What Do We Think About Climate Change

Mark there is no shackling of the economy necessary. If we were to remove the bribe riddled shyster politicians from orifice that seem to have a stranglehold on our country and replace them with decent hard working folks we could have this place back on track in no time.

we could be leading in the technologies of the future rather than struggling to keep afloat
were is that free market thinking of yours
in a truly free market we would have escaped our dependence on the oil and gas industry long ago just like a few other countries have. Who are doing quite nicely I might add as has been pointed out.
of course that wont be happening any time soon given the PR firms like the heartland institute that perpetuate a corrupt system

cheers
B

 

My wife likes it.

 

road apples

 

When California stops being a hypocritical state and actually boycotts all things Arizona, you will be able to afford a thesaurus, but you will have to read it by candlelight.

 

funny thing is I can kinda appreciate where Arizona is coming from

 

Boston,

Is that you second from the right.....

 

It should say 982, to be accurate.

 

"...not on the topic of the science of global warming it doesn't really belong on this thread" - Just like a progressive to obfuscate when they are cornered. The thread title is "What do we think about climate change". If it were about science, it would be a topic reserved for you and "Overunity" Quark on one side and Jim and Guillermo on the other. You've got a strong suit, chemistry, and you would have me butt heads with you on that? I've got a strong suit, and it is "brake application". I told you that I am not willing to devote the fortnight-minus to learn the chemistry of this topic as the science is already complete. Why don't you argue the chemistry with, say, Fred Ebert http://www.koaradio.com/podcast/theprofessor.xml ? Go ahead and call his show and change his mind. I am here to apply the brakes on people like you - If I sometime fall behind and people who know say, "****, he's got a point", I'll get out a book. In the meantime, until there is science proving man causes GW, the topic is entirely about politics. I suggest that you, with a bit of a background in science, shud be offended by the non-science of AGW. At the very least, the politics surrounding the evolution of science into something that can be decided by consensus debases all supposed scientist's credibility and shud be of concern.
"Would (you) care to start another thread on (the) topic (of Global Warming Science)?"

Bos, would you refresh my memory of just what countries "escaped dependence on the oil and gas industry long ago?"

 

That is funny tho, Bos.

 

no Im not in that one
but the guy on the far right is Geronimo and I think this is the only picture of him

might be sitting bull but I'd have to go look it up

sooooooo
just out of curiosity what was I cornered on again cause I dont recall that part of the conversation

was it on the oceans that cant be responsible for the rising levels of co2 or was it on the glassiers that are all melting, the temps rising, co2 being shown through mas balance to be directly attributed to burning fossil fuels or might that have been that bit about temp driving vapor and not the other way around

kinda curious as to exactly what I was cornered on Mark

 

No, you just said that some countries had escaped their dependance on gas and oil. I would like us to duplicate that, if feasible. What countries and how did they do it?
There are many pics of Geronimo (him, in that pic). Must be Sitting Bull with not many. I like Quanah Parker (not in that pic, but oft photoed/never defeated)

 

More Geronimo:

 

No photos of Crazy Horse, but this sketch was made during an interview.:

 

Several photos of Sitting Bull exist. Here is one taken before the Dakota Territory was split north and south.:

 

Chief Joseph: