Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 4126357)

Responding to your questions is pointless because you load them with hyperbole and strawmen. And you never answer direct questions.

I'm for finding a balance. The economy is always at risk. I'm for a coherent energy plan that includes alternative sources and new technologies as well as responsible use of our natural resources. I would rather err on the side of protecting the environment, as there will be ways around the obstacles. "Drilling more" is not a singular solution. Being smarter and innovative is.

But frankly I'm done with these topics and especially with you as I'm violating my own internal rules of engagement. As I asked before, do you really believe the stuff you post? Unfortunately the reality is that it doesn't matter how you answer that, because either you are a troll who lives soley to get a rise out of others, or a misguided moron who is incapable of reasonable analytical reasoning. Either way, arguing with you is like pissing in the wind.

Have a sassy day! Time to work...

Originally Posted by Mule (Post 4125583)

Yep. If we'd just go back to living in huts & cooking with a buffalo dung fire, life would be grand!.

Originally Posted by island911 (Post 4125953)

Hey Webb, et al; why are you all so quiet on the growing Antarctic ice mass? :cool:

.

Originally Posted by nostatic (Post 4126357)

Responding to your questions is pointless because you load them with hyperbole and strawmen. And you never answer direct questions.

I'm for finding a balance. The economy is always at risk. I'm for a coherent energy plan that includes alternative sources and new technologies as well as responsible use of our natural resources. I would rather err on the side of protecting the environment, as there will be ways around the obstacles. "Drilling more" is not a singular solution. Being smarter and innovative is.

But frankly I'm done with these topics and especially with you as I'm violating my own internal rules of engagement. As I asked before, do you really believe the stuff you post? Unfortunately the reality is that it doesn't matter how you answer that, because either you are a troll who lives soley to get a rise out of others, or a misguided moron who is incapable of reasonable analytical reasoning. Either way, arguing with you is like pissing in the wind.

Have a sassy day! Time to work...

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 4126489)

I hope enjoy it b/c that is what you may get....


unless we do my preferred option which it to go FORWARD to living in a solar powered house,
having some trains to use when the airlines act up,
having some transit options in larger cities besides gridlocked cars,
having some electric cars to drive if we want,
insulating rental housing, not just single family places,
and etc.

Gee - the things above EVEN MAKE SENSE now, don't they?

Originally Posted by Mule (Post 4126333)

Would you include radical changes such as putting our economy at risk by outright refusal to use our own natural resources for energy?

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 4126376)

The man doesn't even know who wrote the original article but takes it as the Word of God. Moonbat personified.

Originally Posted by djmcmath (Post 4124844)

Careful with that "theory" word -- gravity is a "theory" too...

Originally Posted by kstarnes (Post 4126546)

Ignoring Mr. Goddard personally, what's the specific problem with his article? IMHO, some of the dissing of Goddard is consistent with the dissing of Gore. Weak data should be able to be attacked effectively on its face without smearing the mouthpiece, yes?

FWIW.

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 4126537)

If you mean oil - the answer is very simple - we just do not have enough of it to make a big difference.

Lie. Many reliable sources say otherwise.

We DO have quite a lot of coal. Good, ol' dirty dirty coal. We got it and China does too. We may be able to clean it up at a huge cost, but we cannot change the simple fact that burning coal or anything, except H, puts more CO2 into the air.

We can burn coal cleanly & have been able to do so for a long time. We can also make oil from it but you guys don't want that either.

If by natural resources you mean wind, wave, solar and the incredible expertise of our universities and national labs, then I fully agree.

I'm ready! When can we switch over. Oh we can't? You mean you are talking about fantasy? Never mind.

In fact, the No. 1 "export" from the US is knowledge. There is a reason students come here to learn, and a reason top scientists and engineers come here to work. We should try to expand that lead not give it up. China and India are not fools and are working on their own "knowledge centers" right now. And they are getting pretty good at it too, keeping more of their top people at home.

But you buffoons don't want to use it. So folks from Russia, China, India & the ME come get our knowledge & go home to whip us with it.

The sooner we work on this problem, the less damage to the economy it will do. The longer we stick our heads in the right wind sandpile and ignore it, the MORE damage it will do. That includes direct damage - like Miami being under water within 100 years, even if only temporarily - as well as the damage caused by other countries selling the technology of the future while we are scrambling, belatedly, to keep up.

Originally Posted by RWebb (Post 4126549)

What gibberish - how many people have this miscegenated horse on Ignore?

What I'd really like is a way to shield him from seeing posts. Then debate couldn't be interrupted by these childish comments.

- edit - my comments refer of course to muley

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 4126555)

Who is Steven Goddard?

Originally Posted by kstarnes (Post 4126546)

I just revisited the original referenced article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/

So what problem do some of you folks have with the article? It seems somewhat consistent with the NSIDC data.

Is the imagery bogus, or is the author being deceptive with the imagery by misdating it or some other trick?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1219087460.jpg

Ignoring Mr. Goddard personally, what's the specific problem with his article? IMHO, some of the dissing of Goddard is consistent with the dissing of Gore. Weak data should be able to be attacked effectively on its face without smearing the mouthpiece, yes?

FWIW.

Originally Posted by Mule (Post 4126557)

Lie. Many reliable sources say otherwise.

We can burn coal cleanly & have been able to do so for a long time. We can also make oil from it but you guys don't want that either.

Originally Posted by Shaun 84 Targa (Post 4126555)

Why do you call asking for information on Goddard's background and experience, "dissing"?

I asked a simple question that no one either can or wants to answer.

Who is Steven Goddard?