Re: Global Warming
I am sure this theory and counter-theory exercise is fantastic. I heard there is also a theory that it is only great grand children who will bear the real brunt of GW (By GW, I mean Global Warming, and not an abbreviated reference to Bush). So, unless you live in New Orleans, lets just engage in a theory/counter-theory game. Life is good.
Re: Global Warming
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA.
Re: Global Warming
^ Bitches man!!! :(
Re: Global Warming
Correction…legacy of Clinton: OBL, Huge trade deficit with China, P***y dipped cigars etc
Re: Global Warming
Kaleem Bhai, just move out to Arizona, I am sure you will be safe.
Re: Global Warming
^ trade deficit with China? suckabooboo what? I don't know wht happened to my republican party, th eparty of Lincoln and T.R. but I am about to take it back from the brink of retardation. The trade deficit with China is not a function of any administrations folly.
OBL, is an administrative blunder of both clinton, both Bushes and even the califonai republican demigod Reagan.
The fact that we have people asking for sihthead concepts like intelligent design to replace evolution is the last straw. We are going to be left with a country of unscientific knuckleheads ala the arab muslim world if we go down this route.
thank god for republicans in blue states....without us, you would all be trying to cure cancer by reciting hymns. morons!!!
Re: Global Warming
Kaleem Bhai,
What is a conservative democrat? I gather this much that you are not a republican, you are definately not a liberal, nor a liberatarian.
Re: Global Warming
Pinnay, you knuckle head... when did I say that intelligent design must be introduced into the science class...
Trade deficit with China is a function/misfuntion of the administration....
OBL could have been taken out when clinton was in office and he looked the other way.
Do explain to me the ties of Regan and OBL....
AJ bhaijaan, please tell us how are these storms and hurricanes related to Global warming?
Re: Global Warming
I am not sure what a conservative democrat is?.. All I know is that I am a conservative…
Re: Global Warming
Same argument could be made about Bush and Reagan. How the fk are issues that are common to all admins be labeled as a legacy? Stogies dipped in vaginal secretion may be, but others are fk-ups of all admins.
Re: Global Warming
When 1 Katrina hits Washington DC…hmmmm
Re: Global Warming
Thank you very much Kaleem bhai. The reason I asked was because ppl on GS tell you that you are republican and you tell them you are not. That would make you either a democrat or a green party or an independent which I doubt. I know you have mentioned quite a few times that you are a conservative, but I have never heard of a conservative -democrat. thats why I asked. Because to be quite honest all democrats to me come across as quite loose with no values, unlike the values that are dispalyed in Texas and other sothern states.
Re: Global Warming
^ do you mean "loose" like "loose" or "loose" like "lose"
Re: Global Warming
All of the above, loose like monica lweinsky and lose like al gore.
Re: Global Warming
Oh please.
Kaleem is right.
Undoubtedly there is global warming. Confidence 90%
We also know that the world goes through warm periods before that have lasted decades, even centuries. Confidence 70%
We know that human beings may be creating conditions that make global warming worse. Confidence 40-50%.
We know that the US contributes to global warming by emitting greenhouse gasses. So does everybody else. There is no evidence that changing behaviors will reduce global warming. There is no evidence that global warming did not start decades ago. There is no evidence that global warming is not partially due to deforestation. There is no evidence that excluding developing countries from the Kyoto treaty does not create systemic global warming anyway. There is not evidence that the EU will come anywhere close to meeting it's Kyoto commitment.
So what you are left with is essentially a presumption that Global warming is caused by the US, and specifically by Bush. And despite the fact that Kyoto completely ignores huge polluters like China and India, the US is to blame, because it did not buy into the flawed logic of Kyoto, which became a wealth distribution method, rather than a treaty to actually control global warming.
So we are left with an unprovable theory cured by an unprovable highly politicized solution.
Confidence 0%
Re: Global Warming
OG bhaijaan, it's ok you can keep on saying that there is no evidence ... and so I asked how many katrinas before the right starts blaming the gays? Confedence 99.99%
Re: Global Warming
Ahmadjee,
I am 100% certain that 100% of the people claiming Global Warming caused Katrina which is caused by Bush are 100% against Bush to begin with. There is nothing worse than polluting science with politics...
Re: Global Warming
OG bhaijaan, Bush can't even get to the loo without permission, being responsible for Katrina is by far a long shot. But as Kaleem bhai suggested there are theories that go both ways, which is always the case, be it evolution vs. intelligent design or Elvis being alive or dead. But sometimes realities sink in, like it happened with the WMD.
So, if say 10 more category storms hit within the next 5 years, will it raise some eye brows? How about one more next year and we will see people having second thoughts?
Re: Global Warming
^ what is worse is polluting science with religion and then using politcs to have it happen. Funny isn't it...Bush, who is a retard is for intelligent design...the irony is amazing..
Re: Global Warming
My first apartment after college had a guy across the hall who worked out of his apartment. He was a systems integrator for a computer company under contract to deliver a global weather forcast to the US navy. He had massive parallel processors calculating for 12 straight hours, and the best he could do is forcast the next 12 hours. Not 24, not 72, just 12 hours. The atmosphere is the most complex example of chaos theory ever studied. To then study that same mass of chaos over decades is an unbelievably complicated endeavor. Literally, to be sure that something is NOT random you must study centuries, for which , of course there is no data.
So, even 10 category 5 storms in and of itself would not PROVE global warming. It would certainly support the theory, but you could not be certain that the earth had not before quite randomly gone through a period like this before, or that there might not be some other explainable cause. Certainly to effect a mass that is as well buffered as the atmosphere would take decades, not a four year term plus one year. But the anti-Bush crowd would blame him for sunspots if they thought they could get away with it…