quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Ja, Merc, pragmatics must also consider the downsides, and overall I agree that alot of stuff off the mark is being caviled about here and elsewhere, but I am a clean air and water guy, (if you remember your outlook on the corps of engineers 'pork' for the waterways, and your subsequent post re engineers:New Orleans (which I am still trying to resolve what appears to be opposite stances) since I use the shit alot, and am rather accustomed to retain that stuff in my lifestyle, in fact, I consider it a need, not a want

Ron - I'm guaranteed clean water and air when Hilliary's check clears for the $100 Billion? Where's that in the fine print? Where's the abdication to all current clean air/water policies if the religious donation isn't given?

Rationalizing the need for $100 Billion going to religious theory compares in your mind to years of neglect and sell serving political policies in New Orleans? Is that how weak the argument in favor of the $100 Billion pay out is?

You know, if any of the 'intellectuals' had to teach for a living and one of their students 'fudged' or 'cheated' on one test or experiment they would toss out the student, and the results. How is it that in this case - cheating and fudging are "exceptional examples taken out of context'? Why does this Administration, and you, consider a $100 Billion donation to an exposed, and yet to be vindicated cheater as a good thing; or better yet - the path to your need for "clean air and water"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lord Monkton......The guy even Glen Beck caught lying, and John Bolton found to be extremist in his views.

Firm is this really meant to prove everyone wrong about climate change ? I mean really, is this the best you can offer as evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen

"And then there was the humiliation of being fact-checked by Beck - who pointed out that Monckton had told two "pants-on-fire" lies in his dire prophesies of a world government takeover."

The article is an opinion piece, with really no factually semantic content.  The link to the video is invalid.

What, exactly are you trying to say?  Just that you don't like Monckton?  Or Beck?  Or Bolton?

And that means what, exactly?

Or are you simply trying to throw in irrelevant attempts to stray from the facts, and again delve into emotions to discredit the facts?

Would you mind citing any of the facts that he presents in this presentation, and show me where they are inaccurate?

Or, really more pertinent, how the majority of the facts he cites doesn't lead to the conclusions he gives?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


Video - Communists and Socialists march in Copenhagen

Videos and news stories such as this speak volumes about the agenda there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Lord Monkton......The guy even Glen Beck caught lying, and John Bolton found to be extremist in his views.

Firm is this really meant to prove everyone wrong about climate change ? I mean really, is this the best you can offer as evidence.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/oct/30/lord-monckton-glenn-beck-copenhagen

"And then there was the humiliation of being fact-checked by Beck - who pointed out that Monckton had told two "pants-on-fire" lies in his dire prophesies of a world government takeover."

The article is an opinion piece, with really no factually semantic content.  The link to the video is invalid.

What, exactly are you trying to say?  Just that you don't like Monckton?  Or Beck?  Or Bolton?

And that means what, exactly?

Or are you simply trying to throw in irrelevant attempts to stray from the facts, and again delve into emotions to discredit the facts?

Would you mind citing any of the facts that he presents in this presentation, and show me where they are inaccurate?

Or, really more pertinent, how the majority of the facts he cites doesn't lead to the conclusions he gives?

Firm

If you want to believe Monkton feel free. I choose not to because of his extreme views. If you knew his track record, like we do in the UK, you would understand.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

And just yesterday I read right here on CM about how Russia was our enemy.

Can you say strange bedfellows?

Do you have a point, other than exercising a lame attempt at some kind of sarcastic humor?

I haven't said anything about Russia being "our enemy". 

And even if I did, how does that somehow discredit the report (which, we all know, was your actual intent)?

In fact, taking your snarky comment as fact, then if Russia is indeed our enemy, it makes it all the more likely that they would continue to support "AGW", doesn't it?

Firm

Considering they are one of the nations with the highest pollution rates and also one of the nations most opposed to any international regulation on pollutants I would have to say no.

But I find it interesting that you are in support of them when it suits your agenda.

Hence my "snarky" remark.

By the way, I do really find that term hilarious.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In other words, because you don't like the source, you'll ignore the facts?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In other words, because you don't like the source, you'll ignore the facts?

Firm

Are yoo going to stick by that ideal yourself, because i have seen you do exactly the same when you dont like the source.

As for Monktons article, it is his opinion and not proven facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

In other words, because you don't like the source, you'll ignore the facts?

Firm

Are yoo going to stick by that ideal yourself, because i have seen you do exactly the same when you dont like the source.

As for Monktons article, it is his opinion and not proven facts.

quote:

At the rate democrats are increasing the population numbers

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

We are 6% of the world's population but we use 26% of the worlds energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You guys can't even manage a coherent electrical national grid, and are so hellbent against centralised government that it makes you whine like old women, but you'd like to have nuclear power plants rofl?!!!

And managed by whom, exactly? The same kind of people who managed Enron and the other corporations that have monumentally fucked up the entire world economy?

You're too funny  .

quote:

ORIGINAL: kittinSol

You guys can't even manage a coherent electrical national grid, and are so hellbent against centralised government that it makes you whine like old women, but you'd like to have nuclear power plants rofl?!!!

And managed by whom, exactly? The same kind of people who managed Enron and the other corporations that have monumentally fucked up the entire world economy?

You're too funny  .

quote:

As of 2008 in the United States, there are 104 (69 pressurised water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 806.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, which was 19.6% of the nation's total electric energy consumption in 2008.[1] The United States is the world's largest supplier of commercial nuclear power.

quote:

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (or NRC) is a United States government agency that was established by the Energy Reorganization Act in 1974 from the Atomic Energy Commission, and was first opened January 19, 1975.

The NRC oversees reactor safety, reactor licensing and renewal, radioactive material safety and licensing, and spent fuel management (storage, recycling, and disposal).

quote:

French nuclear leak prompts urgent security review

French nuclear power stations are facing an urgent review of security after 100 workers were contaminated by a leak at a complex near Avignon.

The country's independent radiation watchdog sounded the alarm today after the incident – the fourth such scare in a fortnight.

Electricité de France workers were exposed to radioactive particles on Wednesday that escaped from a pipe at a nuclear reactor at the Tricastin complex.

Experts said that the latest incident involved the highest number of workers to be collectively contaminated in French nuclear history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Putting words in my mouth. You seem to do that with everyone you disagree with, rule.

I'm not "supporting" Russia. I posted part of an article where they had something to say. Take it or leave it.

However, if the CRU would release their copy of the Russian data, and show the process of how they used it to arrive at their conclusions, then the perfidy of the evil Russians would be exposed to the world wouldn't it?

Oh ... that's right ....






The CRU "lost" all the data ...

Firm