.

By April he had learned of the Grand Bushonian Fraud -- how the Bush Cabal denuded the Social Security General Trust Fund and 43 other public trust funds out of $5 trillion and then stuffed them full of worthless non-marketable US Treasury securities.

Like most people in Washington, Clinton understood that Ronald Reagan was a figurehead and that it was really the Bush Cabal, which was running things for all of those 12 years. He also understood that the Bush Cabal had perpetrated the greatest fraud ever committed against the American people and that the Bush Cabal had essentially destroyed the economy of the United States - which in fact they had."

Let's see if I can inject some common sense into this post. In response to some of Freethinker's and one of Guerilla's points.

Bush destroyed the suplus:

Well no, there was not billions of dollars laying around the treasury that nobody was using. It was a PROJECTED surplus. Unfortunately, America experienced a mild recession in 2000, the 9/11 attacks and a war both in Afghanistan and Iraq. Such things do tend to run up the debt. Right now, Bush is taking action to reduce the debt. His proposed budget will feature a 2% rate of growth for the overall federal budget. Bush's proposal is supposed to cut the deficit in half by 2009. Our deficit is not quite going to bankcrupt the Federal Treasury. This deficit can be surmounted.


Failing to prevent 9/11:

Only a complete idiot would believe that 9/11 could've been prevented. It's not like the terrorists phoned Mr Bush the night before and told him his plans. The 9/11 attacks were a decade in planning. People like Osama were looking at every weakness in our airport security, our immigration policy and so forth. Planning of this caliber is very, very hard to put a stop to. Gore being in the Whitehouse would have been as useful to stopping 9/11 as arranging the deck chairs on the titanic would have been useful to keeping that ship afloat.

Bogus wars:

In the first place, we have given the people of two nations the oppurtunity to choose democracy, and in both countries, the people have responded enthusistically. Ignoring death threats, the majority of the populations in both countries voted. Libs on this board talk about voter disinfranchisement. The libs talk about the "long lines" people in some democratic countries have to wait in to vote. Well, imagine waiting in line and wondering if the person next to went and strapped a couple of pounds of TNT to his body. That's voter disinfrachisement! Yet, the Afghanis and Iraqis ignored those threats and voted. Those people wanted a better way of life. That reason alone more than justifies Bush's action to remove Saddam from Iraq and the Taliban from Afghanistan. I've also posted a link to the Kay report before, and I'll do so again. For the people here who don't think that Bush is the most evil thing since satan to come along, will find this report quietly alarming. It is possible for the more open minded members of this forun to "connect the dots" and figure out that Saddam either had WMDs (he did) or would have gotten right to work on them as soon as the U.N. sanctions were lifted. Saddam had to be stopped, and I'm not sorry that Bush put a stop to him.


Gutting our clean air policies:

There is some truth to this statement, and I'll outline some of the proposals that Bush has made. These are exerpts from the Detroit Free Press.

*Two controversial changes in a rule governing expansion of old coal-fired power plants, dramatically easing the rules requiring companies to install new pollution controls when they make big upgrades.

Basically, if a company wants to upgrade a coal fired electrical plant, no matter what it is, they have to install filters to keep trap pollutants.

*Two legal opinions ruling that carbon dioxide, which most scientists say is the chief cause of global warming, isn't a pollutant that the EPA can cite to regulate emissions from cars and power plants. The rulings reverse a Clinton administration legal opinion that carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

This one is the most interesting to me. You see, for every ton of carbon dioxide that is put in the air as a result of human activity, nature puts THIRTY tons of carbon dioxide into the air. So I have no problem getting rid of that little law.

* An EPA legal opinion declaring that it won't regulate ships' ballast water under the Clean Water Act, turning the issue over to the Coast Guard. The ballast water contains billions of tiny fish, plants and other foreign invasive species that scientists say are major threats to native species in American waters.

The Coast Guard gets landed with the job of regulating ballast water, not the EPA.

*An edict changing a 25-year-old rule to allow the sale of land tainted with toxic PCBs

Want to buy some cheap land?

*An order to Bureau of Land Management field offices in the West telling them to speed the process permitting drilling for oil and gas on federal lands.

They are going to drill for oil on federal land. Big deal.

*A new Office of Management and Budget policy governing scientific studies used to justify costly federal regulations. The policy orders more stringent peer review; environmentalists fear it will slow the enactment of environmental regulations.

The Bush Administration wants a second opinion on any new proposed environmental laws. Which I think is a good idea.


Tax cuts. This one was posted by BorgHunter. I get tired of having to post the same thing over and over again by the way. The top fifty percent of tax payers pay over 90% of the taxes. The top one percent of the taxpayers pay one third of the taxes. The bottom 50% of the taxpayers pay about 4% of the taxes. Bush has actually shifted the burden of taxation from the poor to the rich. I'll post the link from the Department of the Treasury so everyone can see who is paying what.

Last but not least, the cutting of some 150 social programs.

I think it's a damn good start, guerilla. I have to live on a budget, it's time the politicians live on one as well, dammit.







Taxes (http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm)

Carbon Dioxide (http://www.info-pollution.com/chill.htm)

The Kay report (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html)

Bush's Pollution Regulation Changes (http://www.freep.com/money/business/env9_20030909.htm)

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
This one is the most interesting to me. You see, for every ton of carbon dioxide that is put in the air as a result of human activity, nature puts THIRTY tons of carbon dioxide into the air. So I have no problem getting rid of that little law.
You don't really have that good of a grasp on global warming...the problem is not merely putting carbon dioxide in the air. Animals emit it and plants absorb it; it's an essential part of nature. All part of the carbon cycle. The problem is, with fossil fuels, we're taking carbon dioxide stored for millions of years and putting it back in the air. THAT is bad. That is what is probably altering the Earth's climate.

Borg,

I have this PDF file from Newsweek dated April 28, 1975 that states the Earth is COOLING!! Not warming, but cooling. Let me repeat that one more time, in 1975 scientists were convinced that the Earth was GETTING COLDER. Flash forward to 2005. Scientists are now convinced that the Earth is getting warmer, and it's all the fault of us lazy Americans who drive SUVs. You are going to have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical when people start saying that the Earth is warming.

And you are right, I really can't grasp the idea that nature produces 30 times the Carbon Dioxide than what man does, yet somehow, we are going to be responsible for all the global warming that is not happening. Maybe it's just me.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Borg,

I have this PDF file from Newsweek dated April 28, 1975 that states the Earth is COOLING!! Not warming, but cooling. Let me repeat that one more time, in 1975 scientists were convinced that the Earth was GETTING COLDER.
Good for you. In 1975, homosexuality was considered a mental disorder. We were wrong there, too.
Scientists are now convinced that the Earth is getting warmer, and it's all the fault of us lazy Americans who drive SUVs. You are going to have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical when people start saying that the Earth is warming.
Actually, it's the fault of whoever burns fossil fuels. Including me.
And you are right, I really can't grasp the idea that nature produces 30 times the Carbon Dioxide than what man does, yet somehow, we are going to be responsible for all the global warming that is not happening. Maybe it's just me.
Did you not read my post?

"Animals emit it and plants absorb it; it's an essential part of nature. All part of the carbon cycle. The problem is, with fossil fuels, we're taking carbon dioxide stored for millions of years and putting it back in the air. THAT is bad. That is what is probably altering the Earth's climate."

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
[B]*Two controversial changes in a rule governing expansion of old coal-fired power plants, dramatically easing the rules requiring companies to install new pollution controls when they make big upgrades.

Basically, if a company wants to upgrade a coal fired electrical plant, no matter what it is, they have to install filters to keep trap pollutants.

That was one of my favorite changes. The previous rule was designed by well-meaning types to get companies to upgrade the pollution controls on their plants. What actually happened is that the pollution controls were so expensive that the companies decided not to make any major upgrades. The net result was an increase in pollution because they were using old, inefficient, and worn out turbines that were only getting more worn out and inefficient. The change in the law actually reduces pollution because it allows the companies to upgrade to new more efficient and less polluting equipment. But all some people can see is the easing of the pollution controls requirement, thus making it another reason Republicans hate the environment. You see, the old way was better because it's more important to look like you care than it is to actually reduce pollution.

So you are saying that scientist were wrong in 1975 but are correct today? How is it that you can say that?

Also, things are stored and released by the Earth. Every hear of the phosphrous cycle? Hell, there is so much oil in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico that entire eco systems seem to live off of the stuff. Also, I just read that the ocean abosorbs half of the carbon dioxide emmitted by human activity.

I have a hard time believing, that human activity adding one thirtieth of all the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere is going to wreck the ecosystem. I think the amount of carbon dioxide added to atmoshpere would have to be greater then that.

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
Let's see if I can inject some common sense into this post. In response to some of Freethinker's and one of Guerilla's points.


Bush destroyed the suplus:

Well no, there was not billions of dollars laying around the treasury that nobody was using. It was a PROJECTED surplus.

This deficit can be surmounted.
Bullshit!!

Presently, we have a President who's used to someone (else) covering-his-tab! The Bush-approach to debt is....."Let someone ELSE pay the bills."!!!!! Leona Helmsley had to have been a great family-friend......or, icon!!

We had a President who knew how to get the job done (http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_32/b3641059.htm)..........and, he was GETTING it done (http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/index.html)........and, that's why the NeoCons got so PISSED-OFF, at him (http://www.kellysite.net/taxes.html)........he exposed their little scam!!!!

"Not only was the entire national deficit eliminated after raising taxes on the wealthy in 1993, but the economy grew so fast for the remainder of the decade that many conservative economists thought that the Fed should raise the prime interest rate in order to slow it down."

As-long-as the NeoCons are maximizing their (personal) profits, they don't CARE-about who's "paying the bills"........and, presently.......it's JAPAN & CHINA!!!!!!! (http://www.house.gov/genetaylor/floor07-16-03.htm)

July 16, 2003: "You borrowed $314 billion from foreign investors, and my buddy from Cuba will love this one, because you have borrowed $52.5 billion from Communist China. You have borrowed $122 billion from Japan. We now owe $1.3 trillion to foreign nations and investors, including $122 billion to Communist China. Tell me you are proud of that. Tell me the Republican majority is proud that we owe $122 billion to China and that $50 billion a year of American tax dollars go to pay interest on what we owe just to foreigners like the Communist Chinese. Our children will have to pay back China, Japan, our foreign creditors before they can even get back to paying what we should have paid all along to Social Security, Medicare and the retirement funds. They have to repay our debts before they ever repay theirs."

Keep those wallets out, SUCKERS (http://birthtax.org/)......there's a Bush in the Whitehouse......again!!!!!!!! :mad:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/bush_republicard.jpg

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So you are saying that scientist were wrong in 1975 but are correct today? How is it that you can say that?
Have you ever heard that scientific-research is an ON-GOING PROCESS (http://www.ucsusa.org/index.cfm)......that things change.......opinions change......as the tools are more-finely developed??????

Hell........back in the Dark Ages, the "scientists", of their time (i.e. clerics), blamed everything on EVIL!!!!!!! (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/andrew_white/Chapter13.html).......an old tactic that's seeing a rebirth, since the Moralists started petitioning the Whitehouse!!!

It's 2005. Try to catch-up with the Present!! :@@:

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
That is so wrong I dont even know where to begin. No sooner does the second term start, you are crititzing not only the president but his staff.

How convenient.......when one little piggy constitutes a STAFF!!!!!! (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,356034,00.html)

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2002/0210/rove1001.jpg

"O.K., George.......pull-the-pin on Iraq, now!!! Wall Street & our Defense-investors are WAITING!!!!!"

*

What did they ever do to you?

Ohhhhhhhhhh........everything's about you and me, huh????

How conservative (http://icasualties.org/oif/)........and, self-centered.......of you! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Originally posted by Darth Be'lal
So you are saying that scientist were wrong in 1975 but are correct today? How is it that you can say that?
How is it? They admitted it. Science comes up with new data all the time. Sometimes the data agrees with previous data, sometimes it's completely wrong. It's not infalliable. And I'm not saying with 100% certainty that the 1975 view is wrong...but that theory is borne out by the data.
Also, things are stored and released by the Earth. Every hear of the phosphrous cycle? Hell, there is so much oil in the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico that entire eco systems seem to live off of the stuff.
So we're taking it out and destroying ecosystems, is that what you're saying?
Also, I just read that the ocean abosorbs half of the carbon dioxide emmitted by human activity.
That very well could be. Doesn't change anything, though.
I have a hard time believing, that human activity adding one thirtieth of all the carbon dioxide found in the atmosphere is going to wreck the ecosystem. I think the amount of carbon dioxide added to atmoshpere would have to be greater then that.
Maybe when you show me your doctorate in Environmental Science, Biology, Meteorology, or any of that, I'll listen to your opinions on global warming. Until then, I'll listen to the guys with all the letters after their names, because they sure as hell know more than you. Just because you "have a hard time believing" something does not automatically make it false, especially if you're not an expert in the field...

Natural cycles with the sun and earth have been listed as being responsible for among other things, the rennaisance (sp?) (above average temperatures caused harvests far above average and a major improvement in living conditions in Europe) and the death of the Vikings in Greenland (below average temps killed off the crops and caused their harbors to freeze over). Why is it assumed that this time around it's humans?

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Natural cycles with the sun and earth have been listed as being responsible for among other things, the rennaisance (sp?) (above average temperatures caused harvests far above average and a major improvement in living conditions in Europe) and the death of the Vikings in Greenland (below average temps killed off the crops and caused their harbors to freeze over). Why is it assumed that this time around it's humans?
As a people, we humans always want to find a cause for everything. A scapegoat, if you will. Our activities make the most sense as that scapegoat.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
As a people, we humans always want to find a cause for everything. A scapegoat, if you will. Our activities make the most sense as that scapegoat.

I dunno, people like to blame people for everything too. Our activities have reached their zenith only recently. It's hard to believe that our relatively puny existance can be so amazingly destructive in such a short time.

Either way, I'd like to see at least someone scientific at least address the contribution or lack thereof of the normal cycles of heating and cooling.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I dunno, people like to blame people for everything too. Our activities have reached their zenith only recently. It's hard to believe that our relatively puny existance can be so amazingly destructive in such a short time.

Either way, I'd like to see at least someone scientific at least address the contribution or lack thereof of the normal cycles of heating and cooling.
SOLD!!!!!!! (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/health_and_environment/index.cfm)

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I'd like to see at least someone scientific at least address the contribution or lack thereof of the normal cycles of heating and cooling.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 scientists and concerned citizens. They make use of rigorous scientific analysis to try and make sense of what is happening to the environment.

UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Their statement called for the redirection of scientific research to adressing environmental and social problems.

After years of sicentific research, they have concluded that ---

"Burning fossil fuels for electricity generation is the single greatest source of air pollution in the United States. This process produces many important pollutants including nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, hydrocarbons, dust, soot, smoke, and other suspended matter.

Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons combine in the atmosphere to form ground-level ozone, the major constituent of smog. In addition, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are important constituents of acid rain, which destroys lakes and rivers, diminishes crop yields, and deteriorates buildings.

The burning of fossil fuels for electricity generation is the major source of carbon dioxide emissions, a primary contributor to global warming. Climate scientists predict that if carbon dioxide levels continue to increase, the planet will become warmer in the next century. Increases in temperature will most likely result in a variety of impacts including sea-level rise, extreme weather events, and an increased frequency of droughts in inland agricultural zones."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But then, the Rightwing faction in America---being fed a non-stop dose of anti-science propaganda --- will no doubt be able to dismiss out-of-hand all those scientific findings as nothing but a bunch of --- "smarty pants Cummyanist treehuggers who are out to destroy our wonderful country!"

Originally posted by Freethinker
But then, the Rightwing faction in America---being fed a non-stop dose of anti-science propaganda --- will no doubt be able to dismiss out-of-hand all those scientific findings as nothing but a bunch of --- "smarty pants Cummyanist treehuggers who are out to destroy our wonderful country!"

Funny how both you and Shaman quoted my question and posted answers that didn't address what I asked in the least. Which is, given that the temperature of the Earth has been proven to have varied up and down by several degrees long before the industrial revolution, with quite dramatic results on the climate, how can we conclude that the present temperature changes are the result of pollution and not a continuation of this normal cycle?

Feel free to insult me when you find the answer to that question. Until then, keep your condescension to yourself.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Funny how both you and Shaman quoted my question and posted answers that didn't address what I asked in the least. Which is, given that the temperature of the Earth has been proven to have varied up and down by several degrees long before the industrial revolution.......
I hate to make life difficult, for you, but........I'm gonna have to see your numbers........seeing-as-how we've only kept long-term info (concerning the weather), for the last hundered-years-or-so.......

Lemme guess. Your relying on The Old Farmer's Almanac (http://www.almanac.com/).......which has a longer history of tracking weather-patterns, than any official, scientific-sources. :rolleyes:

Great rhetoric, from you, though!! :p

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
Great rhetoric, from you, though!! :p

Let's see, written history, descriptions of crop records, ice cores taken in the arctic, growth rings in trees. Oh, and you've heard of the ice age, right? Shall I go on?

If my question is so completely ridiculous, it should be easy for you to refute. So have at it.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Shall I go on?
Why should you have to when it's Sham man you're debating, and not any of the other intelligent liberals who post here regularly?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Why should you have to when it's Sham man you're debating, and not any of the other intelligent liberals who post here regularly?
Yeah..........you NeoCon-wannabes really tackled the fact Piggy Rove is Lil' Dumbya's puppeteer!!!!!

All together, now, wannabes!!!!

DANCE LIKE DUMBYA!!!!!!!!!


http://www.bartcop.com/budance.gihttp://www.bartcop.com/budance.gihttp://www.bartcop.com/budance.gihttp://www.bartcop.com/budance.gihttp://www.bartcop.com/budance.gi

You're truly entertaining, Sham. I genuinely enjoy reading some of your posts. You've got to be one of the most whacked out people to have ever posted here at Allforums. Freethinker, and 500lbguerilla don't have shit on you.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Let's see, written history, descriptions of crop records, ice cores taken in the arctic, growth rings in trees. Oh, and you've heard of the ice age, right? Shall I go on?

If my question is so completely ridiculous, it should be easy for you to refute. So have at it.

I think you're probably right Lionel. We really don't have enough data to conclusively say that CO2 emissions from cars and power plants contribute to global warming, but I still think there's plenty of reasons to want to limit their emission nonetheless.

Volcanic activity can apparently be a much bigger short-term influence on the climate.

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/history/1816.htm

Originally posted by The Praetorian
You're truly entertaining, Sham. I genuinely enjoy reading some of your posts. You've got to be one of the most whacked out people to have ever posted here at Allforums. Freethinker, and 500lbguerilla don't have shit on you.
It's a gift! :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
but I still think there's plenty of reasons to want to limit their emission nonetheless.

Oh absolutely. And I'm not saying the concerned scientists are wrong, I just want more info or at least something that doesn't seem to be the result of a foregone conclusion.

Originally posted by Mr. Shaman
It's a gift! :D

Is that one of those gifts that keeps on giving? :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Is that one of those gifts that keeps on giving? :D
:D

You gotta good sense of humor, Vile. :)