Prev: Alignment - not a good sign?
Next: Tire Pressure Previa
From: TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu on 6 Apr 2010 23:22
On Apr 6, 11:32 am, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote:
> Why are you trying to change the subject? Having a problem finding proof
> to support the "man" as the cause argument?

I don't debate something the scientific community accepts as a fact.
The only thing debatable is the degree to which it is true, and that
we can never tell.


From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle on 7 Apr 2010 12:41
On Apr 7, 8:45 am, "Mike Hunter" <Mikehunt2(a)lycos,com> wrote:

> MONEY & OIL? You are correct bet. I'll bet you would be one of those
> screaming the loudest if the production of Mid East oil was cut off and gas
> went to $9 a gallon, however. LOL

What a scary thought! You may be riding bikes, scooters and driving
Smarts instead of boring Toyotas.
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 21:28
In article <l9pun.14632$vC3.884(a)newsfe04.iad>,
JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:

>In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the
>following question, which NEVER gets a response:
>
>"Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions?
>This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it."

I'm sure it gets a response. What it doesn't get is an answer,
possibly because you're not Socrates and don't get to write both sides
of the dialog.

If you want to advance a reason for reducing emissions that you think
is so compellng that only insane people would disagree with it, then

#1) You're engaging in the dishonest rhetorical technique of
"poisoning the well" and
#2) You actually have to advance the reason. Your opponents aren't
going to guess it for you.

--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Matthew Russotto on 13 Apr 2010 21:36
In article <_9qdndBkRsDuASfWnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com>,
dr_jeff <utz(a)msu.edu> wrote:
>
>Philadelphia (another city with pretty good public transport and a
>pretty good rail system) and NYC are making a lot of strides with making
>the cities bicycle rider friendly.

Philadelphia's public transit system is an outpost of the fifth
circle of Hell. The slothful run the system and the ones consumed
with rage ride it. Though there is some overlap.

>In NYC, there are a lot of bike lanes
>as well as bike paths. And a lot of signs for bike riders.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to get the bicycle into NYC in the first
place, if you don't live there. Can't take a bike onto a rush-hour
train or bus, and you certainly can't ride one through the Holland Tunnel...
--
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: lil abner on 13 Apr 2010 21:44
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <l9pun.14632$vC3.884(a)newsfe04.iad>,
> JoeSpareBedroom <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>> In the past, I've managed to shut down some fools here by asking the
>> following question, which NEVER gets a response:
>>
>> "Besides global warming, what OTHER reason is there for reducing emissions?
>> This is a proven reason, and no sane person disagrees with it."
>
> I'm sure it gets a response. What it doesn't get is an answer,
> possibly because you're not Socrates and don't get to write both sides
> of the dialog.
>
> If you want to advance a reason for reducing emissions that you think
> is so compellng that only insane people would disagree with it, then
>
> #1) You're engaging in the dishonest rhetorical technique of
> "poisoning the well" and
> #2) You actually have to advance the reason. Your opponents aren't
> going to guess it for you.
>
You're not seeking an answer but only reenforcement of your ideas.
The whole Emissions thing is out of whack.
e want clean air, water and an uncrowded existence.
What we are getting is an agenda by those who don't have a clue.
Eliminating CO2 is unobtainable and undesirable and ludicrous.
Elimination, of nitrogen is unobtainable, unobtainable and ludicrous.
Overcrowding is the problem.
We cannot into a non consuming thus no emissions world?
Too many people will sink the boat. Only plagues and war as in history
will eve limit the problems.
there is no way we can eliminate the problem.
there are many way to address the real problems but they are not
politically viable or even desirable.
It's every man for themselves.
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Prev: Alignment - not a good sign?
Next: Tire Pressure Previa