Still Hating America.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Camaraderie?

Schadenfreude?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
because she's a killer in the sack

You definitely made the right call on that one.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
You definitely made the right call on that one.

I'm pondering how different things would be around here if that were literally true.

Sigh.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
That seems to be Spanky's argument when it comes to missile defense. If cost-benefit analysis trumps, why doesn't he apply it consistently to all issues?

What issue do I not apply this on? If you are talking about the war, again, this seems to me the only time the liberals seem to care about costs, and they pick something that isn't that expensive.

Success in Iraq is worth ten times the amount of money we have put into it.

It will take a thousand times the money we have put into Iraq to reduce world carbon emissions to the point that, if most of these Climatologists are right, we will not a have a signficant negative impact on the planet.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm pondering how different things would be around here if that were literally true.

Sigh.

Remember, the turbines. Don't scare him away.

[Nut Sack, Sensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
....she's a killer in the sack

You're telling me!!!

OUCH!!!!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I see Spanky citing the tide levels at his parents' fucking beach house.

You guys really have it in for the beach house. It is actually a pretty nice place. Normally one sample is not useful in a study, but in this case it is. At I was so condescendingly told by someone in the Leadership of the Sierra Club at beach house in question: "Spanky, this is not that complicated, and the dangers are immediate and real, global temperatures will rise, that will cause the ice caps to melt, and water that was previously landlocked (the ice in the Antarctica and Greenland) will melt and the oceans will rise. As the oceans are connected, that means everyone around the world be affected the same. Everyone, without exception who lives close to the sea level will be affected and will be affected soon."

I was told it is not that complicated, and like you can count on the sun rising tomorrow; a rise in Global temperatures will cause large swaths of the world's population to have their homes flooded. Not temporarily flooded by hurricanes, or storms, or changing tides, but permanently flooded. It is money in the bank.

And as usual these dire predictions were not off they were 100% wrong. Completely wrong. Not a scintilla of truth. So now they are zero for three

1) With Global Cooling they were not just a little off - was the world cooling slower than they thought? No. Was the world temperature just staying even? NO. It was warming - at least that is what they claim now - Could they be any more wrong? We would have been better off going to Sidney Omar for a prediction.

2) With gulf war one, they predicted with half the oil fires lit we would have the equivalent of a nuclear winter; hundreds of millions of deaths. Were they a little off? Did just millions of people die? Was just the northern hemisphere covered in dust? Did the earth even get a little hazy? No. They were completely wrong. Again, we would have been better off going to almost anyone else on the planet for a prediction.

3) In the eighties we were told that by 2000 millions, possibly hundreds of millions of people's homes would be lost because of Global warming (because so many people live so close to sea level). Were they a little bit off? Maybe it was just hundreds of thousands of homes so they were only 99% wrong? No. Maybe just a few homes? As far as I know not one home is now permanently under water because of Global Warming and it is 2007. Again, a random guess would have had a much better chance of being correct.

Again, how many times does Lucy have to pull away the football before you guys realize these experts have absolutely no idea how the world's climate works. They can’t predict tomorrow's temperature, let alone the next decade's. In the past, we would have been better off taking what the climatologists and other experts agreed on, and assuming the exact oppposite. Okay, maybe this time we should give them the benefit of doubt, and instead of assuming they have it completely wrong, they are just mostly wrong? Maybe they have learned something? That seems reasonable to me. Instead of being ninetey percent wrong, which history tells me I should do, I am just going to assume they are ninety percent wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Mark Sanford, Republican Gov. of SC, in WaPo:

• First, conservatives must reframe the environmental discussion by replacing the political left's scare tactics with conservative principles such as responsibility and stewardship. Stewardship -- the idea that we need to take care of what we've been given -- simply makes sense. It makes dollars as well, for the simple reason that our economy is founded on natural resources, from tourism and manufacturing to real estate and agriculture. Here in South Carolina, conservation easements are springing up across the state as landowners see the dual benefit of preserving the environment and protecting their pocketbooks.
  
  Second, conservatives must reclaim lost ground from far-left interest groups by showing how environmental conservation is as much about expanding economic opportunity as it is about saving whales or replanting rain forests. When corporations such as BP and Shell America pursue alternative energy sources, they not only cut carbon emissions but help cut our petroleum dependency on OPEC nations. When South Carolina restaurants recycle their oyster shells, they not only restore shellfish habitat but take a job off local governments' plates and ensure continuing revenue streams for local fishermen.
  
  Third, conservatives must respond to climate change with innovation, not regulation. This means encouraging private research and implementation of more eco-friendly construction, more energy-efficient workplaces and more sustainable ways of going about life -- all of which cuts costs and protects God's creation. It means looking past the question of whether your car's exhaust melts polar ice caps and instead treating our environment as an investment our future depends on.

When private firms acting rationally to profit-maximize don't do these things, do conservatives want to use the government to require and promote (1) responsibility and stewardship, (2) expanding economic opportunity, and (3) responding to climate change with innovation? If so, that's great. If not, this is only hot air warming the globe.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You guys really have it in for the beach house. It is actually a pretty nice place.

I'd like the opportunity to make repeated observations of the sea level there.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'd like the opportunity to make repeated observations of the sea level there.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When private firms acting rationally to profit-maximize don't do these things, do conservatives want to use the government to require and promote (1) responsibility and stewardship, (2) expanding economic opportunity, and (3) responding to climate change with innovation? If so, that's great. If not, this is only hot air warming the globe.

That had to be one of the more asinine position pieces I've read in a while.

On 1, it's the antithesis of true conservatism. It's why a lot of catholics are democrat--because they believe there's some obligation to the community that conservatives don't wish to impose. Unless, of course, conservatives now are becoming communitarians.

On 2, all that is is providing incentives for people to engage in conduct they otherwise wouldn't. BP and Shell pursue alternative energy because there are subsidies to do so, or because they see a market. If the latter, what needs to be done? If the former, well, other than massive pork, when were R's in favor of subsidies?

On 3, see 2.

So, he talks all nice, but what it comes down to is this: If the free market provides incentives to protect the environment, then people will. If the market does not, then they should do it out of the goodness of their heart. Well, it's pretty clear only Al Gore does things out of the goodness of his heart, so that's not a very viable solution.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter

Conservatives don't wear sea green suits*



*eta: Other than perhaps Don Cherry.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
So, he talks all nice, but what it comes down to is this: If the free market provides incentives to protect the environment, then people will. If the market does not, then they should do it out of the goodness of their heart. Well, it's pretty clear only Al Gore does things out of the goodness of his heart, so that's not a very viable solution.

2.

Wear shorts. Or a sweater.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Thanks for the parenthetical clarification!

I know I wouldn't want to be likened to Gore Vidal in appearance or demeanor. He's insanely bright, but it's only matched by his pomposity and quite frankly, for an aging queen, his lack of style is appalling.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
2.

Wear shorts. Or a sweater.

I welcome the Angus Young look. I was out in shorts today. If it's over 50, its shorts weather in my book. I've trained my skin to deal with all sorts of temperatures. I figure if women and Scots can wear skirts in winter, why can't I wear shorts?