The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[Murray]

Changing your opinion is different to admitting you were wrong which is all I'm trying to get just_maybe to do.

You make my point, in relation to the quote I posted, far better than I could ever do.

Do you see the irony?

 

[rick James]

You make my point, in relation to the quote I posted, far better than I could ever do.

Do you see the irony?

I don't think he was arguing with you madam. He was simply saying he's not even trying to get jm to change his opinion.

 

[Monkster]

He was simply saying he's not even trying to get jm to change his opinion.

That's exactly what I was saying

 

[moistie]

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

You forgot to put one important fact from the article you quoted, section8. The date it was published. NF-182 June 1993

So you're now resorting to using 12 year old data to attempt to justify the non-existance of the Greenhouse Effect? Would you care to come up with something recent that paints such a rosy picture?

EDIT: Also, I note that your article states

average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2.

This is interesting considering since 1980 the average global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees and the CO2 data I provided earlier is also increasing exponentially. Since that article was written in 1993, five of the six hottest years on record have occurred 1999-2005 with 1999 being the hottest.

Given the year that article was written was likely the one where the temperature briefly spiked downward prior to continuing its climb, what better information can you provide me with to attempt to prove global warming is not happening?

Also, do you understand what will happen to global ecosystems with a change in temperature of a degree celcius or more?

 

[CoggaRules]

"To determine the effects produced from greenhouse gases, scientists look for changes such as warmer weather, warmer ocean temperatures, and a cooler stratosphere. The ability to predict these effects presents many difficulties because the Earth's temperature fluctuates for a variety of reasons. Instruments and techniques used to measure changes have not always been consistent. Although it is difficult to determine how much of the warming effect is man-made, it is fairly certain that humans have contributed to the growth of atmospheric CO2. The increase in CFCs is entirely man-made. The cause of the increase in methane is less well understood.

There is evidence that average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of natural climate variability."

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

again section8 there is validity in this. But can you categorically deny that there is validity to the other side of the debate?
If you cant deny that there is validity, then its all a matter of breaking down the debate to consequences that can happen if one side is proven.

If your side to the debate is proven, then we will know say in 100 years, correct? Status Quo type stuff with even a little slant to one way or the other.
If your side of the debate is disproven then we have most likely regular catastrophic occurences causing major displacement of some major number of peoples, correct? Which the way this place is going, minimising living space is going to be one big headache, for everyone.

So again, i reiterate, to do nothing is to risk the one non-negotiable resource that mankind requires for its existence, the planet.
To do something about it and have that something turn the fortunes cannot be proven, why? because we will be at a Staus Quo in 100 years, correct?

So the only thing that debating and sceptics do is move us, if their theories are invalid, towards the worst case scenario, which all the debate should be how to avert the worst case scenario even if there isnt a worst case scenario, because if there isnt, we are where we are, and if there is we are toast.

Comprende Compadre

 

[skipper kelly]

No, it's just your statements are wrong, pedantic, unnecessary statements made for the purposes of grandstanding rather than the truth.

Even when faced with the truth you would prefer to hijack your own thread rather than admit you made a mistake.

You could have said the largest attack since........... or specifically stated 911, but you chose to word it so it looks like trouble has only happened under GWB' watch. Clear grandstanding and lies. It is not the first since...... so your statement is either an honest mistake or a deceptive lie. Your refusal to admit an honest mistake leads me to believe that you deliberately lied to paint a certain picture.

But then again anyone that disagrees with you and/or shows you the evidence is a troll.

 

[skipper kelly]

You make my point, in relation to the quote I posted, far better than I could ever do.

Do you see the irony?

Actually Murray there is no irony at all. Just Maybe is claiming his statements are facts, not opinions. No one is trying to change his opinion. When someone pushes something as a fact then its a whole new ball game. Now do you see the difference?

 

[just maybe]

Even when faced with the truth you would prefer to hijack your own thread rather than admit you made a mistake.

You could have said the largest attack since........... or specifically stated 911, but you chose to word it so it looks like trouble has only happened under GWB' watch. Clear grandstanding and lies. It is not the first since...... so your statement is either an honest mistake or a deceptive lie. Your refusal to admit an honest mistake leads me to believe that you deliberately lied to paint a certain picture.

But then again anyone that disagrees with you and/or shows you the evidence is a troll.

I admitted it could have been worded better, but given pretty much everyone except the pedants understood it, it seems you are simply grandstanding for the purpose of hijacking the thread.

You could simply have pointed out 'hey, you might was to rephrase it as 'sizeable foreign attack on US mainland soil' or some such, instead of accusing me of lies and deception and going into the rubbish you did. Of course I'm going to get defensive when you attack me. Something you seem to do regularly.

Funny about that.

 

[just maybe]

Since you didn't respond to anything else I said, thank you for admitting defeat I do hope next time you decide to talk about someones legacy you check your facts first

I did not 'admit defeat'. Taking a high and mighty attitude like that isn't going to help your cause.

And the ridiculous, childish statement you made about me before shows that not only are you a w@nker, you have no credibility whatsoever either. What kind of person makes such a broad, offensive assumption based on not a shred of evidence?

 

[section8]

again section8 there is validity in this. But can you categorically deny that there is validity to the other side of the debate?
If you cant deny that there is validity, then its all a matter of breaking down the debate to consequences that can happen if one side is proven.

If your side to the debate is proven, then we will know say in 100 years, correct? Status Quo type stuff with even a little slant to one way or the other.
If your side of the debate is disproven then we have most likely regular catastrophic occurences causing major displacement of some major number of peoples, correct? Which the way this place is going, minimising living space is going to be one big headache, for everyone.

So again, i reiterate, to do nothing is to risk the one non-negotiable resource that mankind requires for its existence, the planet.
To do something about it and have that something turn the fortunes cannot be proven, why? because we will be at a Staus Quo in 100 years, correct?

So the only thing that debating and sceptics do is move us, if their theories are invalid, towards the worst case scenario, which all the debate should be how to avert the worst case scenario even if there isnt a worst case scenario, because if there isnt, we are where we are, and if there is we are toast.

Comprende Compadre

My beef with the other side of the debate is that they make no mention of the inherent flaws, limitations and the existence of other valid explanations in the conclusions made in empirical studies performed regarding CO2, the extent to which increasing levels are anthropogenic, and whether CO2 causes warming to the extent it does. Whilst it makes sense that CO2 particles trap heat, it also makes sense that particles block UV rays, therefore cancelling the any increase out. If the current warming is predominantly anthropogenic (even the IPCC the UN-funded agency responsible for analysing climate change has no idea of the extent to which it is, neither can they predict with any sufficient accuracy the resultant increase in temperature if the "for" side is "correct", which ranges from 1.5C to 5.8C), what do you suggest be done? Sign on to Kyoto?

 

[section8]

You forgot to put one important fact from the article you quoted, section8. The date it was published. NF-182 June 1993

So you're now resorting to using 12 year old data to attempt to justify the non-existance of the Greenhouse Effect? Would you care to come up with something recent that paints such a rosy picture?

EDIT: Also, I note that your article states

This is interesting considering since 1980 the average global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees and the CO2 data I provided earlier is also increasing exponentially. Since that article was written in 1993, five of the six hottest years on record have occurred 1999-2005 with 1999 being the hottest.

Given the year that article was written was likely the one where the temperature briefly spiked downward prior to continuing its climb, what better information can you provide me with to attempt to prove global warming is not happening?

Also, do you understand what will happen to global ecosystems with a change in temperature of a degree celcius or more?

Are you familiar with "the little ice age" between 1300-1850?

 

[skipper kelly]

I admitted it could have been worded better, but given pretty much everyone except the pedants understood it, it seems you are simply grandstanding for the purpose of hijacking the thread.

You could simply have pointed out 'hey, you might was to rephrase it as 'sizeable foreign attack on US mainland soil' or some such, instead of accusing me of lies and deception and going into the rubbish you did. Of course I'm going to get defensive when you attack me. Something you seem to do regularly.

If you would like to venture back about 100 posts then you will find where I said that you should have posted "Bush was president on 11th September , 2001." You chose to ignore this and continue with your internal, external, crime, attack, foreign, domestic ra ra ra crap.

You say that you admitted that the statement is was worded wrong, but you also claim what is contained in the statement as factual. This is where the problem is. It is not a factual statement, so why continue on with "it is the first....................." rubbish.

What I said right from the start is that the statement is wrong. It is wrong. If this is too hard for you to accept then that is an issue you have to deal with internally.

As for your sooking and sobbing and crying about me, I doubt we have interacted in the last month, prior to this thread.

I also find your use of the word "attack", with regards to me on you, quite ironic and funny given what you have written in this thread. Maybe you might find that sense of humour and have a laugh at yourself.

 

[just maybe]

If you would like to venture back about 100 posts then you will find where I said that you should have posted "Bush was president on 11th September , 2001." You chose to ignore this and continue with your internal, external, crime, attack, foreign, domestic ra ra ra crap.

You say that you admitted that the statement is was worded wrong, but you also claim what is contained in the statement as factual. This is where the problem is. It is not a factual statement, so why continue on with "it is the first....................." rubbish.

What I said right from the start is that the statement is wrong. It is wrong. If this is too hard for you to accept then that is an issue you have to deal with internally.

As for your sooking and sobbing and crying about me, I doubt we have interacted in the last month, prior to this thread.

I also find your use of the word "attack", with regards to me on you, quite ironic and funny given what you have written in this thread. Maybe you might find that sense of humour and have a laugh at yourself.

Actually, it's not wrong. It depends how you define certain elements of the statement, as it is too ambiguous. I admit that, but that doesn't make it incorrect. It all depends how you define it.

The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

 

[Monkster]

I did not 'admit defeat'. Taking a high and mighty attitude like that isn't going to help your cause.

And the ridiculous, childish statement you made about me before shows that not only are you a w@nker, you have no credibility whatsoever either. What kind of person makes such a broad, offensive assumption based on not a shred of evidence?

And you calling me a w@nker shows the same thing about you, it also shows you weren't interested in any healthy debate you were just interested in people who agree with you, what kind of person won't listen to any facts stating that his facts against someone are wrong? never mind I'll answer it a blind basher.

 

[just maybe]

And you calling me a w@nker shows the same thing about you, it also shows you weren't interested in any healthy debate you were just interested in people who agree with you, what kind of person won't listen to any facts stating that his facts against someone are wrong? never mind I'll answer it a blind basher.

You attacked me on semantic issues and nothing else. If you were genuinely interested, you would have flagged that you thought I should have more narrowly defined that statement, but then discussed what you knew it meant. Instead you took the thread way off topic in your attempt to get me to admit I was wrong.

If I'm a Bush basher, you're a gormless, one-eyed, feckless Bush lover.

 

[Monkster]

Actually, it's not wrong. It depends how you define certain elements of the statement, as it is too ambiguous. I admit that, but that doesn't make it incorrect. It all depends how you define it.

Me calling you a blind Bush basher isn't wrong either, it just depends on how you define it.

Let me define it for you in a way that is correct.

Blind to the facts.

Bush basher, well even you couldn't try to say you weren't bashing him.

you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it.

Do you even know what that word means? you seem to bandy it about in a lot of places it doesn't belong.

 

[Didga]

Are you familiar with "the little ice age" between 1300-1850?

The little ice age occurred when the atlantic overturning circulation temporarily reversed and the gulf stream ceased to bring warming waters to europe.

This of couse could happen again as the Arctic Ice sheet breaks down and the current reverses. Cold temperatures and ice sheets might again return to europe and the favourable current possibly would not restore itself. Perhaps all this new white ice reflecting the sunlight might mean in 10,000 years an ice world. Unlikely but the global climate is certainly entering a period of man-made instabilty. Lets all just sit back and watch the freaky weather shall we.

 

[skipper kelly]

Actually, it's not wrong. It depends how you define certain elements of the statement, as it is too ambiguous. I admit that, but that doesn't make it incorrect. It all depends how you define it.

The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

wow. How stubborn can one person be. You call my posting an attack on you, but you dont call the WTC1993 an attack. Strange concept of reality.

Your statement is wrong. The emphasis of your statement is that Bush presided over the first attack since the 19th century. Wrong. You claim this as a fact. It is clearly a lie. Could have written it off as a mistake, but you say its not a mistake, so it is a lie.

You have clearly posted a lie to add weight to your belief that GWB has "one of the worst Presidential tenures of all time".

Now as this statement is the 1st point in your list, a list that you claim is all factual not opinion, then it is safe to assume that the remainder of the list is flawed or made up to suit your agenda.

Surely if you believe the legacy of GWB is so bad you do not need to resort to lying to prove your opinion.

Many differing opinions and beliefs are expressed on this forum, which is why it is enjoyable and at times quite informative. But lying to gain points is taking discussion and debate to an extreme which can only be viewed as quite sad and a distinct character flaw of your behalf.

 

[just maybe]

wow. How stubborn can one person be. You call my posting an attack on you, but you dont call the WTC1993 an attack. Strange concept of reality.

Your statement is wrong. The emphasis of your statement is that Bush presided over the first attack since the 19th century. Wrong. You claim this as a fact. It is clearly a lie. Could have written it off as a mistake, but you say its not a mistake, so it is a lie.

No, it isn't a lie. Just because I didn't clarify it to your wishes correctly, doesn't make it a lie. What a ridiculous comment.

You have clearly posted a lie to add weight to your belief that GWB has "one of the worst Presidential tenures of all time".

Now as this statement is the 1st point in your list, a list that you claim is all factual not opinion, then it is safe to assume that the remainder of the list is flawed or made up to suit your agenda.

Actually, even if it was a lie, it wouldn't be 'safe to assume' that at all. Very stupid comment on your behalf.

Surely if you believe the legacy of GWB is so bad you do not need to resort to lying to prove your opinion.

So desperate to class it as a lie, eh?

Many differing opinions and beliefs are expressed on this forum, which is why it is enjoyable and at times quite informative. But lying to gain points is taking discussion and debate to an extreme which can only be viewed as quite sad and a distinct character flaw of your behalf.

Wow, talk about jumping to conclusions based on your own flawed logic...

To retierate, since you avoided it again: The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

 

[just maybe]

Me calling you a blind Bush basher isn't wrong either, it just depends on how you define it.

Let me define it for you in a way that is correct.

Blind to the facts.

Bush basher, well even you couldn't try to say you weren't bashing him.

Blind to the facts? It's very wrong. And you think because you've picked up one semantic error you've somehow invalidated everything else I've written...

Wow, you really are a star...

Do you even know what that word means? you seem to bandy it about in a lot of places it doesn't belong.

I know exactly what it means, and it applies perfectly to you and skipper kelly.

 

[skipper kelly]

The statement is incorrect, you have been shown so, you refuse to acknowledge it, you continue to say it is a factual statement even though you know its false, therefore you are lying. Very ordinary character flaw you have.

 

[Monkster]

Blind to the facts? It's very wrong. And you think because you've picked up one semantic error you've somehow invalidated everything else I've written...

Wow, you really are a star...

Not everything else, I meant blind to the facts regarding that one point.

I know exactly what it means, and it applies perfectly to you and skipper kelly.

Actually it doesn't because our arguement has nothing to do with formal rules, it has to do with historical accuracy. 186 people died in the OK City bombing, that's a fairly large attack in any ones books.

 

[just maybe]

The statement is incorrect, you have been shown so, you refuse to acknowledge it, you continue to say it is a factual statement even though you know its false, therefore you are lying. Very ordinary character flaw you have.

For someone who told me everything isn't black and white, you have an astounding inability to put it into practice.

Just because I refuse to say it is incorrect (although I acknowledged it could have been worded better), you feel you can continually proclaim it's a lie.
Smells of an inferiority complex, you're practically dribbling uncontrollably as you keep trying to claim I lied. I didn't. Get over it.

To reiterate, since you avoided it again: The fact that you continue to ignore, tellingly, is that pretty much everyone else understands EXACTLY what I meant, and it is only you being a pedant that is having difficulty with it. But I guess you'll keep ignoring that issue.

 

[just maybe]

Not everything else, I meant blind to the facts regarding that one point.

And you say I shouldn't have expected people to imply anything into my comment, yet you try that same excuse yourself, and even worse!

Yes, you surely meant, just to that one point.

Actually it doesn't because our arguement has nothing to do with formal rules, it has to do with historical accuracy. 186 people died in the OK City bombing, that's a fairly large attack in any ones books.

In anyone's books eh? I think perhaps you need to get out of your Western-centric headset and get some reality.

 

[Monkster]

And you say I shouldn't have expected people to imply anything into my comment, yet you try that same excuse yourself, and even worse!

Yes, you surely meant, just to that one point.

Well that WAS what we were talking about

In anyone's books eh? I think perhaps you need to get out of your Western-centric headset and get some reality.

When we are discussing attacks on a western country than I will only use examples of western attacks... DUH!

BTW the word is mindset not headset, a headset is what you put on your head to listen to things