The frightening legacy of George W Bush

[just maybe]

Come back when you have something relevent to say.

Wow, your arguments are certainly...compelling.

Have you passed high school yet? Because that's about the only place I can imagine anyone talking about the 'three great leaders of our time' or whatever overdone lavish praise you were spouting before.

 

[rick James]

There's no realism in flagrant abuse of human rights and justice. It is simply unnecessary.

Does it happen?

We in the west often think because by and large we've moved past the need for extreme violence within our own borders, that the rest of the world also has these new found morals, intelligence and values.

sometimes, all that can be done to really emphasise your point is to strike violently. Whether a fist, a bomb, a nuke. whatever. To assume negotiation and understanding is the way forward has very little historical grounding.

 

[spanky ham]

The UK once had a mediterranean climate, yes. Proven.

And your evidence for explaining temperatures "rising" is......?

They have been fluctuating across the planet for millenia.

My original post was merely a dig at Andrew Bolt and his selective use of facts to try and convince his readers. Something the two of you seem to have in common.

 

[section8]

My original post was merely a dig at Andrew Bolt and his selective use of facts to try and convince his readers. Something the two of you seem to have in common.

Fact: There is no one study or piece of evidence that has united the scientific community in favour of the hypothesis that increased CO2 output from human activities (considering of course that CO2 is not solely an unnatural compound and there are other natural processes that can cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise) is responsible for "global warming". It's like believing the earth is flat with the data that's available at the moment and considering the reliance on oil and the lack of a cheap, suitable substitute there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing a chicken little except advancing political agendas.

 

[- PC -]

sometimes, all that can be done to really emphasise your point is to strike violently. Whether a fist, a bomb, a nuke. whatever. To assume negotiation and understanding is the way forward has very little historical grounding.

Is negotiation like rapping with a wigga instead of knocking him on his backside which is strike first policy?

 

[dan warna]

i think its laughable that some long for the days of the british empire, an empire held by force of arms and yet when those who are opposed to their 'white empire' use force of arms they cry foul.

Damn fuzzy wuzzies' bringing guns, it was much easier to shoot them and keep them in their place when they had spears and we had carbines...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/af...ife_in_prison_in_death_of_man_eaten_by_lions/

no doubt they long for the freedom for a white man to beat to death a black man and not face any recriminations.

I hope we do find alternative energy sources and leave the ME alone, because its us in there causing the strife.

 

[spanky ham]

Fact: There is no one study or piece of evidence that has united the scientific community in favour of the hypothesis that increased CO2 output from human activities (considering of course that CO2 is not solely an unnatural compound and there are other natural processes that can cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise) is responsible for "global warming". It's like believing the earth is flat with the data that's available at the moment and considering the reliance on oil and the lack of a cheap, suitable substitute there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing a chicken little except advancing political agendas.

Let's just hope that we don't do irreparable damage while we're waiting for the scientific community to agree.

BTW doing nothing also advances political agendas.

 

[camsmith]

Wow, your arguments are certainly...compelling.

Have you passed high school yet? Because that's about the only place I can imagine anyone talking about the 'three great leaders of our time' or whatever overdone lavish praise you were spouting before.

Who said 'three great leaders of our time'?

You think im the only one who thinks that? Well maybe look at results of the past elections, the general public obviously thinks they are half decent.

But no, i must be dumb and not have passed high school if i think a a certain person/s a good leader. Forgive me.
And yes i have passed high school and yes i with most of Australia voted in one of our best ever PM's into a fourth term.

I must say though, what is the relevance of these personal attacks got to do with the legacy of George W Bush. Now you've made me go off topic you fool.

 

[skipper kelly]

Before I enter this thread may I be so bold as to ask a couple of questions.

If I disagree with any of the original list is it

a. Up to me to prove it incorrect? or

b. Up to the OP to prove correct?

Is there an assumption that all the OP list is correct?

 

[Murray]

Before I enter this thread may I be so bold as to ask a couple of questions.

If I disagree with any of the original list is it

a. Up to me to prove it incorrect? or

b. Up to the OP to prove correct?

Is there an assumption that all the OP list is correct?

Say what ever you like.
Its a debate and I guess as in any debate verification will be requested if you are challenged

 

[MightyFighting]

Fact: There is no one study or piece of evidence that has united the scientific community in favour of the hypothesis that increased CO2 output from human activities (considering of course that CO2 is not solely an unnatural compound and there are other natural processes that can cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise) is responsible for "global warming". It's like believing the earth is flat with the data that's available at the moment and considering the reliance on oil and the lack of a cheap, suitable substitute there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing a chicken little except advancing political agendas.

You can always find a scientist to disagree on anything. (Depending, of course, on how you define the term "scientist".) But there is general consensus among reputable climate analysts that increases in CO2 caused by human activity (and it is possible to estimate the level of CO2 increase that has been caused by human activity) can cause climate change.

And exactly what "political agendas" do you think these scientists are advancing? It would be the easiest thing in the world to just tell the politicians what they'd like to hear. Or do you perhaps think all those scientists secretly own shares in renewable energy companies?

 

[section8]

You can always find a scientist to disagree on anything. (Depending, of course, on how you define the term "scientist".) But there is general consensus among reputable climate analysts that increases in CO2 caused by human activity (and it is possible to estimate the level of CO2 increase that has been caused by human activity) can cause climate change.

And exactly what "political agendas" do you think these scientists are advancing? It would be the easiest thing in the world to just tell the politicians what they'd like to hear. Or do you perhaps think all those scientists secretly own shares in renewable energy companies?

You're wrong. There isn't. If you believe that scientists are relatively neutral politically and objective, then why hasn't there been the groundswell of support for your hypothesis from all corners of the scientific community if the findings are as robust as you claim? The fact is that the evidence is flimsy, the data their analysis is constructed from too flawed and the presence of equally plausible, alternative non-man made explanations for the phenomenon too abundant for scientists to concur with their conclusions without sacrificing their objectivity in the process.

 

[Contra Mundum]

You're wrong. There isn't. If you believe that scientists are relatively neutral politically and objective, then why hasn't there been the groundswell of support for your hypothesis from all corners of the scientific community if the findings are as robust as you claim? .

I have seen some circular reasoning on this Board but this takes the biscuit!!!!

More circle work there than the day after a Country B & S Ball!!!

 

[section8]

I have seen some circular reasoning on this Board but this takes the biscuit!!!!

More circle work there than the day after a Country B & S Ball!!!

No, I expanded on why there wasn't a groundswell of support by giving the valid reasons why. If I hadn't, then you'd be able to the accuse me of circular reasoning.

Is that the best you have got, quoting parts of posts out of context?

 

[Contra Mundum]

No, I expanded on why there wasn't a groundswell of support by giving the valid reasons why. If I hadn't, then you'd be able to the accuse me of circular reasoning.

Is that the best you have got, quoting parts of posts out of context?

Come again - your original post was two sentences - how can extracting one change the context!!!

I cannot contend with you on this issue because I am not a scientist - but if as you seem to contend global warming is not mainly caused by human intervention - surely then we should manage the part that has been caused by humans rather than just watch it happen.

What about the Siberian Bogs - they have been in permafrost since the ice age and are starting to thaw. When they do thaw they give off methane which of course creates a greenhouse multiplier effect - Russian scientists ascribe the melting of the peat bogs to human intervention - but I guess that Russian scientists would have a political agenda!!!!!

..but I suppose they must have a political agenda because there is not universal scientific opinion.... and there is not universal scientific opinion because there are scientists with poltical agendas and here we go round the mulberry bush etc etc

 

[section8]

Come again - your original post was two sentences - how can extracting one change the context!!!

I cannot contend with you on this issue because I am not a scientist - but if as you seem to contend global warming is not mainly caused by human intervention - surely then we should manage the part that has been caused by humans rather than just watch it happen.

What about the Siberian Bogs - they have been in permafrost since the ice age and are starting to thaw. When they do thaw they give off methane which of course creates a greenhouse multiplier effect - Russian scientists ascribe the melting of the peat bogs to human intervention - but I guess that Russian scientists would have a political agenda!!!!!

..but I suppose they must have a political agenda because there is not universal scientific opinion.... and there is not universal scientific opinion because there are scientists with poltical agendas and here we go round the mulberry bush etc etc

If I had only posted the first sentence, then accusing me of circular reasoning would be fair. However I validated the first sentence by supporting it with fact. Therefore, no longer circular reasoning.

Russian scientists ascribing to something does not equal scientific evidence. It is simply restating the hypothesis. It doesn't offer any scientific evidence for or against.

If you want a reason as to why Russian scientists may have an agenda (I'm not saying that they do but you seem to see scientists as independent robots) have a look into one of the main reasons why Russia eventually signed on to Kyoto after refusing for so long.

 

[Contra Mundum]

If I had only posted the first sentence, then accusing me of circular reasoning would be fair. However I validated the first sentence by supporting it with fact. Therefore, no longer circular reasoning.

Russian scientists ascribing to something does not equal scientific evidence. It is simply restating the hypothesis. It doesn't offer any scientific evidence for or against.

If you want a reason as to why Russian scientists may have an agenda (I'm not saying that they do but you seem to see scientists as independent robots) have a look into one of the main reasons why Russia eventually signed on to Kyoto after refusing for so long.

You are dissembling now - all science is hypothesis is'nt it? As for supporting your first sentence with "fact" you seem to elevate your hypothesis beyond a level which is justified.

Put it to you this way. You would deny the majority of scholarly opinion is that global warming as a phenomenon is primarily caused by human activity?

 

[moistie]

You're wrong. There isn't. If you believe that scientists are relatively neutral politically and objective, then why hasn't there been the groundswell of support for your hypothesis from all corners of the scientific community if the findings are as robust as you claim? The fact is that the evidence is flimsy, the data their analysis is constructed from too flawed and the presence of equally plausible, alternative non-man made explanations for the phenomenon too abundant for scientists to concur with their conclusions without sacrificing their objectivity in the process.

From http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.

The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."

In the study, Dr Barnett’s team examined more than seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans, collected by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and compared the patterns with those that are predicted by computer models of various potential causes of climate change.

It found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. Models based on man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, however, matched the observations almost precisely.

 

[just maybe]

Does it happen?

We in the west often think because by and large we've moved past the need for extreme violence within our own borders, that the rest of the world also has these new found morals, intelligence and values.

sometimes, all that can be done to really emphasise your point is to strike violently. Whether a fist, a bomb, a nuke. whatever. To assume negotiation and understanding is the way forward has very little historical grounding.

I guess you're of the opinion that we should just remain violent neanderthals and not progress at all.

 

[just maybe]

Before I enter this thread may I be so bold as to ask a couple of questions.

If I disagree with any of the original list is it

a. Up to me to prove it incorrect? or

b. Up to the OP to prove correct?

Is there an assumption that all the OP list is correct?

If you can disprove any of the stated legacies, I'm sure pretty much everyone on here would be interested to see it.

 

[TuskenRaider]

The US cannot covet Iraq, Vietnam, etc. all it likes, but the reality is that securing them as a possession was never going to be as easy as marching their green men across the country.

.

I may be a little late here, but in what way did the US covet Vietnam?
How did the US want Vietnam as a possession? It may have been a little more complicated than that.

I'm not sure how you can compare Iraq to Vietnam, it's a totally different situation other than the fact that you might disagree with the course of action taken.

 

[just maybe]

Who said 'three great leaders of our time'?

You think im the only one who thinks that? Well maybe look at results of the past elections, the general public obviously thinks they are half decent.

But no, i must be dumb and not have passed high school if i think a a certain person/s a good leader. Forgive me.
And yes i have passed high school and yes i with most of Australia voted in one of our best ever PM's into a fourth term.

I must say though, what is the relevance of these personal attacks got to do with the legacy of George W Bush. Now you've made me go off topic you fool.

You were off-topic from the start when you went on your tantrum about my lies and misinformation, none of which you were able to disprove whatsoever.

Sorry, kid, you dug yourself the hole and now you're struggling to climb out of it. Every arm you put up causes another clod of dirt to tumble down onto you.

 

[rick James]

I guess you're of the opinion that we should just remain violent neanderthals and not progress at all.

No, I'm just not sure that it's actually progression at all to be non-violent... I think it's an inherent part of being human and that perhaps, the human race would progress further by embracing it.

 

[rick James]

Allowing all members of the Bin Laden family to leave the USA after S11 (the only plane given permission to fly).


We could go on

Do we all agree this one was a lie on Murray's part?

 

[just maybe]

No, I'm just not sure that it's actually progression at all to be non-violent... I think it's an inherent part of being human and that perhaps, the human race would progress further by embracing it.

So I guess it's OK to laugh if some thug beats the living snot out of you and steals your money, leaving you permanently disfigured? Just embracing his inherent human violence?

You see, rick James, the sad thing you don't understand is that while the capacity for violence is part of humankind, the MOST inherent capacity we have is the ability to better ourselves and overcome our basest instincts. That's why we aren't just going around raping and pillaging anymore.

That you can't see that shows how backward a human being you are.