Enviormentalist RFK shows his true lunacy... - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Botnst · #16 09-02-2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Better read Kyoto. The estimate is preventing a .4 degrees rise in temp in the next 100 years. Explain how signing Kyoto in the last 5 years would make a difference. Also explain why the number of strong hurricanes has been decreasing every decade for about the last 50 years.

Gaia would then love and nurture us, her adoring children. Kumbayah.

Bot

peragro · #17 09-02-2005, 12:50 AM

ok, folks... You decide:

http://www.junkscience.com/index.html

RK, Jr., while having that earnest puppy dog look which I'm sure causes some to believe he knows what he's talking about, doesn't know crapola about environmental science.

luvrpgrl · #18 09-02-2005, 01:12 AM

I heard RFK jr. interviewed, he was very weak when the interviewer challenged him on his assertations.

RFK jr. called on measures to make people drive SUV's less, yet the interviewer pointed out that RFK jr had come to the interview in a private jet. His excuse?? It wasnt his jet. bwahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhaha

Ok, Im gonna go get an SUV for my son and drive it, hell, it aint mine ! I think Kerry used the same excuse. When he wanted to be the "sporting guy" in an SUV he had pics taken and exploited, but when it came to enviormental issues, he proclaimed, "it isnt my SUV, I just borrowed it".

Kennedys and Kerry also opposed having windmills installed near their vacation property as it would destroy the beauty of the scenery.

Bunch of two faced fukking hypocrites.

cmac2012 · #19 09-02-2005, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmerich

Better read Kyoto. The estimate is preventing a .4 degrees rise in temp in the next 100 years. Explain how signing Kyoto in the last 5 years would make a difference. Also explain why the number of strong hurricanes has been decreasing every decade for about the last 50 years.

I wouldn't be surprised if we find ourselves taking measures way stronger than Kyoto, one day, cuzzin' we half to cousin.

cmac2012 · #20 09-02-2005, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Gaia would then love and nurture us, her adoring children. Kumbayah.

Watch out Bot, your face gonna stick like that.

cmac2012 · #21 09-02-2005, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

I heard RFK jr. interviewed, he was very weak when the interviewer challenged him on his assertations.

RFK jr. called on measures to make people drive SUV's less, yet the interviewer pointed out that RFK jr had come to the interview in a private jet. His excuse?? It wasnt his jet. bwahahhahahahahhahahahahahhahahahhaha

Ok, Im gonna go get an SUV for my son and drive it, hell, it aint mine ! I think Kerry used the same excuse. When he wanted to be the "sporting guy" in an SUV he had pics taken and exploited, but when it came to enviormental issues, he proclaimed, "it isnt my SUV, I just borrowed it".

Kennedys and Kerry also opposed having windmills installed near their vacation property as it would destroy the beauty of the scenery.

Bunch of two faced fukking hypocrites.

Those windmill are uglier than, well, they're ugly. I don't blame them and others for not wanting them out on the horizon. There are places where they're much more appropriate and welcome.

peragro · #22 09-02-2005, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

I wouldn't be surprised if we find ourselves taking measures way stronger than Kyoto, one day, cuzzin' we half to cousin.

ok, Old Man, you claim to have an open mind. You realize that the Kyoto treaty has cost about $80Billion since it got going earlier this year. For that money you get a potential GMT (gross mean temperature) reduction of 0.000843381 °C by the year 2050. If it's allowed to go on all the way to 2050 it will cost 1/2 of the total GNP of the world for a GMT reduction of 0.000843381 °C. Which, by the way cannot even be measured with any instrumentation we have. It's a bogus treaty made up by special interest groups. Do you think RK wants to actually work at something or spend his time jetting around to Aspen and Mass. being an "environmentalist"?

luvrpgrl · #23 09-02-2005, 01:32 AM

Actually, I find CMAC surprisingly open minded about alot of issues.

However, on the middle east, terrorists, and bombing school buses, I will not, nor ever concede to negotiate with terrorists who are doing that. If you give them one iota of credibility while they are doing it, it just re enforces them and others to do it more.

cmac2012 · #24 09-02-2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

ok, folks... You decide:

http://www.junkscience.com/index.html

RK, Jr., while having that earnest puppy dog look which I'm sure causes some to believe he knows what he's talking about, doesn't know crapola about environmental science.

Surprise, surprise, I disagree strongly. I've heard several of his speeches on the radio and his grasp of the topic is sound. Too bad about his voice. You've heard him speak? Or have you heard Hannity and Limbaugh running him down.

His work on helping to protect clean water is solid. There is a stong current in Conservative circles these days to regard any notion or attempt to reduce environmental damage as whimpy, weak, wussy, (must look in thesaurus under "w"). Some of these folks won't be happy til the earth looks like that planet in Star Wars 2, the one Samuel Jackson was hanging out on, which was covered with one big city. Except for a few big ranches in Wyoming and Texas.

Life is not an accident. Requires water and oxygen. Good planets are hard to find.

cmac2012 · #25 09-02-2005, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luvrpgrl

Actually, I find CMAC surprisingly open minded about alot of issues.

However, on the middle east, terrorists, and bombing school buses, I will not, nor ever concede to negotiate with terrorists who are doing that. If you give them one iota of credibility while they are doing it, it just re enforces them and others to do it more.

Well I'm liking you better all the time as well (whoulda thought?!) but I'm not talking about negotiating necessarily. I'm thinking soul searching. Unilateral if need be.

peragro · #26 09-02-2005, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmac2012

Surprise, surprise, I disagree strongly. I've heard several of his speeches on the radio and his grasp of the topic is sound. Too bad about his voice. You've heard him speak? Or have you heard Hannity and Limbaugh running him down.

His work on helping to protect clean water is solid. There is a stong current in Conservative circles these days to regard any notion or attempt to reduce environmental damage as whimpy, weak, wussy, (must look in thesaurus under "w"). Some of these folks won't be happy til the earth looks like that planet in Star Wars 2, the one Samuel Jackson was hanging out on, which was covered with one big city. Except for a few big ranches in Wyoming and Texas.

Life is not an accident. Requires water and oxygen. Good planets are hard to find.

I don't really like Hannity & Colmes. Hannity is always repeating the same thing over and over and I feel sorry for Colmes 'cause it seems he always has to take the opposite position to Hannity and I really don't think he believes half the stuff he says anyway, his heart just really isn't in it. I'm at work most weekdays and get no am reception in my building, hence no Rush Limbaugh, besides, I'm working. I usually don't have time to listen to the radio.

I think what you are confusing as a "strong current" is a desire not to enact some stupid law which has no foundation in science or reason. Sort of like the ban on Saccharin or the poor science behind the ban on DDT, or the lack of timber industry in Southern Ca.,(it was soooo much better to just let all that stuff burn a couple of years ago), or the Kyoto protocol in this case.

cmac2012 · #27 09-02-2005, 02:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

I don't really like Hannity & Colmes. Hannity is always repeating the same thing over and over and I feel sorry for Colmes 'cause it seems he always has to take the opposite position to Hannity and I really don't think he believes half the stuff he says anyway, his heart just really isn't in it. I'm at work most weekdays and get no am reception in my building, hence no Rush Limbaugh, besides, I'm working. I usually don't have time to listen to the radio.

I think what you are confusing as a "strong current" is a desire not to enact some stupid law which has no foundation in science or reason. Sort of like the ban on Saccharin or the poor science behind the ban on DDT, or the lack of timber industry in Southern Ca.,(it was soooo much better to just let all that stuff burn a couple of years ago), or the Kyoto protocol in this case.

OK, sorry. Not liking Hannity puts you back on my good side.

The stuff that causes the fires, the rapidly spreading ones anyway, is brush, not big trees. There's no money to be had in harvesting brush. I'll agree there is some truth to the other stuff. I maintain though, there is an attitude that anyone who thinks that some resources are best left un-exploited is a lazy fool, end of story. Consume, consume, rip, destroy, shove it in the furnace.

cmac2012 · #28 09-02-2005, 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peragro

ok, Old Man, you claim to have an open mind. You realize that the Kyoto treaty has cost about $80Billion since it got going earlier this year. For that money you get a potential GMT (gross mean temperature) reduction of 0.000843381 °C by the year 2050. If it's allowed to go on all the way to 2050 it will cost 1/2 of the total GNP of the world for a GMT reduction of 0.000843381 °C. Which, by the way cannot even be measured with any instrumentation we have. It's a bogus treaty made up by special interest groups. Do you think RK wants to actually work at something or spend his time jetting around to Aspen and Mass. being an "environmentalist"?

I claimed to have an open mind? I don't recall that.

RK has his problems, no doubt. Being born rich will do that. The stories I could tell you about the mega rich I've built houses for -- most of 'em anyway -- not really connected with reality, sort of a blind assurance that the steady stream of money and stuff will keep on a' comin' in perpetuity.

Some of RK's understanding of env. issues is OK, IMO.

Kyoto is flawed. It doesn't go nearly far enough. Not that any treaty would ever really accomplish that kind of thing. It'd be like trying to keep rats out of a landfill. Greed, desire runs deep.

It's probably too late to stop anyway. Maybe the huge surge in population since the beginning of the age of steam and the industrial rev. in general has been a big build up to Armegeddon. Who knows.

One thing I suspect is that petroleum will indeed run out, and sooner than we think, as China and India move closer and closer to our levels of energy use. I should say, easily recoverable petroleum. After that, we can strip mine tar sands wherever they can be found. Way less efficient. Takes a lot of energy to get the oil out of the sand. I understand the brew is higher in carbon as well. Strip mined land is...whoo-eee, it ain't pretty.

(continued)

cmac2012 · #29 09-02-2005, 03:01 AM

Pt. 2

Then there's increased coal mining, and converting it to use in autos somehow. Ya'ever heard of coal slurry ponds breaking their earthen dams and covering villages?

Sort of like a small version of current Nahlins but much, much nastier per square inch.

Ya heard of underground coal mining where they go through and slice out a sliver and get out of the way quick and just let the land subside? (over simplified description) It's the next big thing apparently and the only problem is that land and buildings gradually sink a few feet. Throws the pool table way off level.

And my favorite is shale oil or is it oil shale? Lot of it in the Rockies, I hear. Oil bearing rock. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but my fear is mountains and places like Utah's red rocks areas will get strip mined, ground up, and left in piles.

peragro: "Your point sir??"

My point is that a continuance of our industrial lifestyle as far as the eye can see will be a disaster for life on this planet, one way or t'other. There's lots of problems right now, IMO, such as obeses kiddies (and adults), way too much noise, the mind numbing waste of time behind the wheel in stop and go traffic...

It's (the industrial rev.) looked good to me for most of my life and I don't blame anyone for having it embraced it in the past. Who knew?

So what's my brilliant solution? Lots, lots more physical work, living much closer to where you work, learning as quickly as possible how to grow fuel crops (biodiesel, ethanol) efficiently w/o ruining the soil, and more you probably don't want to hear about.

My fear is, the day will come, when we run out or run real low on certain things we cannot get along without now, and people are going to be angrily demanding the govt. come and do something real quick like to help them, kinda like the desperate people in NOLA are doing right now.

Somehow, someway, I don't want to be one of those folks.