Customer Discussions > An Inconvenient Truth forum

Global Warming is a myth

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 901-922 of 922 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2009 6:19:45 PM PDT
Tired of Oil says:
Have you seen the Toyota RAV4-EV? It is the same frame as an internal combustion engine RAV-4, sans engine, tailpipe, and all of those parts that need oiling? There are NO maintenance parts to an EV so how does building one create more pollutants? Please read Two Cents per Mile, you need to upgrade your knowledge, there are RAV4 EV users interviewed in Two Cents, including the L.A. Power and Water Dept engineers that tested them in fleets and powered them via photovoltaic panels....NO COAL, NO OIL, NO NG POWER's great, no noise, no smell, no oil stains on their garage floors - there are pictures in the book. Seriously, check it out...we all deserve to live as freely as these 300 people have been for the past ten the USA!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2009 10:10:42 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 3, 2009 10:23:11 AM PDT
belair63 says:
Ok you keep telling me to update my knowledge base when you dont know me or what I know. I go to auto technican training tech classes every 5 years AND I take courses on electric vehicles. The production of the battery packs is what causes the building of them to be more pollutant than building a convential vehicle.

Not to mention they create more pollutant than cars today because those battery packs do NOT last for ever and they eventually have to be thrown out and where do you think all those batteries and that electrolyte is going to go.

NO COAL, NO OIL, NO NATURAL GAS POWER PLANTS? WHAT WORLD ARE YOU LIVING IN. THESE CARS WILL BE RECHARGED AT HOME BY THOSE POWERPLANTS WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE WHICH RANGE FROM COAL TO OIL TO NATURAL GAS. Not to mention people will be paying different amounts of money per mile due to differences in cost of electricty per Kw/Hr.

Then you got the maintance of the electric vehicles. If you say there are no maintance to an electric vehicle then you are a moron then. You still got bearings that needs to be greased, you still got lubrication points to be greased (ball joints, tie rod end links, ect), you have mcphearson struts that will need to be replaced over time as well as rubber bushings that will need to be replaced as they age as well. Then you got alignments that needs to be done. Then you got to recharge the battery daily (YES THIS IS MAINTANCE ALSO IT HAS TO BE DONE TO KEEP THE VEHICLE ON THE ROAD), then you have to replace your wipers, replace fuses, replace relays, replace electric motors, replace battery packs, ect. There are thousands of things that needs to be replaced on these vehicles through basic maintance. That is how automakers make their money back on cars they build through parts.

Further more as I stated in my previous post which didnt want to be posted. I drive cars pre 1980. They are cheap to maintain, they are great on gas (daily driver gets 16 city when factory rated the car at 12 city in 78 and its all orignal). In the end we can be free from this by doing one thing. By doing like other countries and say "screw you" to the enviromentalist and start drilling our own oil. We are slaves to foreign oil because we listen to the sob stories of how drilling for oil is destorying the earth by these wack jobs. Just like the alaskian oil pipe line was claimed by those social rejects that it would destory wild life. HAHAHA GUESS WHAT WILD LIFE FLOURISHED BY THE HEAT OF THE PIPES IS BRINGING WILD LIFE CLOSE TO THE PIPE FOR WARMTH, SO MUCH FOR DESTORYING WILD LIFE AS THOSE IDIOTS CLAIMED.

They are no better than organized religion, they dont like something and they try to change it to suit their need. Just like this movie which I didnt see because Al Gore is a complete idiot (got a letter from him to donate money to the democrates and he still is calling himself "Vice President Al Gore" when he should be saying "Former Vice President Al Gore". But yet people belive a idiot like him that still thinks hes vice president).

In the end electric cars will NEVER replace gasoline engines or diesel engines. They tried to back in the 1900 - 1920`s, the hybrids tried to take over in the 1930`s, the steam (alternative fuel vehicles) tried to take over in the 1890`s - 1930`s but all of them failed because gasoline is so much simpler. Unlike a electric car gasoline cars just need to be refilled and people can continue on their trip. With electric they cant they got to sit and wait for hours on end for the batterys to recharge. Unlike hybrid cars of the 1930`s compared to gasoline at the time, they cost to much to manufacture (they still do) compared to their gasoline counterpart. Unlike steam power cars that were the orignal alternative fuel source for cars, gasoline is better because they get the same gas miliage at the same engine speeds and vehicle speeds. Steam on the other hand gets less miliage in hot weather.

On your comment about no noise,, no smell, no oil stains on the floors I have to say this.

1. No Noise = VERY BAD. We have a new silent trolley here (light rail but its just a modern glorified trolley from the 1930`s) people have been hit because this train is so quiet they dont even know its coming. The same is with the electric vehicles. They are so quiet you dont know of anyone around.

2. No Smell = MAINTAINCE YOUR VEHICLE. My carbed vehicle and actually all my vehicles have no noxious smell from the exhaust because they are all well maintained. You are just using something you "hate" as a basis to get other people to change how they live.

3. No Oil stains on their garage floors = Stupid comment because I dont have oil stains on mine. But that doesnt mean anything though because all vehicles even electric vehicles will leak some form of fluid. Be it lubricants for the suspension/front end, or power steering fluid, ect. All vehicles leak and yes mine leak some too but they dont leak oil. They leak coolant once in a while as well as power steering fluid. It happens you cant avoid it.

Further more electric vehicles cant be built to do any major work. Look at public busses that transports people. The closest they can get is like the diesel trains and go hybrid where a diesel engine runs off diesel fuel to create electricity to power the electric motors. The weight of the vehicle like busses, big cargo trucks, big rigs as well as tow trucks and such will need to be hybrids or pure internal combustion engine. If they were ever pure electric you will see them getting something like maybe and I am being generous with this estimate but MAYBE 20 miles to a charge. You will need way more battery packs to generate enough electricity for the larger trqy motors to generate the trq to pull weight. In the same time your adding weight to the vehicle itself, which is going to reduce the miles they can go on a single charge. Then you got the weight of the load they are hauling.

So electric yea they are nice for people that dont drive much that drive in the city on short trips but they are not what is needed for general population for people that has work trucks that need to be able to pull weight or drive long distances quickly. Then theres the cost of repairs god knows how much the shops will charge people to repair their electric car due to all the extra work they have to do to prevent themself from getting electrocuited. Then you got idiotic people driving that are going to try and drive their electric cars through flooded roads. I still as I said years ago people wont smarten up about electric cars till someone or enough people get electrocuited by them. Majority of people are just sheep, they follow what others tell them like al gore. I am glad looking at the review there were some people that did the research on their on and they are thinking for themselves but also amazed that people can be so ignorant to belive global warming is caused by man kind. I mean cmon the planet had to warm up to end the ice ages globally if it did that that is known as global warming. Man kind wasnt around for all ice ages (that would require man to be around with the dinosaurs) but yet the planet still warmed up. Then people are still too stupid to realize other planets in our solar system like Mars has been warming up globally themself. People just cant put two and two together. But I will be damned if I will give up my gas vehicles and gas lawn maintance equipment for that pathetic electric junk just because some people are stupid and think were destorying the world with burning gasoline. But yet no one stops to think about all the forrest fires and the volcanic activity that is belching pollutants into the atmosphere such as sulfer from volcanic eruptions but we are going to b*tch and moan about Co2 causing global warming which is what mamals breathe out. This is quickly going to the point where government can tax people for Co2 emissions which includes making you pay taxes to exhale as well as for your pets to exhale. This is all heading towards a dictator ship but no one wants to see that.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 3, 2009 10:23:19 AM PDT
Tired of Oil says:
Well, no reason to get nasty. I thought we both had the same goal in mind which is to preserve our environment. I believe the over 300 AMerican RAV 4- EV owners would disagree with the majority of what you have written. You can see more of what they have to say in the videos tab of bye for now.

Posted on Aug 3, 2009 10:57:24 AM PDT
belair63 says:
Not getting nasty I am just tired of how people assume that someone that is against electric vehicles are uneducated. I have my reasions for disliking them its because they cost more to maintain especially after the warranty goes out.

They can disagree all they want with me doesnt change the fact that pure electric vehicles are more trouble than they are worth not to mention the battery pack on one of those cars is easily $6,000 last time I checked. I could rebuild my engine 4 times for that cost.

Posted on Aug 3, 2009 8:08:00 PM PDT
J. Ewing says:
Interesting that 300 RAV-4 electrics (so you say) were built 10 years ago and none since? Apparently it wasn't such a great idea. Nissan has just rolled out the first practical-- same price and approximate performance-- electric vehicle and it runs on LITHIUM batteries. I've used both Nimh and lithium for years, and I prefer the lithium-- more power, faster recharge, more recharge cycles, longer life, better cold weather performance, much lighter, etc. Your one author may or may not be an expert, but I trust what I know and have experienced, plus what I see the car companies sinking millions of dollars into doing more than what you report. sorry. Now whether electric cars will compete any time soon, if ever, remains to be seen, and everybody is entitled to their opinion on that. What I know for certain is that one particular technology has not yet achieved the ascendancy over or even competitive status with the gasoline engine, and our speculation here as to what the technology will be is just that: idle speculation. The people betting millions one way or the other are the ones to watch.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 11:08:09 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 4, 2009 11:12:00 AM PDT
belair63 says:
J. Ewing thats right, there has been numerous electric and hybrid cars and alternative fuel vehicles dating back to the 1890`s and none have replaced the internal combustion engine. The technology either doesnt exsist or people just dont want to wait to recharge a battery when it would be quicker to refill a fuel tank and be on your way.

The biggest problem with pure electric is they cant currently be used in big trucks or heavy vehicles. You wont get the miliage you can out of a ligher vehicle. So in the end you still need a internal combustion engine for work vehicles or spend money and upgrade to hybrids like the public buses and trains here use where a diesel engine idles to create electricty for the electric motors which are very amp hungry (any electric motor that has to have alot of trq such as a starter motor to turn a engine with compression it eats up amps thats why we got up to 900 cranking amps that the battery provides to the starter).

This is just like the car that ford was experimenting with not too long ago no sooner than a few years ago. They had a mustang prototype and the thing ran off hydrogen. But it wasnt a hydrogen fuel cell that used electricy from the hydrogen to power electric motors. It was a internal combustion engine that burned hydrogen as gasoline. I dont know all the details on it but it worked and sounded great. Had a great performance sound to it not this annoying silent electrical humm. But in the end ford apparently scrapped this alternative fuel vehicle and they had to have a good reasion or they just put it on a back burner till the infrastructure is around. That leads to another point I should make we had electric charging stations all across the country for the baker electric and the other electric cars that women drove but we got rid of them and now here we are thinking of blowing money on it to go back to something we had. Thats just like here the light rail which in my book is nothing but a glorified tram. We had trams up to the 1930`s even the 1940`s then they were removed to make room for cars on the street. Now here we are blowing millions on building a new system and cars are getting hit by them because a light rail train has no business being on the road with traffic especially in a city of millions where most dont know how to drive.

Posted on Dec 5, 2009 7:29:00 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 5, 2009 7:32:00 AM PST
Yes "global warming" is a scam. This scam called "global warming" is linked to the Copenhagen Treaty (a.k.a. the "climate-debt" treaty). This treaty was established to combat "global warming". The treaty has three agendas:

1) A trans-national government (a.k.a. a world government) that will be headed by the UN

2) All of the wealthy nations who signs this treaty will have their wealth transferred to third world nations in order to satisfy a "climate debt" - this is how the UN will enforce a "carbon tax". This will give the UN the authority to control the financial, economic, and tax structure of every nation who signs the treaty.

3) Enforcement by the UN to make sure all nations who signs the treaty are compliant (via carbon tax).

Their ultimate plan is to have the U.S. split into sections called "smart cities" or "smart zones" where people's carbon emissions will be monitored. This has NOTHING to do with saving the environment from "global warming". This is all about money and controlling as many people as possible. The Copenhagen conference is Dec. 7 - Dec. 18, 2009

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 5, 2009 3:12:01 PM PST
J. Ewing says:
December 7th, eh? ANOTHER "day that will live in infamy"?

Posted on Dec 9, 2009 6:34:06 PM PST
Of Planetary Change Short Story

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2009 1:20:04 PM PST
ggoodwin says:
greetings Jim, all

I am not a public servant - I am a professional (software engineer) in the real world. I do not argue with what you are stating regarding percentages and facts, but I am here to state the scientists that are destroying evidence (email scandal for altering data) regarding their research is not professional and is illegal due to the court order not to destroy anything. These are not the actions of neutral scientists, these are the actions of people trying to hide what they did - what are they hiding from (this is largely a rhetorical question)? I have worked for companies under similar court orders (regarding patents), and no material can be destroyed, upon pain of possible job loss. These so called scientists act as if they are above the law.

The individuals you mention are not the only advocates of skepticism, they are just some of the more well known; you do not have to be famous to be a skeptic, or have a valid opinion. Using your logic, I could say the only people that believe in global warming are Gore, or have listened to him; this logic is faulty. Look no further than your co-workers, and it is likely you will find skeptics. The data in question is not due to lack of volume, it is its validity - the data has been tampered with, and the algorithm is unproven.

Weather happens is cycles, and it is easy to overwork data to get the answers you desire - ask any statistics major.

Posted on Dec 27, 2009 8:35:21 AM PST
BobC says:
"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment Programme
Opening speech, Rio Earth Summit. 1992

Strong and his "elite" criminal cronies want to deindustrialize the U.S. and other developed countries in order to bring about a neo-surfdom, where the entire population of the planet will be slaves to the super-wealthy minority. Watch "Fall of the Republic" and "Endgame" for free on youtube or google video for more info.
Also google "Climategate."

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2009 12:45:11 PM PST
JNagarya says:
"J. Chan says:

"Stop being so clueless,"

Groundless personal attack noted.

"spend a few minutes and do a google search on the Myth of Global Warming."

If it's a "myth," then you should be able to refute it. But you don't, becasue you're too busy name-calling.

"Also stop being so gullible,"

We're to believe YOU -- and you present NO EVIDENCE for your assertions? -- and worse:

"believing the garbage spouted by the liberal Gore,"

To you the word "liberal" is a dirty word; and you were taught to hate "liberals" by FOX and other far-right lunatic fringe America-haters. Tell us, Brainiac: Is it not likely that a hater will LIE against that hated?

"a known lier"

PROVE he's a liAr. But you can't -- that's why you simply sling insults and name-call, because your hogwash is entirely fact-free.

"and clearly deluded in his own importance and knowledge."

Personal attack against Gore noted -- that NOT being "argument" OR proof of anything except that you're a nasty name-caller who hasn't a whit of intelligence. But you DO admit that Gore has knowledge -- the very thing you LACK.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2009 2:07:34 PM PST
J. Ewing says:
"If it's a "myth," then you should be able to refute it. "

Wrong again. Those calling it a myth want to simply continue on with the status quo and believe Mother Earth will be just fine. Those who believe we will destroy Mother Earth unless we radically curtail human development, progress and liberty must prove THEIR case, beyond any reasonable doubt, to justify the radical change they demand.

It is not necessary to claim that Mr. Gore is a liar to state that he is wrong. He could honestly believe that the oceans will rise 20 feet in the next 100 years, but the "scientific consensus" of the IPCC report says the most likely number is 20 INCHES, and even that is based on what us deniers would call junk science.

It is not necessary to say that this idea-- CAGW-- is supported by "liberals" for it to be considered a bad idea. But supporters are largely political liberals in other areas of policy, the tactics are those of liberal causes, and the whole thing is based on the typical liberal foundation of "it's a crisis, no time for facts, we need more government!"

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 31, 2009 2:27:39 PM PST
ggoodwin says:
there is also the fact that Al Gore will not listen to new numbers produced. While at a press conference, Gore was asked if the Polar bear population increase affected his theory (by a noted researcher), he refused to answer, and had the questioner physically removed, when he only wanted an answer to a legitimate question. I believe he did not want to answer the question, because he knew his theory to be wrong.
This immediately gives an air of distrust about Gore - well that and the carbon footprint of his oversized boat, private jet, and houses.

Posted on Sep 25, 2010 5:25:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 25, 2010 5:29:43 PM PDT
K. Tremain says:
To quote Jeremy Grantham, manager of the $100B GMO fund:

Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks?... Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible "conspiracy theory": that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results.

Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths... The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco's resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same "experts" as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators' simple and direct motivation - making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to - combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: "Have they no grandchildren?""[[ASIN:1591843715 The Mesh: Why the Future of Business Is Sharing]]

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 9:23:24 AM PDT
J. Ewing says:
There is one flaw in your worldview. Do you not think it more likely that politicians, who command resources far more vast, and are far more adept at manipulating public opinion as well as "science," cannot create a conspiracy far more vast and diabolical? Isn't the "inconvenient truth" that there is little if any scientific truth to the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming? In fact, is there any scientific proof whatsoever?

Put it another way: Just because the "theory" is opposed by certain people does not make them wrong, any more than its support by certain liars, politicians and scientists with strong financial interests makes them wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 3:01:16 PM PDT
QUOTING J. EWING, "Do you not think it more likely that politicians, who command resources far more vast, and are far more adept at manipulating public opinion as well as 'science,' cannot create a conspiracy far more vast and diabolical?"

A president of the United States makes about half a million today. What does a C.E.O. of Exxon make? Half a billion?

And even if we're talking about billions of dollars in taxes yearly (the U.S. only being within its borders) versus billions of dollars of yearly Exxon income (just this one company alone--a multi-national, transnational company), your argument grants that taxes coming from what you would call a liberal government that supports welfare and social programs (i.e. to the People) versus a conservative government that supports corporate rights and greed (i.e. the devil) you would have to admit that the former's worldview would not be in making companies money, where the money would benefit only a minority of stockholders so small in comparison which DOES NOT even equate to 1% of U.S. citizens, but rather spend it on the People, where the money would be going to a place that WOULD benefit the people, or at least in an attempt to benefit the people. HOWEVER, in either case, it is NOT the politician who makes this money unless there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST in which profit can be made for oneself on behalf of being president of the country. And THAT comes from YOUR SIDE, SIR.

There is a difference between honesty and conflict of interest! And you said so yourself all over this board that you believe in conservative government and selfishness, but that belief of yours is not the intent of a true believer in the Optimism on which this country is founded. It is easy for you to slander everyone who possesses an optimism versus the sleezeball who rearranges everything in society around his own interests. If anyone is inherently evil, it is the people who go around assuming that everyone is evil as justification for mass murder, thievery, economic subjugation, and YOUR BRAND OF INEQUALITY. Your own worldview is the reason for itself, for greed is NOT good. In my view--and this view is shared by any good patriot of the country in observance of the principles for which it has been founded--we protect ourselves by waiting for someone of greed like yourself to make the mistake you make now albeit less prepared because we know someone is that evil; we know people could be evil and chose destruction, and that is what you want to do to the People, because your arguments do not side with the Needs of the Many. You will sacrifice others for what you prefer to be true rather than that of the reality of need, without even an attempt at observing general Welfare. The People deserve something for their life's advancements, and you're trying to put it into the pockets of ones who wants to monopolize their aristocratic positions rather than disperse it to those who earned this country's wealth as much as any one person within that 1%. Because of worldviews like yours, 1% of the people owns 95% of this country's wealth. If you don't know that we have a plutocracy, then you're avoiding the debate to a subject for which you know your paradigm to be responsible.

Your argument seems inherently flawed. There's no need for someone whose interests are the welfare of the People to lie, unless there is so much evil being done to the People that the only way to observe welfare is to let such good intentions go unrestrained by your mockeries of selfish wealth: when you haven't yet figured a way to get a buck for it. There is, however, a need for your wealthy elite to lie by way of corporate public relations: to tell people what is obviously so big of a lie as to make selfishness seem palatable. This is because a democratic government inherently observes the People, while a plutocracy inherently diverts them.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 26, 2010 7:10:43 PM PDT
J. Ewing says:
Arthur! Good to hear from you, old man. Glad to see that your utopian vision of government is still intact, that you still believe government, not capitalism and enlightened self-interest, provides the greatest good for the greatest number. Let me ask: how high does one need to go in elected office before one becomes so magnificently magnanimous and omniscient that they know what science SHOULD say, and what is best for everybody? Contrarily, how far up in corporate America does one rise before ceasing to be one of "us" and becomes a greedy monster bent on world domination and destruction? I certainly wouldn't want THAT, but then, we can't all be politicians, either.

The flaw in your argument is automatically assuming that those who disagree with you are evil, and those who agree are as altruistic as you believe yourself to be. The other flaw, of course, is assuming that any science that agrees with you is untainted by any self-interest, but any science which disagrees is the devil's deception. Even though nothing is so clear cut in science, particularly in something as complex as climate, one cannot attribute concern for the people and the planet only to one side. We deniers believe that human development is better for people than shutting down development to forestall some unproven calamity 100 years hence. I don't trust politicians to tell me the truth, and I don't trust scientists until they make all the data and analysis available so others can test their conclusions. I'll deny there is a plutocracy because there is only one element in our society that has a monopoly on force, and that's government. Corporations must provide me with something I want to gain my cooperation. In this case, government wants to force me to save the planet. Corporations side with me in saying I should have a choice.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 27, 2010 8:04:06 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 27, 2010 9:08:54 PM PDT
'Round and 'round we go: I don't need your permission to use government to support the People against your view. In a democratic state, politicians represent the people. Yet while voting on certain subjects is allowable, some rights are inherent to mankind by Nature--read the Declaration. Those rights cannot be taken away by the tyranny of the masses through the power of the vote, which is why we have a Bill of Rights. Addressing the Climate Crisis is not against the Constitution; factually, it is precisely the place to do something on behalf of Mankind. There is no conflict of interest in understanding the purpose of government or in the purpose of using it in justification of Right Act. But, there is one in inhibiting people from continuing to make the same statements that have been around for decades on the issue of what is called "Global Warming," the Climate Crisis. You're trying to prevent the issue of Global Warming from (A) being used to argue multinational oil and coal companies out of what they do, and (B) give the leftists any credit for taking on any issue which the Right refuses because of that other point (point A). That Al Gore made a movie about it that got everyone talking is your reason for walking into this public arena in an attempt to make guys like me look like they're trying to shove something down YOUR throat, when the problem here is that YOU DO NOT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO DO ITS JOB! It would empower the People, and you have no interest in letting the People gain an upper hand in this plutocracy--not when it's a question of money to be made.

You are the one who is conflicted in your interests. I just want the greater good to be a good for the Greater People, and you don't. You want it for the Lesser amount of People.

Did you ever read Sir Thomas More's "Utopia?" It's got nothing to do with "enlightened self-interest." That's because there's no such thing as "enlightened self-interest." There never was, and there never will be. Only a kook like Ayn Rand would say something that stupid. "Greed is good" is a contradiction. The paradox of your contradiction is that you don't want anything that helps everyone; you'd rather have things help the few. And although you use Darwin to support your excuse-making claim, your error is the assumption of it that Darwin wanted the animals of lower society to die for lack of worth. You often forget that the guy who said what you quote was saying what he said to be the altruist of a higher order that fends for those who were ready to be abused by the likes of you. Just because you can do a thing does not mean it is okay for you to do it, if that thing is evil by way of selfish motivation. It's the wrong reason--everyone says it, the Bible says it, and God says it, but that hasn't helped you figure it out. The Nazis wouldn't have wanted to, either. They would've abused, and did abuse, handicapped people, because handicapped people were there to be scapegoated, and so were the Protestants, and so were the Communists, and so were the Social Democrats--who Hitler had killed in the middle of the night for arguing politics so vehemently well against him. Social Democrats were Enemies of the State, in Nazi Germany.

Did you ever read Hilton's "Lost Horizon?"

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2010 3:55:13 PM PDT
J. Ewing says:
Again, Arthur, you assume that you have the "right" thing for All The People in preventing them from having cheap, abundant energy to better their lives. You assume that it would be better for us to curb our lifestyles and go back to the horse and buggy, while sending third world societies into perpetual third world status, just so that the earth won't get a few degrees warmer. Sorry, but even if Global Warming were real AND largely caused by human CO2, there is still a trade-off to be made. Whether you want to improve people's lives (ALL people) by making energy abundant and cheap, or to improve them just by moderating the climate a bit. It isn't a question of who makes money, because I don't care. Anybody that makes life better for a bunch of folks is entitled to profit from that, especially when they have the choice. The problem with government solutions is that people are denied choices, and must accept the choice government makes for them, right wrong or indifferent. That's the case here.

If you can convince enough people that global warming is real and that it is becoming catastrophic, they will do something about it, no government edicts needed. If you can't convince enough people that it is real and that they must do catastrophic things to their lifestyles to avoid a greater catastrophe, then you have no right to convince government to mandate it. I'm not the one doing evil, because I believe people should decide for themselves, and have the right to economically better themselves, without the heavy heel of government intervention. The difference is I trust the people, not the government.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 28, 2010 7:24:18 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 28, 2010 7:34:14 PM PDT
We can have an economy around renewable energy.

We don't have to have an economy around Exxon.

You should pick your battles better. You're persuaded by evil.

You've always argued that the cost of what is expensive to produce now would go down in time from competition. The cost of renewable energy would go down if Exxon was involved in it, but Exxon isn't! Its tactics are in its aristocratic wealth and it is not prepared to go to war with other companies over renewable energy when its current tactical status quo is ALREADY working to make its stockholders the most profited people on the planet. There's your aristocracy for you!

It won't change not because it can't, but because it doesn't know a good thing for the world when it sees one. You only see the world through Exxon. What it's doing is illegal, but its illegality won't be stopped if nobody attacks, and that's what you're trying to prevent. A corporation has a life and a death, and its death is not when its currency runs out or upon bankruptcy, because a corporation could theoretically go on for a million years if that were the case. This IS the case if nobody attacks Exxon with what was once the expiration law on corporations, for there used to be one.

You aren't interested in arguing. You're interested in hearing yourself talk. Your denials purposely put everyone else at bay as though you were the decider of reality, and that everyone had to convince you--that if you didn't want to be convinced, then nobody who wants to do something about Global Warming could, because the person couldn't win your opinion of it, when that was the reason you refused to agree on it: you are subject of conflict of interest! You aren't interested in Global Warming (except to waste everyone's time while proving how smart you are for them not being able to convince you).

QUOTING J. EWING, "The difference is I trust the people, not the government."

Okay, let me remind you once again for the millionth-******* time that the government in a democratic, representative state IS THE WORD OF THE PEOPLE. It's the same thing. It's the same thing yesterday; and, it's the same thing tomorrow. So, shut your mouth, because this line does no good. Let me explain it again how things work here in this country: the Congress are the People's representatives. What they decide on--BY DEFINITION--represents the will of the people. The problem is that you and your faction are playing politics in preventing what is right and just and good for this country by your "denial," your pretense that anybody has to convince you for the depth of the wall of bricks that is your mind. Your opposition is not representative of a movement; it is an anti-movement. Your view is to have no view, and suffer the damages of your anti-view of opposition. But, when it comes down to a vote, this country will either fail or succeed. And you know it will happen or not happen because of you and your anti-movement opposition. You've been on this board arguing for years, and nobody gives a crap about what you think, but that nobody can convince you because you convinced yourself to not be convinced is hateful.

Government is precisely the place to do something about the Climate Crisis. Even a fool should see that. But, you are a fool of opposition--a "denialist." Your "fool-dom" is to not even grant the courtesy of whether or not to allow me to win a vote and get something done about it. Well, I'll step on you, sir, for your paradoxical "denialist" idiocy. You do not exist. There's no guarantee that I am arguing with anyone but myself on a figment of my imagination, because that is what you are. Dumb, foolish, moronic, stupid, dense, silly, f---ed, and more. You suck!

If you are to answer one question, make it this: Are you saying you want to dissolve American Government?

Posted on Aug 14, 2013 8:23:06 AM PDT
Make sure to check out Global Warming In Action ~ A Musical Story DVD on Amazon. It is a mesmerizing movie that shows glacial calving events. Truly amazing!
‹ Previous 1 ... 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in


This discussion

Participants:  97
Total posts:  922
Initial post:  Jan 25, 2007
Latest post:  Aug 14, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 15 customers

Search Customer Discussions