Gibberish
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 6,339
- Reaction score
- 1,269
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Obviously, if I'm operating an atom smasher in my livingroom, I can't use as much as I want. However, short of that, I can do what I please. I doubt very seriously I'm going to cause someone else to lose their service.
Not in an apartment, it ain't. I set up a wind generator on my porch and built a battery bank, just to run the TV and a couple of lights. Management told me to romve it and I refused. A few days later, I got a visit from the fire marshal. With him, he had the city ordinance that prevented me, a non-licensed, non-bonded technician from configuring any electrical apparatus in an apartment complex, without the express permission and direction of the owner of the property. So, no, in my situation, I don't have a choice.
Then move. You have choices, and right now you are supporting socialism, making you a socialist.
In most cases your right. I was implying where dictation on thermostat's are in affect from power supply companies during times of energy conservation (heatwaves, blizzards, etc.).
I've never seen thermostat levels being dictated in a non-conservation time.
I've never seen conservation periods, but I don't live in Librul Land.
By "Librul Land" you mean any place with a population over 50,000?
No, I mean any place that is infested with Librulz. I lived in New Orleans and never experienced any conservation periods.
Energy conservation is based on populace levels not political affiliation. :roll:
That is interesting though. I didn't know New Orleans was considered a city of conservatives.
You don't know much about our constitution..... it only limits what the government can do, not what we as a free people can do.
Again:
Amendment X
Orius said:The Constitution has nothing to do with what private companies do and don't give you; it is a set of limitations on government.
The government doesn't have the right to control the market in such a manner that goods that are in demand aren't available. Doing so would violate my right to own property.
You'd be hard pressed to document that one...:lol
This argument is just ridiculous.
Are you deniers aware that nations are already preparing to duke it out at the UN over who has sovereignty of the new international water ways that will be formed when the ice permanently melts?
Are you dunderheads aware that Russia is already sending the first manned mission to chart a waterway through the Berring Strait to Asia, instead of going the Panama Canal route?
I swear... you people are so out of touch with reality because of your fear and paranoia about government. If you're so scared about regulations being passed down over the environment, then make your argument about government; don't make it about denying climate change as if it's not really happening.
The melting of polar ice is not only happening, but it's an emerging political issue for the future of arctic sovereignty. Canada itself is already investing over $60 billion in its navy to defend its right to possess all of its arctic lands in the light of the fact that ice is melting.
Wake the hell up!
Ice Capades: Greenpeace recants polar ice claim, but “emotionalizing” is OK
2009
Well it is that time of year again, the Arctic ice begins to melt, as it does every year, and all sorts of crazy talk starts coming out. This time from Greenpeace. I am encouraged though, as they have come around to the idea that maybe they are doing more harm than good by overselling the alarmism.
NSIDC also has taken a more moderate tone, announcing that there will “likely be no record low ice extent in 2009“. This is a sharp contrast to last year’s ridiculous press statement from NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze about an “ice free north pole”. Now that Greenpeace has come clean on their statement, maybe Dr. Serreze will finally admit his statement was “a mistake”. – Anthony
From Not Evil Just Wrong:
The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming.
Under close questioning by BBC reporter Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Gerd Leipold, the retiring leader of Greenpeace, said the claim was wrong.
“I don’t think it will be melting by 2030. … That may have been a mistake,” he said.
Sackur said the claim was inaccurate on two fronts, pointing out that the Arctic ice is a mass of 1.6 million square kilometers with a thickness of 3 km in the middle, and that it had survived much warmer periods in history than the present.
The BBC reporter accused Leipold and Greenpeace of releasing “misleading information” and using “exaggeration and alarmism.”
Leipold’s admission that Greenpeace issued misleading information is a major embarrassment to the organization, which often has been accused of alarmism but has always insisted that it applies full scientific rigor in its global-warming pronouncements.
Although he admitted Greenpeace had released inaccurate but alarming information, Leipold defended the organization’s practice of “emotionalizing issues” in order to bring the public around to its way of thinking and alter public opinion.
MORE HERE
Ice Capades: Greenpeace recants polar ice claim, but “emotionalizing” is OK Watts Up With That?
Average global temps haven't increased since 1998. Stop living in denial.
It's not denial on my part. I have chosen to get my information from legitimate sources and not fall into the trap of the Algore anti-cult.
Global temperatures continue to rise, even despite the strong La Nina years of 2007-08.
Please cite "legitimate sources" that use accurate temp monitoring stations that are properly installed so that they reflect true ambient temps rather than exaggerated temps caused by AC exhaust, reflected sunlight from buildings, car exhaust or in at least one case, jet blast from airplanes taking off.
If you are using NOAA data, your conclusions are flawed by bad input. If you are using NASA data, then you are using data that has been adjusted upwards after the data was collected. For the arctic ice cap measurements claiming that they are shrinking, they were using satellite measuring tools that they KNOW to be widely erratic and inaccurate. The old measurements were known to be wrong, yet they continue to use that system even though they now have a much more accurate system in place. The big hoopla this year about an ice free north pole was debunked after a scientist pointed out that the maps he was getting from NASA showing open water actually had thicker pack ice that had been recorded in decades.
The problem with you global warmers is that you know that the data doesn't support you positions, but you believe so it must be so. Gee, I could have taken that same sentence from the arguments that atheists make about religion.
So me the proof, then verify the source data. Then verify that the source data was not cherry picked to throw out data that disagreed with your position. Then we can talk about killing our economy to FIX this "problem".
Apdst would murder ya!!! :lol:Great rebuttal. Maybe we can go play kickball at recess. :roll:
Funny how you're easily swayed that NASA is not legitimate because they re-adjusted ONE year, yet you're jumping on the anti-warming bandwagon with gun's ablazing! It does not matter that pretty much ALL of the legitimate scientific scientists and sources out there agree that warming is happening, you chose to believe the silly crap from "created in a basement" websites and blogs.
I have debated this to death, and still, the deniers will deny the hard and factual numbers. If you're going to believe someone's blog over NASA, go right ahead... as moronic as that is.
hey Middleground, could you define for us, what constitutes a 'legitimate scientific scientist'?
j-mac
Apdst would murder ya!!! :lol:
It's not denial on my part. I have chosen to get my information from legitimate sources and not fall into the trap of the Algore anti-cult.
Global temperatures continue to rise, even despite the strong La Nina years of 2007-08.
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?
This would mean that temperatures have not risen globally since 1998 when El Nino warmed the world.
BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Global temperatures 'to decrease'
Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.
-Phil Chapman; geophysicist, astronautical engineer, and former NASA astronaut.
Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh | The Australian
Curiously, the most recent and ongoing cooling event has no obvious proximate explanation, as there has been no substantive recent volcanic activity and the ENSO cycle since 2001/2002 has been benign (variability of less than one standard deviation of the multivariate ENSO index). This cooling, which appears unprecedented over the instrumental period, is suggestive of an internal shift of climate dynamical processes that as yet remain poorly understood.
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
No, average global temps haven't risen since 1998. That's a fact.
Am I saying that CO2 emissions don't or can't affect global temperatures? No.
Am I saying that a long-term warming trend hasn't occurred? No.
Am I saying this short-term cooling trend is indicative of some long-term trend? No.
I'm just saying average global temps haven't risen since 1998, which is a fact. Sorry if you don’t like it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?