[Christy]

Benoit Benoit:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Wake up! Before accusing someone of fearing by-products or externalities just ask yourself if you should not be a bit careful.

Uhm, you're the chap who went off-topic with the CO worries.

Here is the context, the larger picture. CO123 is an externality or a by-product of human activities.

What is CO123?

A molecule with one atom of carbon and one hundred twenty three atoms of oxygen?

What human activity produces this exotic molecule?

Profiteers are paying chemists to invent new molecules not to understand their effects.

Please answer his question because I'd like to hear it too.

[PluggyRug]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

I mean, I can go on here.

You do go on, I'll give you that.

You remind me of a guy I know. Sometimes when I'm driving and he's talking I give him a backhand, just so I can get a word in.

$1:

I subscribe to the Robert Bork school of philosophy that, as you say, there isn't a global socialist conspiracy on just about anything. Rather, he calls it a syndrome.

Well, if Bork had a flashlight and a little help, he might be able to find his own asshole. I wouldn't put money on it though.

$1:

He posits that there's a groupthink at play with socialists (just as there is with conservatives! Remember, I came to this site to get away from the robots at Free Republic) and that they naturally gravitate to concepts and ideas that dovetail with their preconceived notions.

Sorry, doesn't fit the facts. That's especially true when it comes to global warming, where a good many socialists are afraid it will cost jobs. They are wrong, of course...they'll be paid the same wage for putting in fuel cells as v-8 motors.

$1:

Global warming appeals to leftists

Actually, it doesn't appeal to us at all. If we liked it we wouldn't be trying to stop it.

$1:

because it ultimately blames capitalists and the United States for environmental disaster.

Wrong again, my little buckaroo. You obviously know nothing about democratic socialism, but have bought into the big lie that any criticism of US policy is just plain old anti-Americanism. Obviously when I say that Santa is a pedophile/dope fiend it means that I'm against getting presents too.

$1:

The fact that the Kyoto Treaty specifically excluded carbon sinks as a means of mitigating CO2 tells me that the environment was not the real motive behind Kyoto.

No, it means that those carbon sinks are likely to disappear over time because of the changing climate and that some countries and politicians (Canada and Jean Chretien, for instance) were making claims that made no sense even after 16 bottles of rye and a pizza topped with some of them funny mushrooms.

Carbon sinks were excluded because given the right circumstances...say more forest fires and a little bug that kills trees...they could quickly become a carbon emitter.

$1:

But then add to that the sound of crickets from the AGW crowd

It's true, I cloned Buddy Holly and Waylon Jennings and I'm keeping them in my basement. They sing to me late at night.

$1:

when pollution from China and the developing world is mentioned and the political issues become more apparent.

I could write an entire book on how people like you fucked this up and the distortions that you've used ever since. If somebody wants to stroke out an advance cheque, I will.

The reason there are two schedules for Kyoto is that developing countries, including China, had not benefitted financially from their emissions. They were basically emitting to cook food. The deal was that if they became developed...as China arguably has now...they would step up. The problem is that western countries have not only failed to step up themselves, but by shipping so much of their production to countries like China they've effectively shipped their emissions abroad.

We were supposed to be developing and providing, whether paid or through aid depending on the country, technologies to reduce emissions in those developing countries though. We haven't because a bunch of yahoos with mothers and aunts who just happened to be the same person got yakking about "hot air credits."

$1:

Really, China passed the USA as the #1 CO2 emitter this year and where have the AGW agitators been on that?

Same place we've been on human rights, child labour and a bevy of other issues...right out there saying the same things we always have. Just because you're too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh tell you about the joys of Hillbilly Heroin to listen to us doesn't mean that we aren't talking.

$1:

Where's the call for China to reduce its pollution?

The most effective call is happening in China, although what you'd term "the left" has been calling for it since well before Nixon went stumbling over there. Where've ya been?

$1:

See it from my side.

Oh, I have. Then I got smart and looked at what was really going on.

$1:

Every envrionmental complaint and proposal of the past forty years has been an assault on Western civilization or on the USA or on capitalism.

Yeah, and I guess all the complaints about what the USSR was doing to the environment were just an attack on capitalism. Nobody from my side of the spectrum has ever written anything about the environmental mess in former Soviet Republics. Bite me, as the real Bart might say. You wouldn't even know about the devastation over there if it wasn't for us.

$1:

And every solution to the "problem" (whatever it is this week) involves one or a combination of the following: higher taxes, closed factories, lost jobs, or ridiculous and ultimately self defeating 'solutions'.

Nope. A tax shift, factories producing different products, different jobs. Are you really stupid enough to think we want to be unemployed and live in caves? We promote advances in technology and you cling to something from the 19th century and we're the Luddites? Are you really that stupid?

$1:

Example: hybrid cars are a 'solution' to CO2 output? Right?

No.

A Toyota Prius (which is THE fashion statement of the moment amongst liberals) has a greater CO2 'footprint' than a Hummer. And that includes factoring in seven years of vehicle life.

Yeah, but it doesn't factor in the production of the fossil fuels to power the Hummer and it doesn't factor in the increasing returns from the production of the Toyota. This is what I mean about lying, Bart. Christ, you're so spun you don't know which way is up and so invested in conservative rhetoric that you don't even know you're being spun. I've known junkies with a better grasp of reality than you have.

$1:

I mean, I can go on here.

Like an old woman with a Bible.

$1:

So, no, I don't think you folks have a conspiracy going, but it seems that as a group you're eager to embrace whatever damages any one or combination of the USA, capitalism, individualism, Western Civilization, etc.

Jesus, if we were that competent we could build a machine and take over the world. We oppose your ideas because your ideas failed, Bart. If they worked, we'd all be rich and boffing super models right now. There would be no illness and we'd all have flying cars. We'd only have to work three days a weeks and Beaver Cleaver's mother would be dancing naked on my TV.

$1:

Heck, here's a test for you:

man, I thought I was done with those.

$1:

Name one environmental issue that turned out to be good for any one or combination of the USA, capitalism, individualism, Western Civilization, or etc?

Acid Rain was pretty decent. Same with the Montreal Protocol and the resulting decrease in CFCs.

I can go on pretty extensively, actually. I'm curious though...do you really equate individualism with some sort of bizarre right to pollute? Do you think capitalism is dependent on what amounts to using somebody else's environment for free? Is your country so twisted that it has the right to destroy other countries for profit or convenience?

Fuck that. I've read a fair bit of what your founding fathers had to say, and if they heard you talking like that, they'd drag you out5 behind the shed and beat the crap out of you with a length of hemp rope.

You are what's wrong with the US Bart. Canada too. A gaggle of short-sighted greed-hogs who have no knowledge or respect outside of their own immediate needs. Give you bastards an inch and you'll be lighting chubby slave girls up as candles.

Please can I have my soapbox back.

[Christy]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

You are what's wrong with the US Bart. Canada too. A gaggle of short-sighted greed-hogs who have no knowledge or respect outside of their own immediate needs. Give you bastards an inch and you'll be lighting chubby slave girls up as candles.

I was on your side until you did this.

[Benoit]

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

[PluggyRug]

Benoit Benoit:

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

Caution requires no effort, whereas denial requires lots of work in an attempt to educate the Gore followers.

Anyways what does climate change have to do with nylon stockings or European coins?

[Christy]

Benoit Benoit:

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

Whatever. CO123 <--- Explain please.

[Christy]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Benoit Benoit:

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

Caution requires no effort, whereas denial requires lots of work in an attempt to educate the Gore followers.

Anyways what does climate change have to do with nylon stockings or European coins?

Or CO123?

[Benoit]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

Benoit Benoit:

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

Caution requires no effort, whereas denial requires lots of work in an attempt to educate the Gore followers.

Anyways what does climate change have to do with nylon stockings or European coins?

Caution requires some restraint, denying requires only wishful thinking.

[BartSimpson]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

I mean, I can go on here.

You do go on, I'll give you that.

You remind me of a guy I know. Sometimes when I'm driving and he's talking I give him a backhand, just so I can get a word in.

He hasn't killed you....why?

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

I subscribe to the Robert Bork school of philosophy that, as you say, there isn't a global socialist conspiracy on just about anything. Rather, he calls it a syndrome.

Well, if Bork had a flashlight and a little help, he might be able to find his own asshole. I wouldn't put money on it though.

$1:

Bork earned bachelor's and law degrees from the University of Chicago, where he became a brother of the international social fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta, and University of Chicago Law School. After a period of service in the United States Marine Corps, Bork began as a lawyer in private practice in 1954 and then was a professor at Yale Law School from 1962 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981. At Yale, he was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers were often beneficiaries of corporate mergers, and that many then-current readings of the antitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. Bork's writings on antitrust law, along with those of Richard Posner and other law and economics thinkers, were heavily influential in causing a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court's approach to antitrust laws since the 1970s. Among his students during this time was a future U.S. President, Bill Clinton, and a future First Lady, Hillary Rodham.

Jealous? Yeah, I thought so.

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

He posits that there's a groupthink at play with socialists (just as there is with conservatives! Remember, I came to this site to get away from the robots at Free Republic) and that they naturally gravitate to concepts and ideas that dovetail with their preconceived notions.

Sorry, doesn't fit the facts. That's especially true when it comes to global warming, where a good many socialists are afraid it will cost jobs. They are wrong, of course...they'll be paid the same wage for putting in fuel cells as v-8 motors.

While the proposals to ban the internal combustion engine are rife, pray tell, where are your fuel cells to replace them? I hear lots of pie-in-the-sky predictions about what fuel cells we'll have someday but right now they're just a pipe dream in the class of cold fusion.

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

Global warming appeals to leftists

Actually, it doesn't appeal to us at all. If we liked it we wouldn't be trying to stop it.

$1:

because it ultimately blames capitalists and the United States for environmental disaster.

Wrong again, my little buckaroo. You obviously know nothing about democratic socialism

Aside from that about 150 to 200 million people have died from it?

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

, but have bought into the big lie that any criticism of US policy is just plain old anti-Americanism. Obviously when I say that Santa is a pedophile/dope fiend it means that I'm against getting presents too.

$1:

The fact that the Kyoto Treaty specifically excluded carbon sinks as a means of mitigating CO2 tells me that the environment was not the real motive behind Kyoto.

No, it means that those carbon sinks are likely to disappear over time because of the changing climate and that some countries and politicians (Canada and Jean Chretien, for instance) were making claims that made no sense even after 16 bottles of rye and a pizza topped with some of them funny mushrooms.

Carbon sinks were excluded because given the right circumstances...say more forest fires and a little bug that kills trees...they could quickly become a carbon emitter.

$1:

But then add to that the sound of crickets from the AGW crowd

It's true, I cloned Buddy Holly and Waylon Jennings and I'm keeping them in my basement. They sing to me late at night.

$1:

when pollution from China and the developing world is mentioned and the political issues become more apparent.

I could write an entire book on how people like you fucked this up and the distortions that you've used ever since. If somebody wants to stroke out an advance cheque, I will.

The reason there are two schedules for Kyoto is that developing countries, including China, had not benefitted financially from their emissions. They were basically emitting to cook food. The deal was that if they became developed...as China arguably has now...they would step up. The problem is that western countries have not only failed to step up themselves, but by shipping so much of their production to countries like China they've effectively shipped their emissions abroad.

We were supposed to be developing and providing, whether paid or through aid depending on the country, technologies to reduce emissions in those developing countries though. We haven't because a bunch of yahoos with mothers and aunts who just happened to be the same person got yakking about "hot air credits."

$1:

Really, China passed the USA as the #1 CO2 emitter this year and where have the AGW agitators been on that?

Same place we've been on human rights, child labour and a bevy of other issues...right out there saying the same things we always have. Just because you're too busy listening to Rush Limbaugh tell you about the joys of Hillbilly Heroin to listen to us doesn't mean that we aren't talking.

$1:

Where's the call for China to reduce its pollution?

The most effective call is happening in China, although what you'd term "the left" has been calling for it since well before Nixon went stumbling over there. Where've ya been?

$1:

See it from my side.

Oh, I have. Then I got smart and looked at what was really going on.

$1:

Every envrionmental complaint and proposal of the past forty years has been an assault on Western civilization or on the USA or on capitalism.

Yeah, and I guess all the complaints about what the USSR was doing to the environment were just an attack on capitalism. Nobody from my side of the spectrum has ever written anything about the environmental mess in former Soviet Republics. Bite me, as the real Bart might say. You wouldn't even know about the devastation over there if it wasn't for us.

$1:

And every solution to the "problem" (whatever it is this week) involves one or a combination of the following: higher taxes, closed factories, lost jobs, or ridiculous and ultimately self defeating 'solutions'.

Nope. A tax shift, factories producing different products, different jobs. Are you really stupid enough to think we want to be unemployed and live in caves? We promote advances in technology and you cling to something from the 19th century and we're the Luddites? Are you really that stupid?

$1:

Example: hybrid cars are a 'solution' to CO2 output? Right?

No.

A Toyota Prius (which is THE fashion statement of the moment amongst liberals) has a greater CO2 'footprint' than a Hummer. And that includes factoring in seven years of vehicle life.

Yeah, but it doesn't factor in the production of the fossil fuels to power the Hummer and it doesn't factor in the increasing returns from the production of the Toyota.

Yes, it does.

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

This is what I mean about lying, Bart. Christ, you're so spun you don't know which way is up and so invested in conservative rhetoric that you don't even know you're being spun. I've known junkies with a better grasp of reality than you have.

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

I mean, I can go on here.

Like an old woman with a Bible.

$1:

So, no, I don't think you folks have a conspiracy going, but it seems that as a group you're eager to embrace whatever damages any one or combination of the USA, capitalism, individualism, Western Civilization, etc.

Jesus, if we were that competent we could build a machine and take over the world. We oppose your ideas because your ideas failed, Bart. If they worked, we'd all be rich and boffing super models right now. There would be no illness and we'd all have flying cars. We'd only have to work three days a weeks and Beaver Cleaver's mother would be dancing naked on my TV.

$1:

Heck, here's a test for you:

man, I thought I was done with those.

$1:

Name one environmental issue that turned out to be good for any one or combination of the USA, capitalism, individualism, Western Civilization, or etc?

Acid Rain was pretty decent. Same with the Montreal Protocol and the resulting decrease in CFCs.

I can go on pretty extensively, actually. I'm curious though...do you really equate individualism with some sort of bizarre right to pollute? Do you think capitalism is dependent on what amounts to using somebody else's environment for free? Is your country so twisted that it has the right to destroy other countries for profit or convenience?

Fuck that. I've read a fair bit of what your founding fathers had to say, and if they heard you talking like that, they'd drag you out5 behind the shed and beat the crap out of you with a length of hemp rope.

You are what's wrong with the US Bart. Canada too. A gaggle of short-sighted greed-hogs who have no knowledge or respect outside of their own immediate needs. Give you bastards an inch and you'll be lighting chubby slave girls up as candles.

And you're what I like about leftists.

No matter how bad I might be on any given day I can always count on some one of you to come along and make me look at least not as bad as you are.

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

He hasn't killed you....why?

Not only that, but he still gets in a truck with me.

$1:

Jealous? Yeah, I thought so.

Not at all.

$1:

While the proposals to ban the internal combustion engine are rife, pray tell, where are your fuel cells to replace them? I hear lots of pie-in-the-sky predictions about what fuel cells we'll have someday but right now they're just a pipe dream in the class of cold fusion.

There are working fuel cells in buses now, Bart. Some of the ones they build here in Winnipeg are fitted with them. There are also working hydrogen vehicles for personal use, although they've been retro-fitted and are not commercially available.

$1:

Aside from that about 150 to 200 million people have died from it?

Where? When? Waht? Did they wipe out the entire population of Saskatchewan 15 or 20 times...you'd think I would have noticed that. Oh, right...I forgot...you aren't well-versed enough in politics to even know what democratic socialism is. I guess that explains your bizarre claims.

How many have died for capitalism though, Bart? Children in the developing world being denied clean water so a corporation can profit. Entire mining communites in South America contaminated with heavy metals. People being run off their land in Africa and in South America to make way for the oil companies. Child labour...nothing more than slavery really.

$1:

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't take into account that the batteries from the Toyota are recyclable. It's more spin.

[Benoit]

Since it would be stupid to ask the general public to go through an abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries and since it would be stupid to ask the general public to trust scientists who declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and that the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart” then, we have to be careful about we do and what we can hope for.

[BartSimpson]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

He hasn't killed you....why?

Not only that, but he still gets in a truck with me.

$1:

Jealous? Yeah, I thought so.

Not at all.

$1:

While the proposals to ban the internal combustion engine are rife, pray tell, where are your fuel cells to replace them? I hear lots of pie-in-the-sky predictions about what fuel cells we'll have someday but right now they're just a pipe dream in the class of cold fusion.

There are working fuel cells in buses now, Bart. Some of the ones they build here in Winnipeg are fitted with them. There are also working hydrogen vehicles for personal use, although they've been retro-fitted and are not commercially available.

And hydrogen is generated with electricity that comes from where?

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

$1:

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. It also doesn't take into account that the batteries from the Toyota are recyclable. It's more spin.

Toyota hasn't had to recycle these batteries yet so the jury is out on how successful that effort will be.

http://www.hybridcars.com/environment-s ... icity.html

$1:

While not nearly as dangerous as lead, nickel is not without some environmental risks, and is considered a probable carcinogen. There are also concerns about the environmental impacts of nickel mining, and apparent challenges with fully recycling the nickel used in hybrid batteries.

Hybrids are still sold an relatively low numbers. As a result, large-scale environmental threats from hybrid batteries are not immediate. Hybrids were introduced in the United States in 2000. Hybrid batteries are under warranty for eight to ten years, depending on the manufacturer and your location, and they are unlikely to fail for several years beyond the warranty. In the first few years, hybrids sold in low numbers—growing from less than 10,000 in 2000, to 35,000 in 2002. By all calculations, the challenge of recycling hybrid batteries is at least five years away.

[BartSimpson]

Benoit Benoit:

Since it would be stupid to ask the general public to go through an abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries and since it would be stupid to ask the general public to trust scientists who declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and that the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart” then, we have to be careful about we do and what we can hope for.

You still have two people waiting for more info about CO123.

[Benoit]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Since it would be stupid to ask the general public to go through an abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries and since it would be stupid to ask the general public to trust scientists who declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and that the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart” then, we have to be careful about we do and what we can hope for.

You still have two people waiting for more info about CO123.

I'm not in the business of chemistry, I'm in the business of politics.

[PluggyRug]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Benoit Benoit:

Since it would be stupid to ask the general public to go through an abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analysis, and data error discoveries and since it would be stupid to ask the general public to trust scientists who declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and that the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart” then, we have to be careful about we do and what we can hope for.

You still have two people waiting for more info about CO123.

Now three. Carbon multi oxides

Also....denier....

Benoit wrote:

$1:

Being a denier of human-induced climate changes is so much easier in the short run than being cautious.

denier.... nylon stockings and European coins.