Global Warming is a Hoax

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Industrialization takes up too much space? Can you see around the empty buses the welfare statists demand that we put out there to "ease congestion"? Yeah, those buses that are actually causing traffic to come to a standstill.

Safety anyone? A semi truck would run over your Prius like a soda can. The American made SUV, on the other hand, gives its occupants a fighting chance.

Buses tend to stick to main roads where I'm from, not pootle around narrow residential zones. Also they're private bus companies, it's up to them if they want to run their business inefficiently, and I've got better things to do than make a note of empty buses to help them along. Are you saying you would eliminate public transport to make room for cars? Intriguing! A non-obvious solution for a non-obvious problem plus it has the benefit of never having been tried before.

Also, welfare statists demanding empty buses? First I've heard of it, I'll keep my ears cocked.

I'm in a Golf GTi anyway, so I've probably got enough power to speed away from those "imminent squashed motor" situations - and I don't use it for the commute. Also, in Manchester, buses have their own lanes which you can't go in during peak times, so they don't interfere so much. This means more people use them, so everyone's a winner. Cool beans.

[ajhaveri]

Global Warming a hoax? I think not. This was from FoxNews last Wednesday. If you don't trust the source just do search Google News. Pretty crazy stuff

"Satellite images reveal that a large chunk of the Wilkins ice shelf fell into the ocean sometime around the end of February, suggesting that climate change could be causing it to disintegrate faster than scientists had predicted.

The 160-square-mile piece, about seven times the size of Manhattan, had been attached to Antarctica for hundreds, or maybe even 1,500 years."

[cldnails]

Originally Posted by ajhaveri

Global Warming a hoax? I think not. This was from FoxNews last Wednesday. If you don't trust the source just do search Google News. Pretty crazy stuff

I'm sorry, I can't help but laugh at this, because it's pointed at as PROOF, by those who fall for the hoax. However, whenever we show record cold temperatures and a healing ozone it's not even mentioned or brushed off as not important.

I thought everyone went through the class on Earth Cycles in grade school?

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by ajhaveri

Global Warming a hoax? I think not. This was from FoxNews last Wednesday. If you don't trust the source just do search Google News. Pretty crazy stuff

Joke, or are you serious?

[ajhaveri]

Do you have any links that show record cold temperatures offsetting record high temperatures? For me the question isn't whether this is part a standard process - yes of course, the Earth periodically cools and warms - its whether we are exacerbating the effects of the cycle. I tend to believe that we are. Water vapor produced by airplanes has been show to materially impact surface temperatures. I'd be happy to provide a link to the study.

[cldnails]

Certainly, I can see how it would be missed...since most of the popular social networking sites are filled with flaiming liberals hell bent on burying anything that may contradict their own projection of self worth. (insert breath)

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wcstates.htm
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/11/fl...peratures.html

And my personal favorite.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/artic...NTARY/10575140

These are just a few links I pulled up, but there is plenty more evidence out there, if you look for yourself.

[ajhaveri]

Thanks for the link links cldnails. I'll read through them. Here's a link to an article that you might find interesting.

The final issue involves whether this ‘natural greenhouse gases scenario’ is realistic. Broecker and Stocker demonstrate that massive anthropogenic emissions prior to the industrial era are not plausible. If Ruddiman is correct, that is, if glacial inception was indeed avoided by humans, it must be understood that the ocean exerted a positive feedback on the anthropogenic perturbation. This implies that humans changed the system’s trajectory at the time it was about to enter glacial inception, thereby triggering a chain of feedbacks that sent the system into a long interglacial. We leave open that question, which has potentially large implications on ouru nderstanding of climate system dynamics and its response to orbital forcing.

http://equake.geos.vt.edu/acourses/3...os-climate.pdf

[John Scott]

Also they're private bus companies

Not in the US. In fact, the US has a habit of banning efficient private mass transit in favor of incompetent public mass transit.

Are you saying you would eliminate public transport to make room for cars?

No, I'm saying I'd eliminate your socialist, incompetent, tax-money funded public transportation.

Also, welfare statists demanding empty buses? First I've heard of it, I'll keep my ears cocked.

I thought you were a news junkie, and here you are not aware of a fundamental position of the Liberals. Some of your freak friends want to ban private car ownership.

[Rankenstein]

Leave my freak friends out of this!

Banning privately owned cars is a strange step - I can understand banning them from an area (city centre), or on certain days, perhaps. Or perhaps certain types of cars - though in practice that's unworkable - what if a farmer with valid reason for a huge SUV has to visit a store in town and they tell him no?

But an outright ban on privately owned cars? That would cripple worker mobility. Can't be a good idea. See, I'm all for capitalism, it's just that in a capitalist system, you have to stand over the bosses with a cudgel to make sure they don't rob the the paying customers blind. Whereas in a communist system you have to stand over the bosses with a cudgel to make sure they don't rob the workers blind.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Leave my freak friends out of this!

Banning privately owned cars is a strange step - I can understand banning them from an area (city centre), or on certain days, perhaps. Or perhaps certain types of cars - though in practice that's unworkable - what if a farmer with valid reason for a huge SUV has to visit a store in town and they tell him no?

But an outright ban on privately owned cars? That would cripple worker mobility. Can't be a good idea. See, I'm all for capitalism, it's just that in a capitalist system, you have to stand over the bosses with a cudgel to make sure they don't rob the the paying customers blind. Whereas in a communist system you have to stand over the bosses with a cudgel to make sure they don't rob the workers blind.

LOL! I love watching how your collectivist mind works. Decent folk, when asked what they think about banning private car ownership, say "what the hell? What right do I have to impinge upon the freedoms of others?"

You, and your collectivist friends, say, "what rights? We get to decide what freedoms people get and what they don't. Screw freedom; let's trash that to create a collectivist utopia"

[cldnails]

What I think is terrible is that this is the first step to banning private ownership. If they can ban SUV's, then big trucks, then 4-door cars, then soon your lil Prius is gonna be in trouble too. The same thing is happening in the tobacco industry right now and if you give them an inch, they will take a mile.

[Rankenstein]

Apparently, there are no possible issues that could affect a person's 'right' (a laughable notion in this context) to drive whatever they want, wherever they want. Are there no circumstances you can think of where this might be debatable?

Is it a person's right to be able to drive a ton of metal around at any speed they want?

Is it a person's right to drive a vehicle emitting provably brain-damaging gases?

The answer is no, of course. Obviously, there are some limits we are willing to accept - you can't drive around the highways in a tank, can you?

Apparently, trying to figure out ways of providing mass transit at affordable cost for millions of citizens, many of whom may well not actually want to own a car (dear god! they must be LIBERALS!) and helping alleviate congestion, reduce pollution from vehicles and improve commute times - all this clearly must be a communist socialist plot.

Thank god for people who are willing to stand up for their right to drive whatever they want, wherever the hell they want, because they are the true heroes. Can I have your autograph John?

[John Scott]

Apparently, there are no possible issues that could affect a person's 'right' (a laughable notion in this context) to drive whatever they want, wherever they want. Are there no circumstances you can think of where this might be debatable?

Where do rights emanate from? Answer that and you'll have your answer.

Is it a person's right to be able to drive a ton of metal around at any speed they want?

Certainly, if the property is there own.

Is it a person's right to drive a vehicle emitting provably brain-damaging gases?

Yes, as a matter of fact. I don't know of a single nation where cars are illegal.

The answer is no, of course.

Huh?

Obviously, there are some limits we are willing to accept - you can't drive around the highways in a tank, can you?

Some limits to what you're willing to accept? Who asked you to decide what you will accept? If you don't want to drive cars, don't drive them. Don't try to force your sick morality on others.

Apparently, trying to figure out ways of providing mass transit at affordable cost for millions of citizens, many of whom may well not actually want to own a car (dear god! they must be LIBERALS!) and helping alleviate congestion, reduce pollution from vehicles and improve commute times - all this clearly must be a communist socialist plot.

Not really an intellectual, are ya?

Communist? Close. Socialist? Close. Both of those systems have something in common - collectivism. Denial of individual rights in favor of collectivism.

"Trying to think of ways of providing mass transit"? Is that a euphemism for "tax the hell out of gas, roads, auto registration and use the funds to implement socialist wealth re-distribution programs"?

Huh. Let's see. Wealth re-distribution. Yes, that's a core socialist and communist ideal. So, yeah, it's a "duh" level observation to say that your socialist plot is indeed a socialist plot.

What are you going to ask next? If water is wet?

Thank god for people who are willing to stand up for their right to drive whatever they want, wherever the hell they want, because they are the true heroes.

Amen brother. Death to socialists.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

"Trying to think of ways of providing mass transit"? Is that a euphemism for "tax the hell out of gas, roads, auto registration and use the funds to implement socialist wealth re-distribution programs"?

Huh. Let's see. Wealth re-distribution. Yes, that's a core socialist and communist ideal. So, yeah, it's a "duh" level observation to say that your socialist plot is indeed a socialist plot.

What are you going to ask next? If water is wet?

Taxes? No. If I was a dictator I'd start off with park and ride. You get to park your car for cheaper than you'd get to park it in the city - I'd be saving you money and making your working environment (and living environment) a hell of a lot more pleasant and safer. Pedestrianised city centres. Essential service vehicles and deliveries only. Start work on conveyor belt sidewalks for a futuristic take on city life. The park and ride would pay for it all - and you'd save a heck of a lot of money on parking.

Wow, wacky! Saving you money and improving your environment - I'm crazy, me. And the bonus is, it's not socialist! I get to live!

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

Taxes? No. If I was a dictator I'd start off with park and ride. You get to park your car for cheaper than you'd get to park it in the city - I'd be saving you money and making your working environment (and living environment) a hell of a lot more pleasant and safer. Pedestrianised city centres. Essential service vehicles and deliveries only. Start work on conveyor belt sidewalks for a futuristic take on city life. The park and ride would pay for it all - and you'd save a heck of a lot of money on parking.

Wow, wacky! Saving you money and improving your environment - I'm crazy, me. And the bonus is, it's not socialist! I get to live!

Provide free bicycles at the park and ride. No need for power generation to make the conveyor belts work and the riders lunges act as air purifiers to boot. And you would end up with a fitter population making less demands on the NHS.

And on a personal note, the sight of young ladies cycling always gives me pleasure.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Provide free bicycles at the park and ride.

Free? Paid for by aliens from Mars? "Free" doesn't exist. Somebody has to pay for them.

[John Scott]

Essential service vehicles and deliveries only.

What if I drove my car in there? Your socialist cops would take my individualist car and throw individualist ass in jail, wouldn't they?

Totalitarian morality legislating social engineering fascism.

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

What if I drove my car in there? Your socialist cops would take my individualist car and throw individualist ass in jail, wouldn't they?

Totalitarian morality legislating social engineering fascism.

You want to drive your car into a pedestrianised shopping area? Why leave it there? Why not just drive the carinto the shop and have done with it? Ah, that's because the stupid capitalist shop owners would impound your car too. So limits are OK up to a point, but beyond that point (whichever point it may be you have set in your head on that day) its time to start rooting out the collectivists, reds under the bed?

Do you blame socialists for 'keep off the grass' signs? It might be them up to no good, you can never tell with limits to personal freedom (like the freedom to drive on the grass in the park, which is evidently enshrined somewhere in the individualists Bill of Rights).

[John Scott]

You want to drive your car into a pedestrianised shopping area?

Oh. I'm sorry. You did say that "Essential service vehicles and deliveries only" would have access, so I figured there would be roads. I guess those deliveries just run over pedestrians?

[Rankenstein]

Originally Posted by John Scott

Oh. I'm sorry. You did say that "Essential service vehicles and deliveries only" would have access, so I figured there would be roads. I guess those deliveries just run over pedestrians?

They go to the ramps at the back of the shops just like normal.

I forgot to add concrete bollards to my little scheme - there's always some determined individualists trying to buck the system - they'll just end up like those guys who try to follow behind the buses on their routes in Manchester city centre - looking silly with their cars perched on the automatic bollards. Those guys couldn't accept sensible rules either - it conflicted with their right to drive wherever they want. But they finished up on youtube being mocked by me.

Funnily enough, they had to put those automatic bollards in because they knew that some clown would ignore the bright red warning signs, LED lights, big 'no entry except for buses' notices and all manner of other 'don't go in here' messages. Some people just can't be trusted. Tsk.