Crazy Mazie, (bankrupt, tax return, living in)

[Open-D]

Originally Posted by blau808

It's not even worth trying to convince people like you. I gave you a peer-reviewed scientific article which as I predicted, you ignored. Are you scared of facts? Do you doubt science? Are you scared of anything that would burst your bubble of misinformation?

Please provide me some peer-reviewed sources for YOUR beliefs and I may just change my mind.

We'll wait.

You need peer-reviewed studies to tell you there was, and no longer is, an Ice Age? Really? Go to the La Brea tar pits and see the Mammoth and Sabre Toothed Tiger skeletons.

However, lets assume, arguendo, that man's activities have, in fact, caused a substantive change in the climate, either in the now, or immediate future, that would include significant sea-level changes etc., as is often predicted.

What do you propose to stop it, and how certain are you that the proposed action will actually make a substantive difference at this point in time.

Be cognizant of the fact, that western civilization is fully and wholly reliant on fossil fuels for its very survival. Cut of gas (natural or unleaded) and people die. Cut off electricity, and people die. Cut off diesel, and people die. Deny wood-burning in the same manner, and people die. Not just the ones on the beach, but everywhere, not just in the future, but here and now. Do you really have any idea what your proposals would do. Starvation, hypo or hyperthermia, lack of medical care etc.,can't be "managed".

A creeping ocean rise over decades can be managed. Changes in growing regions, occurring over decades, can be managed.

How many millions are you willing to put at risk to possibly prevent a few inches or even feet of sea-level rise occurring at a snail's pace?

Now, let the other shoe drop. You have the cue ball in-hand. Lets see what you have beyond the hysteria.

I'll wait.

[blau808]

Originally Posted by Open-D

You need peer-reviewed studies to tell you there was, and no longer is, an Ice Age? Really? Go to the La Brea tar pits and see the Mammoth and Sabre Toothed Tiger skeletons.

However, lets assume, arguendo, that man's activities have, in fact, caused a substantive change in the climate, either in the now, or immediate future, that would include significant sea-level changes etc., as is often predicted.

What do you propose to stop it, and how certain are you that the proposed action will actually make a substantive difference at this point in time.

Be cognizant of the fact, that western civilization is fully and wholly reliant on fossil fuels for its very survival. Cut of gas (natural or unleaded) and people die. Cut off electricity, and people die. Cut off diesel, and people die. Deny wood-burning in the same manner, and people die. Not just the ones on the beach, but everywhere, not just in the future, but here and now. Do you really have any idea what your proposals would do. Starvation, hypo or hyperthermia, lack of medical care etc.,can't be "managed".

A creeping ocean rise over decades can be managed. Changes in growing regions, occurring over decades, can be managed.

How many millions are you willing to put at risk to possibly prevent a few inches or even feet of sea-level rise occurring at a snail's pace?

Now, let the other shoe drop. You have the cue ball in-hand. Lets see what you have beyond the hysteria.

I'll wait.

Still waiting.

[Open-D]

Originally Posted by blau808

Still waiting.

Yes, I'm still waiting. What are your proposals. I don't operate off of "peer-reviewed studies" all penned and reviewed by sycophants. So many of them have been disproved. I've come to my conclusions over 30 years of exposure to the arguments, and doom-and-gloom predictions that never, ever come to pass.

Your side has cried "WOLF" so many times, no thinking person does, or should, give you any notice, and we don't.

So what, pray tell, are your proposed solutions. I take it that you, having no legal experience whatsoever, have no idea what "assuming arguendo" means. It means assuming you are correct, for the sake of argument....

Now, assuming you and your peer-reviewers are correct, what are your proposals?

You have the cue ball in hand, the balls are racked, your stick is chalked. Now place the cue ball on the table and give it your best shot. Try, at the very least, to keep the cue ball on the felt.

I'm waiting

[blau808]

Originally Posted by Open-D

Yes, I'm still waiting. What are your proposals. I don't operate off of "peer-reviewed studies" all penned and reviewed by sycophants. So many of them have been disproved. I've come to my conclusions over 30 years of exposure to the arguments, and doom-and-gloom predictions that never, ever come to pass.

Your side has cried "WOLF" so many times, no thinking person does, or should, give you any notice, and we don't.

So what, pray tell, are your proposed solutions. I take it that you, having no legal experience whatsoever, have no idea what "assuming arguendo" means. It means assuming you are correct, for the sake of argument....

Now, assuming you and your peer-reviewers are correct, what are your proposals?

You have the cue ball in hand, the balls are racked, your stick is chalked. Now place the cue ball on the table and give it your best shot. Try, at the very least, to keep the cue ball on the felt.

I'm waiting

Still waiting for any credible evidence to support your claims other than tinfoil hat theories that you made up in your (crazy? stubborn? old?) mind.

[Open-D]

Originally Posted by blau808

Still waiting.

I'll tell you what. While your trying to come up with some proposals that won't send people running for the tar and feathers, I'll make my offer. It's my first, last and best offer.

I will sacrifice, $1.00 of lifestyle for every 1 foot of projected rise in the sea level, year-by-year. If your side predicts the sea will rise 3' this year, I'll sacrifice $3.00 of lifestyle, but if it only rises 1', well I get $2.00 back, and an additional $2.00 credit for next years projections, and an additional $2.00 donated by yourself just to keep you honest.

That's a better deal that anyone else would give you. I suggest you project conservatively, not radically.

To sweeten the deal, for every 1' OVER your projections that the sea rises, I'll give you $10.00.

[Open-D]

Originally Posted by blau808

Still waiting for any credible evidence to support your claims other than tinfoil hat theories that you made up in your (crazy? stubborn? old?) mind.

You don't get it do you. You're asking me to disprove a negative. I made no prediction, YOU did. I have to prove nothing. I'm merely standing pat.

However, if you want credible, real-world evidence I will help you out. Go out to the nearest ocean and see if it is still in the same spot, at the same level, or not. I'll bet you, within the range of tdes, it is exactly as it has been as far as the eye can discern. No flooded areas etc., I know every time I take the boat out, the ocean is the same, the floating pier is the same, no change.

There's your proof.

Now where are your proposals (or are you afraid what you really want is so extreme as to give away your real agenda, and prove what I am saying is true). Come on Dr. Fixit, give us your cure. Man up, so to speak. I'm all eyeballs.

Anyone can cry wolf, it takes a man to drive it off.

I'm waiting.

[Open-D]

Originally Posted by Open-D

Yes, I'm still waiting. What are your proposals. I don't operate off of "peer-reviewed studies" all penned and reviewed by sycophants. So many of them have been disproved. I've come to my conclusions over 30 years of exposure to the arguments, and doom-and-gloom predictions that never, ever come to pass.

Your side has cried "WOLF" so many times, no thinking person does, or should, give you any notice, and we don't.

So what, pray tell, are your proposed solutions. I take it that you, having no legal experience whatsoever, have no idea what "assuming arguendo" means. It means assuming you are correct, for the sake of argument....

Now, assuming you and your peer-reviewers are correct, what are your proposals?

You have the cue ball in hand, the balls are racked, your stick is chalked. Now place the cue ball on the table and give it your best shot. Try, at the very least, to keep the cue ball on the felt.

I'm waiting

Silence from the Wolf Crying, the sky-is-falling predictor of doom-and-gloom-that-never-arrives.

I suspect the next naturally-occuring Ice Age will hit before any of the crisis you and your Peer Reviewed cronies predict comes to pass.

In 20 years, 30 at the outside, you'll agree with me. You'll agree because the sky didn't fall, the ocean didn't rise, and we didn't cook or freeze or starve (at least not caused by the weather/climate).

[Jungjohann]

[quote=Open-D;56848335]
"...about Mazie Hirono, she's terrible. Worst approval rating in the senate, and I think someone said you could shoot Mazie in the Senate, with everyone watching, and there would be no witnesses.."

Oh, wait a minute. I didn't say that, YOU did, so get off your high horse of pretended-insult about Crazie Mazie. You embarrass yourself gravely AND repeatedly

/QUOTE]

I was quoting Senator Lindsey Graham who was talking about Senator Ted Cruz you mentally limaceous politically insipid poltroon.

And try researching the Milankovich Cycles. It will involve reading. Try not to move your lips too much, but it's OK if you drag your knuckles on the floor.

Done feeding the troll.........

[Open-D]

[quote=Jungjohann;56851528]

Originally Posted by Open-D

"...about Mazie Hirono, she's terrible. Worst approval rating in the senate, and I think someone said you could shoot Mazie in the Senate, with everyone watching, and there would be no witnesses.."

Oh, wait a minute. I didn't say that, YOU did, so get off your high horse of pretended-insult about Crazie Mazie. You embarrass yourself gravely AND repeatedly

/QUOTE]

I was quoting Senator Lindsey Graham who was talking about Senator Ted Cruz you mentally limaceous politically insipid poltroon.

And try researching the Milankovich Cycles. It will involve reading. Try not to move your lips too much, but it's OK if you drag your knuckles on the floor.

Done feeding the troll.........

To quote you, "But you're right about Mazie Hirono, she's terrible. Worst approval rating in the senate, and I think someone said you could shoot Mazie in the Senate, with everyone watching, and there would be no witnesses.."

Now you say you were quoting Sen. Graham. You are either a plagerist, a liar or both. What a maroon.

[Jungjohann]

(CNN)South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham thinks his party has gone "bats---" crazy, and joked Thursday that it's possible to get away with murdering Ted Cruz if it happened in the Senate.

"If you killed Ted Cruz on the floor of the Senate, and the trial was in the Senate, nobody would convict you," the former presidential candidate said at the Washington Press Club Foundation's 72nd Congressional Dinner, referencing the Texas senator's unpopular reputation on Capitol Hill.


I realize that reading comprehension is way above your pay grade.......