laker1963:

jsnake:

I knew kuzi was joking with me so no offense here. And I do not like being called that or people who throw it around freely. I think it is a poor argument for weak individuals who can't take responsibility for their actions or things they support. Ridiculous! I knew kuzi was having some fun with me so take it as that just simple teasing. That doesn't mean he is bashing the president or anyone else.

From our own government: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=E58DFF04-5A65-42A4-9F82-87381DE894CD
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

The Center for Science and Public Policy: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=410

Junk Science: http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

I used to have several links to University studies debunking global warming and the actual published report done by a large scientific institute that debunked global warming but I can't find the articles. Very detailed.

OMG did you know polar bears are dying?? What they fail to tell you is the population of polar bears has increased by 150% to 400% in various global locations in the past 2 decades.

Which locations are the bears actually increasing in? That would be an interesting read. The bears in Churchill Manitoba are starving to death and being shot because they are causing problems in town. It has happened before when the ice was late in forming. Now it has become an annual thing.
The Inuit (Eskimos) are now experiencing sun burns and skin cancer. Who knows, maybe 10,000 years ago they were too?
Anybody watch a colored piece of plastic lose its color in one summer if left in the sun, the way it does now? I don't remember that happening when I was a kid.
So I really don't care what Scientist, politicians, or even talk show hosts say about global warming / climate change. I just know that something is going on and we would be much better served trying to figure it out and then doing something about it, then we are discussing semantics and wasting time (stalling) doing nothing but wringing our hands and delaying while the politicians look only until the next election. Forget about your kids future, we can always claim we didn't know.

I won't say climate change isn't happening, I won't say we are getting warmer either though. I will say there is a major lack of evidence that we are causing it. There has been massive periods of warming and cooling as long as this pissy little rock we all inhabit has been around. There have been numerous ice ages and periods where all the ice melted away. Last time all the ice melted away there was not a single human around to record this... Just because we haven't seen it in our lifetime, doesn't mean we are causing it.

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

Kuzi said:

way to not even bother looking at the links that YOU ASKED FOR....

Laker1963:I happened to read evey one of them, thank you.

I will, as you say continue to believe the consensus, as it is who is involved in that consensus which makes it credible.

Kuzi Said: this is a classic logical fallacy. its called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true.

laker1963: Do you realize how condescending that statement is? If I follow your views I am correct. But if I choose anothers you label me with bandwagon fallacy? I believe what I believe because I read, and weigh the information, and I come to a decision. DUDE, don't ever try to put me in the category of following the crowd. YOU ARE WRONG.
That answer on your part is "classic bullying". If you don't agree with me, then I'll just label you with some unpleasant term and everyone will know you are flawed.

laker1963: The link you provided all talk about global warming not climate change. Therefore with some numbers they seem to show that the whole arguement is not viable.

Kuzi said: im not saying it isnt happening. im saying that i cant prove it... and neither can you. to propose legislation based on something that is not provable is irresponsible at best.

laker1963: That right there is some funny sh!t Kuz. I could name dozens of pieces of legislation which are on the books already which have no basis of proof in anything. How is this any different?

Even in high school I learned that science has to be something which can be supported through repeat experimentation, i.e consensus.

Kuzi said: those are two very different concepts.

laker1963:Well I don't know what context you took that to mean, but I was refferring to Scientific Consensus, which happens after a scientific discovery can be duplicated by other scientists using the data provided by the original scientists experiments. If my terminology was incorrect, hopefully this will clear that up.

laker1963: I guess that by refferring to Global Warming and not climate change the scientist you believe have made a compelling arguement. I'm OK with that. I just choose to believe the whole situation is far too important to play word games and allow the whole arguement to be bogged down in semantics. Time will ultimately tell, as we humans have shown little to no ability to change our ways, and many like yourself see no reason to. As for you not being am extremist or conservative... your words speak louder then mine on that subject.

Kuzi said: this shows a basic misunderstanding of my belief system. its is based on individual rights. if the arguments of the day were about same sex marriage or the PATRIOT act or government wire taps... well then you may be calling me an extremest liberal.
Kuzi said: i cant stop you from thinking that i am an extremest conservative, but i can try to help you understand my view points at every turn. what you always seem to fail to understand is that its about individual rights vs tyranny, not left vs right.

laker1963:UMMM, can you put this into the context of our discussion? I fail to see the connection to individual or collective rights. Do your individual rights have precident over others? I am not sure what it is you are saying here Kuz.
You see that is the problem with labels, they never seem to fit quite right, do they? The same can be said of government legislation... it will never please all of the people all of the time, but I fail to see it as some getting thier rights trampled on in favor of the rights of others.

---

I apologize for the formatting of the last post. I was trying to break it all down the way Kuzi does, but I got that instead! I am going to try and edit it to make it more readable.

---

laker1963:

I apologize for the formatting of the last post. I was trying to break it all down the way Kuzi does, but I got that instead! I am going to try and edit it to make it more readable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that has hell with this HTML crap!! lol

---

For the best news and political commentary check out our new website. We have podcasts posted and new blogs from Nick and Jay on the way!

http://www.nationalrealitycheck.org/

PuroFreak:

laker1963:

I apologize for the formatting of the last post. I was trying to break it all down the way Kuzi does, but I got that instead! I am going to try and edit it to make it more readable.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that has hell with this HTML crap!! lol

Yeah, but I fixed it... well sort of LMAO

---

kuzi16:

laker1963:

Unless I missed it, I thought that this happened one time, and was a comment made by Jimmy Carter.
This was an example of how unwise words, spoken in a situation like that and then cast over a whole group of people causes a totally false, and distasteful label to be applied to that group of people. Carter was WRONG.
Using his wrong words in the manner they are thrown around, with the excuse you provided is just as wrong. You know this was one person only, yet you claim...thats because its the people against obama that are being called racist regardless of if their position is only based in political differences
Why can't debate and discussion be an honest event. It always turns into a contest that someone has to "win".
At the end of the day, I'll take honest discussion over winning every time.

you did miss it. Nancy Pelosi made some comments too...also before carter made his... oh and a few other people.

read this to learn more.

it was posted before Carter made his dumbass remarks.

I read the links again, and yup, they are pretty stupid. I still don't see how this reflects on Obama? If it is that he is somehow responsible for what people around him or in general say about him or others who don't like him, then that is an unreasonable burden to put on anyone. Now if Obama said it, different story.


Kuzi, in your opinion, how does this type of thing relate to the calling into question, the Patiotism of millions of Americans who did not agree with George W. on any number of issues? I may be wrong but I don't remember you getting that insulted during some of his best mis-speaks, let alone mis-deeds.

---

kuzi16:

laker1963:

Which locations are the bears actually increasing in? That would be an interesting read.

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolitAchap1.htm

Did you read that link yourself? Where did you get that the populations were increasing?
It is mostly talking of the flawed data given by Lomborg and then the errors which were made by translating this flawed data.
Here is a link to the WWF site and a map of the actual populations as far as they are being studied. Note that there is only one small area where there has been a recorde increase in the population. Also very few areas are stable. Most areas are in decline and the projections for the future (based on recent history of the bears population) are grim.

http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/area/species/polarbear/population/

---

laker1963:

Kuzi said: im not saying it isnt happening. im saying that i cant prove it... and neither can you. to propose legislation based on something that is not provable is irresponsible at best.

laker1963: That right there is some funny sh!t Kuz. I could name dozens of pieces of legislation which are on the books already which have no basis of proof in anything. How is this any different?

im saying that those bits of legislation are wrong as well. we are focused on this one at the moment. if this was another day maybe we would be focused on another one of those messed up bills.
again... it is about the rights of the people vs tyranny not left vs right.

laker1963:

Kuzi said: this shows a basic misunderstanding of my belief system. its is based on individual rights. if the arguments of the day were about same sex marriage or the PATRIOT act or government wire taps... well then you may be calling me an extremest liberal.
Kuzi said: i cant stop you from thinking that i am an extremest conservative, but i can try to help you understand my view points at every turn. what you always seem to fail to understand is that its about individual rights vs tyranny, not left vs right.

laker1963:UMMM, can you put this into the context of our discussion? I fail to see the connection to individual or collective rights. Do your individual rights have precident over others? I am not sure what it is you are saying here Kuz.
You see that is the problem with labels, they never seem to fit quite right, do they? The same can be said of government legislation... it will never please all of the people all of the time, but I fail to see it as some getting thier rights trampled on in favor of the rights of others.

if you pass higher fuel standards for instance based off the "fact" that there is man made climate change you are forcing a company to make a decision it would not have made otherwise. you are telling an individual or a privately run company what to do. how does that not influence the right of the individual? this is how a fascist government works. it regulates private industry but does not own them.

laker1963:

Kuzi Said: this is a classic logical fallacy. its called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true.

laker1963: Do you realize how condescending that statement is? If I follow your views I am correct. But if I choose anothers you label me with bandwagon fallacy? I believe what I believe because I read, and weigh the information, and I come to a decision. DUDE, don't ever try to put me in the category of following the crowd. YOU ARE WRONG.
That answer on your part is "classic bullying". If you don't agree with me, then I'll just label you with some unpleasant term and everyone will know you are flawed.

that is not at all what i am saying. you made it quite clear that you were on the side of the Consensus simply because it was one. there is also a growing pile of evidence that your "scientific consensus" is flawed in some way therefore not much of a consensus. your results are not being duplicated. thats the distinction

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

kuzi16:

laker1963:

Kuzi said: im not saying it isnt happening. im saying that i cant prove it... and neither can you. to propose legislation based on something that is not provable is irresponsible at best.

laker1963: That right there is some funny sh!t Kuz. I could name dozens of pieces of legislation which are on the books already which have no basis of proof in anything. How is this any different?

im saying that those bits of legislation are wrong as well. we are focused on this one at the moment. if this was another day maybe we would be focused on another one of those messed up bills.
again... it is about the rights of the people vs tyranny not left vs right.

laker1963:

Kuzi said: this shows a basic misunderstanding of my belief system. its is based on individual rights. if the arguments of the day were about same sex marriage or the PATRIOT act or government wire taps... well then you may be calling me an extremest liberal.
Kuzi said: i cant stop you from thinking that i am an extremest conservative, but i can try to help you understand my view points at every turn. what you always seem to fail to understand is that its about individual rights vs tyranny, not left vs right.

laker1963:UMMM, can you put this into the context of our discussion? I fail to see the connection to individual or collective rights. Do your individual rights have precident over others? I am not sure what it is you are saying here Kuz.
You see that is the problem with labels, they never seem to fit quite right, do they? The same can be said of government legislation... it will never please all of the people all of the time, but I fail to see it as some getting thier rights trampled on in favor of the rights of others.

if you pass higher fuel standards for instance based off the "fact" that there is man made climate change you are forcing a company to make a decision it would not have made otherwise. you are telling an individual or a privately run company what to do. how does that not influence the right of the individual? this is how a fascist government works. it regulates private industry but does not own them.

laker1963:

Kuzi Said: this is a classic logical fallacy. its called the bandwagon fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy is committed by arguments that appeal to the growing popularity of an idea as a reason for accepting it as true.

laker1963: Do you realize how condescending that statement is? If I follow your views I am correct. But if I choose anothers you label me with bandwagon fallacy? I believe what I believe because I read, and weigh the information, and I come to a decision. DUDE, don't ever try to put me in the category of following the crowd. YOU ARE WRONG.
That answer on your part is "classic bullying". If you don't agree with me, then I'll just label you with some unpleasant term and everyone will know you are flawed.

that is not at all what i am saying. you made it quite clear that you were on the side of the Consensus simply because it was one. there is also a growing pile of evidence that your "scientific consensus" is flawed in some way therefore not much of a consensus. your results are not being duplicated. thats the distinction

Where did I say I agreed with the consensus simply because it was one?
Is this what you call discussion and debate? You put words into my mouth and keep me constantly reacting to your untruths? This is getting messed up.
Your ideas of what an individual right is, seems nieve.

The rights of the many should always outweigh the rights of the few. That does not in any way interfere with the right of an individual. It is a measure of priority, nothing more.
So tell me, how does your "non-system" work where everyone of the 6 billion plus people in the world have individual rights?

The only consensus would be, that the badest mother*ucker in the whole world would have the right to do as he pleased, without interferrence as that would trample his individual rights?

Oh and they are not MY results. I just read the information... same as you;)

---

Excuse me but I am having a hard time keeping up with all of this. Too much to read and try to catch up with. I do not believe in global warming which is made up by Al Gore and a bunch of elitist who want to control everything we do. This is my opinion which I am entitled to just like anyone else here is to theirs. Here are some polar bear links:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21966/Polar_Bear_Scare_on_Thin_Ice.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece
Just a few. Sorry I am a busy man. Why is it that if you put up actual scientific research and data a liberal says your proof is flawed and from Fox News? Al Gore speaks and it is like God said it himself and Al Gore has no factual data to support any of his claims. That is why he is in hiding since most scientists agree we are in another global cooling cycle. Drunk on the Kool-Aid maybe. IDK I am going back to talking about cigars. I will just have to agree to disagree with those who think differently than me.

jsnake:

Excuse me but I am having a hard time keeping up with all of this. Too much to read and try to catch up with. I do not believe in global warming which is made up by Al Gore and a bunch of elitist who want to control everything we do. This is my opinion which I am entitled to just like anyone else here is to theirs. Here are some polar bear links:

http://newsbusters.org/node/12694
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080508132549.htm
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/21966/Polar_Bear_Scare_on_Thin_Ice.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article2852551.ece
Just a few. Sorry I am a busy man. Why is it that if you put up actual scientific research and data a liberal says your proof is flawed and from Fox News? Al Gore speaks and it is like God said it himself and Al Gore has no factual data to support any of his claims. That is why he is in hiding since most scientists agree we are in another global cooling cycle. Drunk on the Kool-Aid maybe. IDK I am going back to talking about cigars. I will just have to agree to disagree with those who think differently than me.

YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY. Anyone here say anything different?
And for the record, I never mentioned Al Gore or Fox News.

---

hey laker I never was directing this towards you or dogging anyone specifically. I was just saying what I thought. If you thought I was bashing you please forgive me as that was not my intention.

laker1963:

Kuzi, in your opinion, how does this type of thing relate to the calling into question, the Patiotism of millions of Americans who did not agree with George W. on any number of issues? I may be wrong but I don't remember you getting that insulted during some of his best mis-speaks, let alone mis-deeds.

this is a very loaded question... not by intent of course.
during the Bush era i was still to realize some of the key principals in my thinking that i currently use. I remember being more in favor of the war in Iraq, I remember being ok with many aspects of the patriot act, etc...
if i apply the principals that i have adopted after reading and learning more (often time due to this very thread) to the subjects you bring up i would have a different outcome then i would have then.
at this point i would like to bring up something that H.R. Clinton said:
“I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, “WE ARE AMERICANS AND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DEBATE AND DISAGREE WITH ANY ADMINISTRATION!”

she is 100% right.

not all conservatives are racist. not all liberals hate the USA. are there members among these groups that embody those qualities? sure.
to assume that those small numbers of people represent the group is a logical fallacy. it is a sweeping generalization.

so...
was i concerned at the time that those people were being called unpatriotic? no.
should i have been? maybe.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate

jsnake:

hey laker I never was directing this towards you or dogging anyone specifically. I was just saying what I thought. If you thought I was bashing you please forgive me as that was not my intention.

No not at all jsnake. In fact I thought that I had pissed you off and was trying to ensure you that I was in no way trying to stop you from stating your opinions.
It's all good, even when we disagree. It's all just talk. It's not as though anyone who could/would/should do anything about our little private bitches will actually ever do something. Peace bro'.

---

laker1963:

The rights of the many should always outweigh the rights of the few.

it seems that you have no idea what i mean by "individual rights"

this is not a heath care thing or a global warming thing or a majority thing.

this is the right to do as one pleases without infringing on the rights of others.
since there as been no solid proof that man is changing the climate, forcing someone to make a decision they would not normally make through legislation is infringing on that persons rights. if you can prove that industry in general is hurting people and violating the rights of others then it not an infringment of rights to force them to stop infringing on the rights of others.

this is why having legislation on climate change when there is not proof is dangerous.

---

Kuzi's cigar catalog blending 101 developing your palate