Off Topic Messages

Bush/Blair Cartoon [UK]

Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:47 pm

From today's Independent:

Image

So does he care ?

Image

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:22 pm

Here's a flash for all the Global Warming folks......the earth goes through cyclical climate changes completely unrelated to anything man does. Colin, you are old enough to remember that in the mid-to-late 1970's everyone from Time magazine on down was touting the scientific consensus that we were heading for a freakin' ICE AGE!!!!!! Now we're heading toward Saharan Doom in only 30 years time?? :roll: .

Anybody heard about the ozone hole lately?? That was being hysterically promulgated for YEARS as the harbinger of doom, the result of our overheating the planet.........haven't heard anything lately?? Well, despite the claims and the panic and the predictions of doom since global warming punched the hole and could only make it worse, and we were all going to FRY.......it closed up all by itself. We didn't curb our emissions, and it just closed up....

Could it be that the ongoing and relentless chatter about such doomsday scenarios are nothing more than the scientific community looking for FUNDING??? NOOOOOOOOO.........

The earth will always go through heating/warming cycles. Not a damn thing we can do about it

Mon Jul 04, 2005 2:28 pm

Scatter -

Sure, there were warnings about the hole in the ozone layer.

They were heeded; CFC's were cut down [like in fridges & aerosols], the problem was averted.

Even Mr. Bush concedes that the global warming is 'to an extent' man-made [see article].

We can't control nature, but we can try our best to lessen the effect of man-made pollution, can't we ?

We owe that much to future generations.

Mon Jul 04, 2005 4:19 pm

China is fast becoming AMERICA.

And Ostriches abound.

What a plague we are on this unfinished planet which WILL be finished as far as we are concerned if the population continues to expand and foul up every river and Ocean with their waste.

Carl Sagan please come back, the funnymentalists are rampant!

http://www.airliners.net/news/index.new ... %20Presley%

Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:06 pm

ColinB wrote:They were heeded; CFC's were cut down [like in fridges & aerosols], the problem was averted.

Even Mr. Bush concedes that the global warming is 'to an extent' man-made [see article].

We can't control nature, but we can try our best to lessen the effect of man-made pollution, can't we ?

We owe that much to future generations.


Though I agree with you that problems should be curbed IF it is first proved to be a problem and second economical.

As far as Mr. Bush or anyone else thinking that the hole in the ozone(which is a THINNING and not exactly a hole) was manmade, are quite simply guessing.

Not only do we only know that the hole exists because of technology that "discovered" it, but it shows no proof to the age. We assume that the hole is getting bigger because of us because we see growth? Oh wait, what about the reports of it getting smaller???? Must have been us too...yeah right!

The facts are that any good scientist knows that you cannot make an assessment with a good amount of data that stretches the whole time period of a project. To make a logical theory about global warming....ozone...etc. you must have more data. Judgeing the temperature of the earth or effects there of you cannot just have data from the last 50 or so years. The earth is millions of years old. Even the data we have to this day is incomplete. We take most of our readings from the land, but what about the rest of the ocean?

Also lets look at it from a chemical standpoint. Sure we put up HF along with alot of other things...but what about the Ozone we produce as well? Everytime you turn on a light, everytime you start a car..etc. Nature itself produces pollution as well...oh but is the balance we are messing up they will say. YEAH RIGHT.

When it comes to pollution Volcano's, Hurricanes itself produces far more. The Ocean itself evaporates 300,000 tons of Chlorine a year....a Volcano shoots up pollution into the atmosphere like a lit bunsen burner which also has been erupting for millions of years. There is simply no comparison. Our numbers are in the low thousands and actually decreasing.

BUT all that said, we are becoming more and more effecient as time has gone on. Why...because it is ECONOMICAL! What good is it to have a car that is letting all your fuel go to the air??? The air is much much cleaner then it was in say the 50's. Pollitical mumbo jumbo will not convince America and the rest of the world just hates it(well actually not Japan because they too are in the business of making money as opposed to "feeling good").

Mon Jul 04, 2005 5:45 pm

Michael Crighton has recently come under fire for daring to criticize the environ-mental movement for the sham that it is. It is scare tactics designed to procure funding. Crighton went so far as to refer to the environmental movement as "the religion of urban atheists" (as far as I know Crighton is himself an atheist - which makes his remark all the more cutting!).

Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:55 pm

Pete -

You should have added:

"Not that there's anything wrong with atheists, of course"

Political correctness extends to that group, too !

We can't sit back and wait for science to 'prove' that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

The pollution of our world is a bad thing in any case, and the sooner we get to grips with controlling it, the better.

If that then saves the planet, well it will be a well-earned bonus, won't it ?

Mon Jul 04, 2005 9:46 pm

ColinB wrote:Pete -

You should have added:

"Not that there's anything wrong with atheists, of course"


Colin, I didn't add that because I don't think that! But regardless, the point of my post, and Crighton's comment isn't about atheism. It's about mis-guided, uninformed activism (read: crusade) and the disingenous element within the environmental movement who's real goal is self-perpetuation by scare tactics designed to gain public funding.

Colin B wrote:Political correctness extends to that group, too!


Political correctness, like anything else taken to an extreme, is detrimental. We've created an artificial "I'm ok, you're ok" post-modern society. We've reached the absurd level of not being able to criticize any individual or group for fear of being painted as 'intolerant.' But this doesn't reflect reality.

Colin B wrote:We can't sit back and wait for science to 'prove' that global warming is a man-made phenomenon.

The pollution of our world is a bad thing in any case, and the sooner we get to grips with controlling it, the better.

If that then saves the planet, well it will be a well-earned bonus, won't it ?


I don't disagree with what you wrote above Colin. However, we shouldn't let an 'Emporer's new clothes' scenario go unchallenged. Once upon a time the environmental movement was spearheaded by conservationists. People who actually worked in the wilderness and understood nature. Then politics entered into it, beauracracies were formed, and 'environmental science' became the order of the day. So you have people majoring in environmental science who are lab-oriented or conduct the occasional field study, but who simply lack any actual, practical understanding of nature. You have political appointees chairing branches of government pertaining to the environment who also have no actual experience with nature. Last but not least you have scientists making claims about global warming and the ozone layer. And what is the common thread running through all of this? Government Funding! M-O-N-E-Y. And where does this funding come from? Tax payer dollars.

Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:33 pm

Pete, What exactly is post-modern society?

Mon Jul 04, 2005 10:37 pm

Pete you have pretty much said it best. Though I think the point about it coming from Tax Payers will be lost in this case. We are speaking of Socialism at its biggest when we speak of Europe. They would rather all of us pay for something that isn't proven...because it feels good. That is why other countries cried when Kerry wasn't elected....they would have rather had a president that would look out for foreign countries approval first. Funk that.

Can you imagine it....lets treat other valuable resources the same way. Milk MAY be cancerous...so lets outlaw it??? That kind of rationale is dangerous for anyone.

Funny how some people will take the stance for something like the environment, but not for a war effort which has a more logical short term devastating effect.

Still this whole topic is sticky and what will happen is that it will turn into a name calling thing and then it will get locked when the left group/moderators don't like where it is going.

Tue Jul 05, 2005 12:15 am

Anyone care to address the Global Cooling scare that I'm certain had bunched the undies of many here just a few years ago?? No?? Not surprised. Do a Google if you're too young to remember

Colin, as for your contention that 5 years of CFC reduction has reversed the hole in the ozone.......well, it's no wonder so many buy into this propoganda. Europe may have reduced theirs.......but China has accounted for all the reduction being reintroduced......and then some.

Batter up!!!!!

Tue Jul 05, 2005 11:04 am

Both cooling and heating up of this unfinished planet is possible.

In the past it had little to do with the human population.

Now we do make a difference - the fast increasing billions of us!

All wanting EVERYTHING!

http://www.airliners.net/news/index.new ... %20Presley%

All those vapour trails!!!

Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:18 am

Maurice, it's not POSSIBLE, it's demonstrable scientific fact that the Earth goes through heating and cooling cycles.........unlike the non-demonstrable and wholly unsubstantiated "Global Warming, we started it and we can stop it" rubbish.

Once again.....care to address how the scientific community went from global cooling to global warming in 30 years?? Beside the obvious pitch for funding that is :lol: . Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.....

Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:46 am

The topic is being discussed on BBC4 World service radio at this minute:-)

It appears only the USA have a problem with the issue. The consensus oppinion (as with Evolution) agrees climate change is no longer a theory.

We get far more scientific pros and cons here than you may be aware of. Our many Satirical shows get to grips with all the theories, and the funnymentalists in the USA do not get a good press!

Of course we know about cliche Funding.

Nucleur scientists working for power stations swear it's safe! Nice of them to share noble sentiments:-)

Do I want to get into long drawn out discussions? Nope. Had all them with a Mormon bishop on the TIME message boards some years ago. You sound like him.

Now we have to go and get some of the oldest rocks on earth from the coast nearby. It's getting eroded these days for some reason or other:-)

Wed Jul 06, 2005 2:26 pm

I wonder...How brainwashed must a person be not to understand that any pollution is a bad thing?
And genesims childish milk example is way off track...You can choose to drink or not to drink milk...But you gotta breath the air to live...

Wed Jul 06, 2005 5:56 pm

Yes Scarre, and Scatter's "heating" of the Earth can be natural, AND exacerbated by the massive growth of the human population on dwindling natural resources.

Even here in little green Ireland disposal of waste is becoming a huge problem, you see we are enjoying the, "American dream".

Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:47 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:The topic is being discussed on BBC4 World service radio at this minute:-)

It appears only the USA have a problem with the issue. The consensus oppinion (as with Evolution) agrees climate change is no longer a theory.


It's not climate change per se that's the issue Maurice, but rather the claims of the enviro-crusaders. The reason why some of us here in the U.S. are sceptical of these claims is that claims have been made in the past that later turned out to be unfounded. It's not unreasonable to demand that evidence - both pro and con - be presented, particularly since it's the taxpayer who bankrolls the environmental programs. And regarding evolution Maurice, here's some facts for you: "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1.) Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2.) Sudden appearance. In any local area a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of it's ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed." This quote is by the late Harvard evolutionary theorist Stephen Jay Gould.

MauriceinIreland wrote:
We get far more scientific pros and cons here than you may be aware of. Our many Satirical shows get to grips with all the theories, and the funnymentalists in the USA do not get a good press!


By 'funnymentalists' I take it you mean fundamentalists Maurice? I don't see what religious fundamentalism has to do with this particular discussion. Michael Crighton is an outspoken critic of the environmental-activist movement, and he has a scientific background in addition to being a writer. And I'm pretty sure he's an atheist.

MauriceinIreland wrote: Of course we know about cliche Funding.

Nucleur scientists working for power stations swear it's safe! Nice of them to share noble sentiments:-)


I'd support independent nuclear scientists - who aren't beholden to either side - to make the assessment.

MauriceinIreland wrote:
Do I want to get into long drawn out discussions? Nope. Had all them with a Mormon bishop on the TIME message boards some years ago. You sound like him.


Again I fail to see why you bring religion into this discussion? But I do recall about a month ago that when you issued a challenge on another thread Scatter and I provided rebuttals, to which you responded by saying you didn't have time to get into it, name-dropped Richard Dawkins, and got some sarcastic swipes in at Scatter and I. But what you didn't do is address the content of our rebuttals.

MauriceinIreland wrote:Now we have to go and get some of the oldest rocks on earth from the coast nearby. It's getting eroded these days for some reason or other:-)


Maybe it's due to all that Guiness you Irish piss back into the environment! :wink:

Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:23 pm

Scarre wrote:I wonder...How brainwashed must a person be not to understand that any pollution is a bad thing?
And genesims childish milk example is way off track...You can choose to drink or not to drink milk...But you gotta breath the air to live...


That is where you are fundamentally wrong. There is all types of pollution that has actually helped species to adapt. MOST pollution is *gasp* NATURAL. Matter of fact it was pollution that I believe help form the very land masses and climate that we live and breathe in to this day.

My milk example was actually right in all regards. Just as you can choose to drive or not to drive....wait what was your point again??

Oh yeah, gotta breathe air...and who is stopping you? If people of the earth are growing at an exponential rate then how is it we all are able to breathe longer because of our expanded life span?

Buddy we are FLEAS on a dog when it comes to us and the earth. If you were a actual scientist that understood the concept that matter is neither created nor destroyed, you would see that the logic of late is flawed in regards to the "sky is falling" routine.

Still I am against say..dumping nuclear elements into our ocean at great quanities..but at the same time, I am also not for jumping at every hypothetical because it "feels good" either. I believe that economics are a big part of the equation and it cannot be ignored.

Wed Jul 06, 2005 10:18 pm

Pete you have too much time on your hands...all that for me. I'm just playing with the topic. Lighten up.

After many decades of reading and watching the subjects in great depth I do not lean on any particulr shoulder...although there have been thousands. I'm now quite certain Evolution is the answer to our origen, Period. I could be wrong:-) but I'm not!

Global warming? Well the ice caps are melting are they not? Just Rhetoric I do not have the time to go over it all again:-) Enjoy yourself anyway, the pursuit of knowledge is a noble pastime.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 3:37 am

I first responded to Mo's refusal to debate with anger.......not worth it though. For those interested, do a search on intelligent design in this MB. You will see cogent, scientifically valid evidence brought forth by Pete and myself to Maurice......and all remain unanswered.
If you, Maurice, deign to swoop in here and insult us, have the integrity to debate the issue in front of the MB. If you will not (or likely cannot) debate, a man of honor would desist from engaging and insulting others and running away. You owe an apology for your behavior.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:52 am

Scatter, That's really rich. You back a liar and speak to me of honor!

What has upset you so much?:-) some debate here, others just comment.

I choose to just comment.

Discerning readers will make their own minds up about the pros and cons.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:20 pm

MauriceinIreland wrote:After many decades of reading and watching the subjects in great depth I do not lean on any particulr shoulder...although there have been thousands. I'm now quite certain Evolution is the answer to our origen, Period. I could be wrong:-) but I'm not!


If you're quite certain then tell us something certain about evolution Maurice. For instance tell us: 1.) How non-living matter became living organisms. The chemical biologists would sure like to know, as they have no clue. Remember Maurice, natural selection can only work on organisms that already exist. It cannot create ex nihilo. 2.) Why are the required transitional intermediates, of which there should be millions, not preserved in the fossil record? Particularly in the invertebrate record, which is where the fossils are most abundant? 3.) How do you explain the evidence for irreducible complexity in micro-organisms? All the parts must be intact for the organism to be functional. Take away one part and the organism cannot function. Neo-Darwinistic gradualism cannot account for this. Darwin himself wrote that if it can be shown that an organ or organsim is irreducibly complex his theory would break down! In Darwin's day scientists didn't not understand cellular biology. They were considered blobs of proteins whose inner workings were a mystery, a 'black box.' In the 20th century molecular biologists have unlocked these black boxes, and have discovered that they are immensely complex. This complexity is both specific and irreducible. The specified complexity is information! It is encoded into the organism at the molecular level. Encoded information. Think computer programming. What is the source of a computer's programming? A computer programmer - an intelligent agent!

Mauricein Ireland wrote:Global warming? Well the ice caps are melting are they not? Just Rhetoric I do not have the time to go over it all again:-) Enjoy yourself anyway, the pursuit of knowledge is a noble pastime.


It's not global warming that's the issue, the issue is is this a natural process of nature or is it something we're causing.

Thu Jul 07, 2005 4:36 pm

Maury, You are so funny :lol:

You promote the evolution theory, yet you believe in your own mind "you are God!" I mean you promote yourself as if you're the only true Elvisfan who has done more for his memory than anyone and that just about everything revolves around you. Plus, you make it appear that you walk between the raindrops and across the water.

I truly believe a tall glass of humility would do you some good.

I hope you make the choice to take a swallow of it before your biological clock stops ticking. :)

Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:06 am

MauriceinIreland wrote:Scatter, That's really rich. You back a liar and speak to me of honor!

Please demonstrate where Tom is a liar.......we have been waiting patiently. You post an article where it is plainly stated that you contacted the author to claim credit for the Elvis at 13 Statue.......then become indignant when the self serving nature of that act justifies what Tom has been saying.


What has upset you so much?:-)

Your inclination to demean and insult me (as well as Pete and others) without giving the forum to address your assertions. You insult and demean, then run away when confronted. It is cowardly, and frankly, beneath you.

some debate here, others just comment.

I choose to just comment.

You do not choose to comment.....I can only conclude that you are unable to defend your assertions,therefore hit and run insults are your only recourse. Prove me wrong .


Discerning readers will make their own minds up about the pros and cons.

My guess is that discerning readers have already seen you for what you are. You demagogue and pontificate with arrogance, then run away when your views are challenged. You engage in "Drive-by-Posting", casting insults at others who are equipped to not only defend their positions, but demolish yours. Again.....put up or shut up. And let the discerning posters decide.


Fri Jul 08, 2005 2:20 am

A little disingenuous Scatter. TINC, has been lying about me for years with his accusations of plagiarism.

He says I did not get the statue erected or kickstart the Elvis Airport campaign.
That's why I posted the article, not for self glorification but in defense!
He disgracefully mocks people at every opportunity and even tonight a lot of posts had to be deleted on a London thread because of his stupid aggression against Greg.

Other moderate posters have pointed out I only react to provocation and that has been the history here.

TINC, even insults my wife!

I use my real name, honesty is important to me.

A little fun does not hurt anyone.

Malicious twisting of the truth is not to be tolerated. But as you have seen TINCs cronies back his every word and infantile cartoon humour.

Well that's me done here on the off Topic section TINC's playground.

In fact I'm almost totally finished on this message board, Period.

I'll not waste time with all the quotes I know by now the intelligent and moderate guys who recognised injustice when they saw it.

The fact you are so angry is telling. If I'm all you say I am, why bother :-)

Pete, "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins addressed that question. As for the computer analogy. What kind of programmer would purposely invent a mad robot? Think about it.

The End.

http://travel.timesonline.co.uk/article ... 16,00.html