• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama administration formally declares danger of carbon emissions

hazlnut said:
Wrong. False. Show me the emails that said that.
Click to expand...

Look for them yourself.

It was shown that the only way to get Mann's "Hockey Stick" was to deliberately process the data in a manner that would produce a hockey stick for random data anyway. That's a called fraud.

Hmmm.....Mann....Mann....where have I heard that name lately...oh, yeah, Mann is the guy that was instructing others in methods to "hide the decline".

AGW is a fraud, you're in denial.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Look for them yourself.

It was shown that the only way to get Mann's "Hockey Stick" was to deliberately process the data in a manner that would produce a hockey stick for random data anyway. That's a called fraud.

Hmmm.....Mann....Mann....where have I heard that name lately...oh, yeah, Mann is the guy that was instructing others in methods to "hide the decline".

AGW is a fraud, you're in denial.
Click to expand...

^^^^ This pretty much sums it up.....;)
Al Gore's inexplicable cancellation of his appearance at the summit sure does raise an eyebrow.....
How can you miss an event that you've nutured when it is so close to fruition?....:confused:
It's as bad as a partial birth abortion, IMO.....:shock:
 
phattonez said:
The same reason they didn't build a decent mass transit system in Los Angeles--it would have been too efficient and cost effective.
Click to expand...

Ah...no. The Green Line ends, after taking an airport avoiding curve, some three miles from the airport. And that was, as stated, because goonions prevented the implementation of a rational mass transit exchange at the airport. So now the airport is serviced by goonion taxis, goonion bus drivers, and over-priced parking, and the Green Line Ends near the corner of Marine Avenue and Inglewood Boulevard in Redondo Beach. But it does have cool looking ray-gun looking things on top of the station that used to rotate.


phattonez said:
Because we spent so much on a freeway system and decided to spread out our development. It was the fault of city planning, not some shadowy-organization.
Click to expand...

No, you're just wrong there. The Green Line has a high bridge over Aviation Boulevard, and they could easily have laid the route directly to the LAX terminal, even put it underground, just like Pacific Coast Highway ducks under the LAX runways.

The "failure" of city planning was the success of goonion lobbyests. The City of Syracuse and it's Hancock Airport has suffered under similar damage by low tech, small brained special interest thug groups.

phattonez said:
Because the Green Line was planned during the Cold War and El Segundo was a major job center because of aerospace engineering. Unfortunately, while it was being planned/built, the Soviet Union collapsed. Who knew?
Click to expand...

You're not trying to argue that it simply wasn't possible to intelligently design the Green Line to stop at both LAX and Space Park, are you, so they picked the one aerospace company over the MAJOR international airport hub?

Be for real.

Do not deny the power of the gooion force, Luke.

phattonez said:
When people think of nuclear, they think of bombs.
Click to expand...

That's because they're ignorant.

Ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote.
 
Partisan said:
^^^^ This pretty much sums it up.....;)
Al Gore's inexplicable cancellation of his appearance at the summit sure does raise an eyebrow.....
How can you miss an event that you've nutured when it is so close to fruition?....:confused:
It's as bad as a partial birth abortion, IMO.....:shock:
Click to expand...

But the Frantic Denial Phase is always interesting. Look at the Flaming Lefties running around, glaring at the sky and demanding that it fall down NOW!

They did the same thing when Nuclear Winter was finally dismissed as a hoax, too.
 
Very hard to show you the proof when all of the raw data has been deleted. So it will take another 15 to 20 years to duplicate the research to determine whether or not the conclusion of AGW is valid. Of course all of the data was 'on paper' although the publication in the late 90s and further analysis continued up through 2003 and beyond - no data was ever put on a computer for analysis. All analysis was by hand? No computers were used? Give me a break.

The first thing a true scientist does is insure the survival of his/her raw data. It is the basis of everything that the scientist is working on. And yet every single one of the AGW crowd has claimed that the raw data has been destroyed. Of course the e-mails that were released to the public discussing such data destruction were all 'hypothetical' discussions that had nothing to do with the actual destruction of the raw data. Any scientist would look at this and toss out all conclusions that were drawn from the missing data.

Yes, technically AGW is still a valid theory until proven wrong. But it is still a THEORY - until raw data that is made available to the public and other scientists proves it valid or not. But we now have to wait for 15 to 20 years to build up the data again . . .
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
NO, the real reason no one discusses nuclear power is that the lunatic fringe majority of Democrats have their heads rammed up their nether sphincter.
Click to expand...
What is a 'fringe majority', A Dog?

th_AnimatedLaughingFrog.gif
animated_gif_033_kiara_laughing.gif
laughingchimp.gif
t239137051_34435_7.gif
AnimatedDogLaughing.gif
 
Last edited:
hazlnut said:
Hey, Daddy-o, who invented Cap and Trade? The Republicans under Reagan.
Click to expand...
Uh, no.

It was some guy named "Thomas Crocker" back when Lyndon Johnson was president.

And he thinks it's a horrible idea to apply to "global warming" btw.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Whip Comes Down is no longer part of this discussion.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Don't forget 3-Mile Island. Too many are too afraid that it will happen again.
Click to expand...

Nobody was hurt at TMI, damage was limited, fault was poor operator training, the actual technology is safe.
 
Ethereal said:
Don't know what they have to be afraid of, since we don't use that technology anymore.
Click to expand...

actually, we do....nearly all nuclear reactors operating today use it....there are only 2 types used for the most part, BWR and PWR, being boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors, next generation reactors will be better and safer, but we are not there yet...
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
actually, we do....nearly all nuclear reactors operating today use it....there are only 2 types used for the most part, BWR and PWR, being boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors, next generation reactors will be better and safer, but we are not there yet...
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue more nuke plants. The UK and France build them all the time.
 
American said:
Doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue more nuke plants. The UK and France build them all the time.
Click to expand...

I am pro nuclear, very pro nuclear....It is the ONLY true alternative to coal. Wind and solar are at best supplements, and never will be alternatives...
 
UtahBill said:
actually, we do....nearly all nuclear reactors operating today use it....there are only 2 types used for the most part, BWR and PWR, being boiling water reactors and pressurized water reactors, next generation reactors will be better and safer, but we are not there yet...
Click to expand...

Nuclear Power Plants today are one of the safest. What happened at TMI was a combination of multiple mechanical and human failures and many lessons were learned from that so the same failure would be highly improbable of happening again.

That was with older nuclear power plant technology. The newer ones are even more safe. You have more chance of a failure at a chemical plant than you do a nuclear one.

I would support having a nuclear power plant near where I am at in a heart beat.
 
Strucky said:
Meanwhile as these proposals are put into place,millions of additional workers will lose they're jobs including me.
Click to expand...
why? why will you lose your job?
 
Have you heard about all the jets, limos, posh hotels and other luxuries being procured and used in Denmark? There ought to be a taxpayer bootprint on Obama's ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom