BBTF liberal elite

So where's the CPI spike after sulfur became regulated? Because we saw it during the oil crisis of the 70's

I didn't claim cockpit doors or Katrina planning were liberal issues. The point was, when humanity has had little success solving relatively small, obvious problems, it's patently absurd to expect humanity to band together, across ~200 national borders, to solve the biggest problem known to humanity (i.e., if liberal climate-change claims are correct).

I am constantly amazed at how much effort you guys put into debating on the internet. History suggests it's pointless.

Unless your anwer is "science - booooo!"

I'm guessing that we'd have a much harder time reducing carbon emissions than we would reducing sulfur emissions.

Cockpit doors were not reinforced prior to 9/11 because it was COMPLETELY NOT ####### OBVIOUS that they needed to be reinforced.

So, El Al reinforced cockpits going back to the mid-70s because they thought reinforced steel was totally cool?

a scientist who says "nothing to see here, global warming is not a problem" is likely to get no funding.
You're kidding, right? Where is this fantasy world you live in

I never once claimed, implied, or suggested any "liberal conspiracy," so you're either lying or you're believing the press clippings put out on me by our BBTF liberal elite.

So where's the CPI spike after sulfur became regulated? Because we saw it during the oil crisis of the 70's.

Maybe we like to "hear ourselves talk"?

So, El Al reinforced cockpits going back to the mid-70s because they thought reinforced steel was totally cool?

No, El Al reinforced cockpits because they were a tiny company with a tiny market who had extenuating circumstances driving that decision.

If the need for American airlines to reinforce their cockpit doors was so completely friggin' obvious prior to 9/11/2001 you should have no trouble whatsoever finding me multiple sources of pre-9/11 articles cached on the internet complaining that such an obvious thing had not been done.

but the claim that unsecured cockpit doors was an "obvious problem" prior to 9/11 is to completely rewrite history. Cockpit doors were not reinforced prior to 9/11 because it was COMPLETELY NOT ####### OBVIOUS that they needed to be reinforced.

Similarly, the claim that no emergency planning existed in NOLA prior to Katrina is just so fantastically ####### stupid and blind as to beg the question of the mental well being of the person making that claim.

No, El Al reinforced cockpits because they were a tiny company with a tiny market who had extenuating circumstances driving that decision. If the need for American airlines to reinforce their cockpit doors was so completely friggin' obvious prior to 9/11/2001 you should have no trouble whatsoever finding me multiple sources of pre-9/11 articles cached on the internet complaining that such an obvious thing had not been done.

Ah, the "completely friggin' obvious" standard. Fact is, that nobody considered something doesn't mean that it was right to have not considered something.

Yes, despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, it was totally unforeseeable that lax cockpit security could be a problem.

Yes, packing 30,000 people into the SuperDome was a great plan. Heckuva job, Mayor Nagin.

Yes, despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, it was totally unforeseeable that lax cockpit security could be a problem.

I am replying to a very specific comment, in which Joe Kehoskie said the problem was "completely obvious." My point is that if it was completely obvious, it was completely obvious in very secret, quiet, unobtrusive, completely unobvious sort of way.

No, the problem was completely obvious. I can distinctly recall being on jetliners that took off with the cockpit door wide open. I never envisioned 9/11, but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it. (And speaking of lunatics, the lax cockpit security clearly was "completely obvious" to Mohammed Atta & Co.)

If you're asking why cap and trade might not work for carbon, it's probably because people won't be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work and attempting to force them is political suicide.

See Hutcheson. See Hutcheson yell, Yell, Hutcheson, yell. See Jim Furtado. See Jim Furtado punish everyone but Sam Hutcheson.

like the stuff about how climate scientist is being skewed in the directing of finding that AGW exists by funding- I mean Jaysus Christ, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test, I mean I seriously think you throw that out just to insult everyone's intelligence here.

I thought Dan was the one who was BFF (for real) with Sam?

Yes, packing 30,000 people into the SuperDome was a great plan. Heckuva job, Mayor Nagin.

but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it.

I am friends with both Dan and Jim in real life, actually.

No, I'm taking you posts and trying to figure put your views from them.

For instance, your amazing ability to regurgitate rightwing talking points, while simultaneously claiming to never listen, watch or read the rightwing media sources that tend to disseminate them,like the stuff about how climate scientist is being skewed in the directing of finding that AGW exists by funding- I mean Jaysus Christ, that doesn't come close to passing the smell test, I mean I seriously think you throw that out just to insult everyone's intelligence here.

I mean I disagree with a lot of what JK says, but he does have a valid underlying point about cost and socio-economic upheaval, but you prattle on about cultish beliefs, spew wingnut talking points about how climate science is wrong, then go on about how suspicious it is that there is a "problem" that conveniently allows liberals/leftists to do what they want to do anyway (destroy industry?)

and then you have utterly shameless audacity to say that someone else is lying?

seriously?

"Jimmy, have you ever seen a grown man naked?"

Are they still on good terms with each other?

413. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 22, 2011 at 05:46 PM (#4021900)
You know, it's pretty pathetic that Face and Ray P are arguing AWG is all a big hoax when the energy giants like Exxon/Mobil and BP are going in bigtime with serious cash on the alternatives.

I've argued not that "AGW is all a big hoax" but that you people are part of a cult, given all that you are spewing, and how many of your assertions are based on assumptions and "models" and deceptions and one-sided conclusions and half-baked facts and fear mongoring and faux certainty and faith. And an unwillingness to weigh cost benefit.

The pretense of certainty the cultists exhibit is priceless.

And magically, when it is all boiled down, we see that this is just a power grab and a crusade to be put in charge of the economy, like every other environmentalist cause has ever been. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

213. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 01:20 AM (#4020696)
Just because you can ascribe a motive to something doesn't prove that something was done for that motive. That's just silly.


Well, when one is summing up what climate change is "about" for the reader, as Bitter Mouse did in 207, but fails to point out that money is involved, I feel inclined to point it out.

People on this board have a lot of damn gall using phrases like "global warming cult"

Since the shoe fits... please do wear it.

I'm happy to double down on this. I see no reason not to call people what they are.

270. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 21, 2011 at 06:14 PM (#4021120)
We saw 30 years ago that the same people were bemoaning "the cooling earth." Then when that didn't make sense any longer they moved to "global warming." Then when *that* didn't make sense any longer they moved to "climate change."

What is left, at this point? A completely stable and stagnant climate, that doesn't change at all? Is that even a good thing? A better thing? Is there precedent for it?

And if the climate did not change you can be sure these same people would be doomsaying over that. You can't trust people like this. You can only hope to stop them from harming everyone else.

7. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 20, 2011 at 05:08 PM (#4020083)
There seems little need to counter the nonsense spewed by the climate change cultists anymore, as the world seems to be finally catching on to this particular brand of faux science charlatanism. Canada has pulled out of the new Kyoto, and it seems that Japan, Russia, the US, and even the EU will be following suit. In a down economy, rich corporations cut down on frivolous spending, and once-rich countries cut down on sending $100 billion around the world every year to satisfy the faith-based demands of a collection of unsavory religious hucksters peddling nothing more than a high brow confidence game while claiming to hold obscure specialized knowledge to the impending arrival of the next bogeyman. Their knowledge may be concocted from a mixture of thin air, whole cloth, and hide-the-decline emails, but, my god, it's all unfalsifiable, man.

Thankfully, the religion of the climate alarmists is fading, dying a slow, painless-for-most, painful-for-some, death. Their predictions have not been coming true, surprise, surprise. It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again. The life-is-good deniers are losing.

There, Repoz. Thanks for posting the link.

Whenever the life-is-good deniers have made predictions, they have fallen short/had to be revised/etc. The entire change from "global warming" to "climate change" was because the former term was inconvenient, because people saw that temperatures weren't necessarily getting warmer. And so the term was switched to -- wee! -- climate change. That way, any change in the climate can be attributed to CLIMATE CHANGE! Woo.

The problem is that the term in itself is retarded, because the climate has ALWAYS been changing.

I am replying to a very specific comment, in which Joe Kehoskie said the problem was "completely obvious." My point is that if it was completely obvious, it was completely obvious in very secret, quiet, unobtrusive, completely unobvious sort of way.


No, the problem was completely obvious. I can distinctly recall being on jetliners that took off with the cockpit door wide open. I never envisioned 9/11, but it seemed absurd that any random lunatic could see into the cockpit, let alone run into it. (And speaking of lunatics, the lax cockpit security clearly was "completely obvious" to Mohammed Atta & Co.)

Political threads have a known effect of tweaking Dan up like Beavis in search of TP for his bunghole, on occasion.

I just looked up Peter Graves on Wikipedia ... he was the younger brother of James Arness. How come I didn't know that? Or did I know it, but have just forgotten it?

It's now been six years since a major hurricane hit the US, after we were told it was going to be happening over and over again.

It's like arguing that any hijacked plane should have been shot down pre-9/11, because it was "completely obvious" that a plane could be flown into a building as a missile.

Ray Ray Ray, it's really not hard to find instances of you saying what I've said that you say, it takes 10 seconds of googling:

I never once claimed, implied, or suggested any "liberal conspiracy," so you're either lying or you're believing the press clippings put out on me by our BBTF liberal elite.

What I've claimed is that people will see what they want to see. Liberals see climate change as a problem that MUST BE SOLVED -- with money and regulations that place heavy burdens and restrictions on people and societies. That is not a conspiracy, but a worldview.

Re-inforced cockpit doors pre 911 would not have prevented a damned thing, because pre-911 we were instructed to co-operate with hijackers, do everything they say (well, short of "Fly into that building there.", not lock them out of the cockpit.

and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.

For serious, that was in December 2011. Someone should have told Irene that it was not a "major hurricane" before it spent a day humping Vermont.

it's "the US vs the world" in talks on taking steps to reduce emissions.

There doesn't need to be a complete replacement for it to be quite worthwhile. Greater fuel efficiency standards, greater deployment of hybrids and fully electric cars into the fleet, and greater development of public transportation infrastructure would all be significantly positive steps.

And they would be more achievable steps if one of the major political parties in the U.S. wasn't doing everything it can to prevent them from being undertaken.

As a former military pilot, I've thought long and hard about that hypothetical, and came to the conclusion that had I been scrambled that day, and somehow gotten a shoot order (before the first plane went into the TT), my life would have been over at that very moment. Think about it, what a Hobson's choice. Disobey orders and watch thousands die as the plane flies into the building, get court martialled and spend the rest of your life in prison, or shoot it down (with no way of ever knowing that a planned crash was in fact in the cards), and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.

Sure it will cost some. And the longer we wait the more it costs. But it is not mandated to wreck our economy, and in fact I suspect if we tried some new technology would come out of the effort - you know like has come out of pretty much every concerted effort we have made.

So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?

and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.


This seems a little melodramatic. No one would have been going to prison for obeying direct orders in the middle of a terrorist attack.

So despite dozens of hijackings in the '70s and '80s, and bigger and bigger threats from Islamic terrorists in the '80s and '90s, the airlines had no specific protocols for dealing with Islamic hijackers?

As a former military pilot, I've thought long and hard about that hypothetical, and came to the conclusion that had I been scrambled that day, and somehow gotten a shoot order (before the first plane went into the TT), my life would have been over at that very moment. Think about it, what a Hobson's choice. Disobey orders and watch thousands die as the plane flies into the building, get court martialled and spend the rest of your life in prison, or shoot it down (with no way of ever knowing that a planned crash was in fact in the cards), and probably go to prison for the rest of your life for obeying an illegal order and murdering hundreds.

Why would there have been a CPI spike? If people have to pay more for X, that leaves less money to spend on Y and Z.

The idea that only "polluters" and not consumers pay for "cap and trade" is funny. Why don't you care about poor people?

If you're asking why cap and trade might not work for carbon, it's probably because people won't be willing to make the necessary sacrifices to make it work and attempting to force them is political suicide.

If only Joe Kehoskie had been on the case!

If the expectation is that people start driving a whole lot less often, I think that's a solution that's dead in the water.

If only Joe Kehoskie had been on the case!

The United States is the wealthiest country on Earth and it's struggling to pay for the things you list. Who's going to pay for the 6.7 billion other people who need similarly advanced, efficient cars and technology?

So, the very guy who decries people's lack of action to avoid/minimize "obvious" damage, says it's ridiculous to attempt to act to avoid/minimize damage.

For someone who spends an awful lot of bandwidth describing how sadly naive "liberals" are about the "real world," you seem to have no clue whatsoever about how decisions and crises are actually addressed in the real world.

The climate-change crowd wants everyone to make draconian sacrifices in their standard of living so that the Earth's temperature might be 2 degrees cooler some 25, 50, 100 years from now. It's a fantasy.

And that only idiots like the Trojans would have pulled a big-ass wooden horse into the city.

The US has a problem with legacy infrastructure* that the developing of the world does not. But as long as you think climate science is a lie, there's no reason discussing the issue, because you're outright dismissing the possibility of a system that can produce objective knowledge based on aggregated empirical observation.

So, the very guy who decries people's lack of action to avoid/minimize "obvious" damage, says it's ridiculous to attempt to act to avoid/minimize damage.

Again, no policymaker has proposed "draconian sacrifices." Cap and trade is what has been proposed. It's been effective in this country and abroad. It is on pace to reduce European emissions by 21% without significant costs.

So the same people who couldn't marshal support for things as simple as better cockpit security and better levees around NOLA are now assumed to be capable of convincing everyone on the planet to reduce their standard of living? That's funny

You believe the U.S.'s infrastructure is worse than what is found in the Americas, China, India, etc.?

First, no one failed to "marshal support" for better cockpit security because no one saw cockpit security as an issue to marshal support around. You've simply ignored all of the people explaining to you that this was the case over the last page and reasserted your delusional assumption that there was an "obvious" need for cockpit security pre-9/11 and the problem was that no one could "marshal support" for it due to governmental incompetence. It's a failure of thinking so deep as to beg the question of your sanity.

Second, no one could "marshal support" for better levees in NOLA because PEOPLE LIKE YOU were doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING WITH REGARD TO GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; obstructing, obfuscating, denying the need, complaining about the costs, whinging that it wouldn't work - anything to avoid actually addressing the problem. And then, when the problem drowned an entire ####### city, you flip the script on a dime and use that "inability to marshal support" as a talking point to obfuscate, obstruct, deny, complain and whinge about the problems we're facing today. You're nothing but a poorly constructed cartoon of an sophomore year post-modern propagandist.

Finally, the argument for action on climate change isn't "can we make everyone agree." Of course we can't. The world will ALWAYS have nutjob irrational lunatics like Joe Kehoskie in it, Joe. The question is can we find a way to work around the lunatics like you and get something done regardless, even if the lunatics are in power in China too.

So the same people who couldn't marshal support for things as simple as better cockpit security and better levees around NOLA are now assumed to be capable of convincing everyone on the planet to reduce their standard of living?

You believe the U.S.'s infrastructure is worse than what is found in the Americas, China, India, etc.?

What's stopping you from getting started? How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Is your air conditioner running right now? How big is your home? You don't really need a TV, do you?

What's stopping you from getting started? How many miles per month do you ride around in dirty, polluting automobiles? Is your air conditioner running right now? How big is your home? You don't really need a TV, do you?

You don't really need a TV, do you?

Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?

Digression: when exactly did "whinge" come into common usage? Seems like it's everyone's favorite word on the internets these days. Did I not get a copy of the memo?

Here's where I think it starts to get murky. Practically every solution that I've seen suggested is to reduce carbon emissions, but it's not clear how much reduction will matter and what it will cost. The US currently produces something like 18% of the world's carbon despite having less than 5% of the world's population, and in order to be in line with what other first-world countries produce, it seems like the sort of goal that would be nearly impossible without drastic change in our way of life. Am I terribly misinformed here?

The United States is the wealthiest country on Earth and it's struggling to pay for the things you list. Who's going to pay for the 6.7 billion other people who need similarly advanced, efficient cars and technology?

is there any other way to describe this trip as something other than a debacle?

In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle. It's easy to do nothing, it's easy to not care, it's easy to just say that the problem is too big to address. We've turned a blind eye to so many other issues, what's one more?

In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle.

If he's succeeded in collecting ginormous campaign contributions from the British and Israeli gazillionaires he's courting, then it isn't a debacle, but as far as establishing an image of Romney as a smooth, effective international player, then yeah, big time debacle.

In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle.

Woohoo!!

In the long run, I do believe Joe and Ray and their ilk will win the AGW battle. It's easy to do nothing, it's easy to not care, it's easy to just say that the problem is too big to address. We've turned a blind eye to so many other issues, what's one more?

Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.

US infrastructure was built on the assumption that carbon emissions are not bad. This means living way out in the country and having a 40 mile commute to work in your 15 MPG suburban is a virtuous thing, provided you can swing the cost of filling your tank. Newly-industrializing countries are in the midst of adopting infrastructure that's already well-entrenched here, buying their first cars, designing highways, building new homes, ect. In short, the US is built on a lifestyle/infrastructure of high carbon emission.

if by "winning" you mean if we do nothing they have won because they want to do nothing, well then yes It is quite possible that they will "win"

Worst part is, when people really do start dying because of this, all the obstructionists will likely already be dead, unaffected by the consequences of their inaction.

Woohoo!!