Not to beat a dead horse

[Guest oldschooler]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 13 2005, 10:06 AM']Do you really think that if Iraq didn't have large quanities of oil we would care about what going on in Iraq?  If Iraq's main export were radishes, no one would care who ruled or how many people died there.  In Africa it happens all the time, no one cares how many people are killed by ruthless dicators because they don't have natural resources that interest the powers the that be.  It seems like you just take what politicians say at face value and don't try see what's really going on.  I'm not going to back our government if I don't believe in what they are doing, especially if it's invading a nation that nothing to do with 9/11.  I think it's a problem when we have taken control of the oil fields in Iraq, but we haven't captured Bin Laden, yet.  How does killing Iraqis atone for 9/11?

Since the fall of communist Russia terrorist have had access to WMD's, so invading Iraq is not stopping the terrorist from acquring WMD"s, its just creating more anti-American sentiment in a region were we should be trying to make peace not war.  If you haven't noticed the country was pretty divided before 9/11, so I think your giving Bin Laden more credit than he deserves.
[right][post="91924"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


Do you think we are fighting IRAQI`S IN IRAQ ?
Are the insurgents fighting to protect Iraq`s oil ? :roll:

Like I said ...If Saddam would have complied ...there would have
been no war.

We did the "peace" thing from 1991 til 2002. Saddam and his hench men
were PROFITTING from OUR ALLIES with the Oil for Food Program.


Plus you mentioned the fall of the Soviet Union and how terrorist could
get their hands on WMD`s. Well, we didn`t already have a war with them.
And they weren`t blocking our people from seeing what they had and
accounting for it all. They have complied with Nuclear Proliferation treaties.


And I said AFTER 9/11 ...I thought Americans were finally on the same
page...I thought that it didn`t matter what color you were or what
party you voted for...we ALL backed our Country and never wanted
to see another day like 9/11. Now half of America bitches about the
same thing Clinton, Kerry and every other Democratric leader said
was a threat to America BEFORE 9/11.

[jza10304]

[quote name='oldschooler' date='May 13 2005, 11:27 AM']And I said AFTER 9/11 ...I thought Americans were finally on the same
page...I thought that it didn`t matter what color you were or what
party you voted for...we ALL backed our Country and never wanted
to see another day like 9/11. Now half of America bitches about the
same thing Clinton, Kerry and every other Democratric leader said
was a threat to America BEFORE 9/11.
[right][post="91928"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
We did and the rest of the world had our backs as well. That is until the present administration took the baton and ran with it to push their own agenda, alienating us from the rest of the world and dividing the nation (with topics like gay marriage, the war in Iraq).

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 13 2005, 12:30 PM']We did and the rest of the world had our backs as well.  That is until the present administration took the baton and ran with it to push their own agenda, alienating us from the rest of the world and dividing the nation (w[b]ith topics like gay marriage[/b]
[right][post="91932"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


NO gay marriage didnt divide the country..... People would have voted for it. if it was an actual divide. it was voted on in 12 states A vast majority SAID NO GAY MARRIAGE........ sooooo...... there realy isnt a divide there.. unless ur gay.. then ur pissed.

[Guest BengalBacker]

Was gay marriage allowed while Clinton was in office?



Didn't think so.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 13 2005, 11:34 AM']NO gay marriage  didnt divide the country..... People would have voted for it. if it was an actual divide. it was voted on in 12 states A vast majority SAID NO GAY MARRIAGE........ sooooo...... there realy isnt a divide there.. unless ur gay.. then ur pissed.
[right][post="91935"][/post][/right][/quote]

most were at 70% voting down any gay rights... i bet california would even have lost if they proposed this... it would be close...

i did vote yes to ban it in Kentucky, but i would support a civil union... but since dudes are marrying dudes in massachusetts, i decided to ban it all, so we don't have that problem in Kentucky... thats what happens when you try to push agendas down peoples throats...

wait a minute, maybe i should rephrase that last sentence...

[jza10304]

(My first multi response post)

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 13 2005, 11:34 AM']NO gay marriage  didnt divide the country..... People would have voted for it. if it was an actual divide. it was voted on in 12 states A vast majority SAID NO GAY MARRIAGE........ sooooo...... there realy isnt a divide there.. unless ur gay.. then ur pissed.
[right][post="91935"][/post][/right][/quote]

I'm not black either but I think they should equal rights. I wish they would ban all marriages all together, that way women couldn't con you into one of the worst contracts in history (i'll take half your shit and you still have to make payments to me so I can keep living the same way I'm used to).

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='May 13 2005, 11:36 AM']Was gay marriage allowed while Clinton was in office?
Didn't think so.
[right][post="91936"][/post][/right][/quote]

Did Clinton propose a [b]CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT[/b] banning it? Think about that. Do you know how difficult it is to get an amendment to the constitution passed? It was clearly done to get people riled up in an election year. It was done to get the democratic candidates to come out (sort of) and take a stand on gay marriage at the risk of alienating a large part of the population that were seen as swing votes.

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 13 2005, 11:41 AM']most were at 70% voting down any gay rights... i bet california would even have lost if they proposed this... it would be close...

i did vote yes to ban it in Kentucky, but i would support a civil union... but since dudes are marrying dudes in massachusetts, i decided to ban it all, so we don't have that problem in Kentucky... thats what happens when you try to push agendas down peoples throats...

wait a minute, maybe i should rephrase that last sentence... 
[right][post="91940"][/post][/right][/quote]

Exactly, so why was it even on the ballot in Kentucky and some states? So the Republican party can draw the line in the sand and use anti-gay and homophobic sentiment to their advantage.


[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//18.gif[/img] I'm exhausted

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 13 2005, 12:10 PM'](My first multi response post)
I'm not black either but I think they should equal rights.  I wish they would ban all marriages all together, that way women couldn't con you into one of the worst contracts in history (i'll take half your shit and you still have to make payments to me so I can keep living the same way I'm used to).
Did Clinton propose a [b]CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT[/b] banning it?  Think about that.  Do you know how difficult it is to get an amendment to the constitution passed?  It was clearly done to get people riled up in an election year.  It was done to get the democratic candidates to come out (sort of) and take a stand on gay marriage at the risk of alienating a large part of the population that were seen as swing votes.
[b]Exactly, so why was it even on the ballot in Kentucky and some states?  So the Republican party can draw the line in the sand and use anti-gay and homophobic sentiment to their advantage.[/b]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/18.gif[/img] I'm exhausted
[right][post="91950"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

"but since dudes are marrying dudes in massachusetts, i decided to ban it all, so we don't have that problem in Kentucky... thats what happens when you try to push agendas down peoples throats..."

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 13 2005, 12:10 PM']Did Clinton propose a [b]CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT[/b] banning it?  Think about that.  Do you know how difficult it is to get an amendment to the constitution passed?  It was clearly done to get people riled up in an election year.  It was done to get the democratic candidates to come out (sort of) and take a stand on gay marriage at the risk of alienating a large part of the population that were seen as swing votes.

[right][post="91950"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


The issue wasn't pressed when Clinton was in office. States weren't allowing gay marriage. It's not Bush's fault it became an issue on his watch.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='BengalBacker' date='May 13 2005, 02:47 PM']The issue wasn't pressed when Clinton was in office. States weren't allowing gay marriage. It's not Bush's fault it became an issue on his watch.
[right][post="92006"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

But it is.... Everything is his fault... Poor people= bushes fault.... .Racism= bushes fault

Gay marriage = bushes fault

Immigaration = bushes fault..

Most of these things have been around alot longer then him but guess whats its

Bushes fault

[Ben]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 13 2005, 02:12 PM']But it is.... Everything is his fault... Poor people= bushes fault.... .Racism= bushes fault

Gay marriage = bushes fault

Immigaration = bushes fault..

Most of these things have been around alot longer then him but guess whats its

Bushes fault
[right][post="92011"][/post][/right][/quote]

I cant help buy agree w/ you on this Cat. /ducks

Clinton was responsible for the retarded "Dont Ask, Dont Tell" policy(pretty sure it was him). I have the memory of a crack baby sometimes, but wasnt there something like 20 arab translators discharged for being gay under the policy?

[Homer_Rice]

Putting personal judgement to the side for a moment, I'd have to say that one of the genius political moments of this last election cycle came from Karl Rove, who was a big part of the gay marriage/amendment strategy. He correctly adduced that his type of voter would show up at the polls to vote on state initiatives, who while they were there, would also cast votes on the national races. It's probably what put GWB over the top.

[Guest bengaljet]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 13 2005, 02:12 PM']But it is.... Everything is his fault... Poor people= bushes fault.... .Racism= bushes fault

Gay marriage = bushes fault

Immigaration = bushes fault..

Most of these things have been around alot longer then him but guess whats its

Bushes fault
[right][post="92011"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
The part that is frustrating to me is that NOTHING is W's fault under his presidency.Take ILLEGAL immigration-1st reports were 4,000/day,then 8,000/day,then 10,000/day. Terrorists wanting to hit the US again and 10,000/day-who do you think is to blame for NOT trying to stop it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a problem.
Record trade deficits under W that cost Good US jobs-whose fault?
National deficit up $3.5+ trillion in 4 yrs. under W -A RECORD-whose fault ?
Healthcare for ILLEGAL immigrants and 44 million Americans don't have any-many are workers that lost their jobs overseas and some in this administration say it's good to ship them overseas--Whose fault.
Gas prices $2.00+/gal. in yrs past Presidents Carter(gas lines) + Clinton took the blame -whose fault now for $2.00+/gal.?
These are REAL PROBLEMS and I'll use 1 of Ronald Reagans lines"When I'm STEERING the ship"(he was taking responsibility). Harry Truman said "the Buck stops here".
Iraq was supposed to cost $2 billion and is now over $300 billion and I don't think "mission accomplished" yet.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='bengaljet' date='May 13 2005, 10:33 PM']The part that is frustrating to me is that NOTHING is W's fault under his presidency.Take ILLEGAL immigration-1st reports were 4,000/day,then 8,000/day,then 10,000/day. Terrorists wanting to hit the US again and 10,000/day-who do you think is to blame for NOT trying to stop it. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out this is a problem. [b]agreed... bush has a terrible stance on immigration[/b]
Record trade deficits under W that cost Good US jobs-whose fault? [b]what US jobs? we are creating jobs hand over fist[/b]
National deficit up $3.5+ trillion in 4 yrs. under W -A RECORD-whose fault ? [b]war... recession... in 2001 when our economy was shit, we lowered rates immensly to get our economy back on track... it is a two sided sword... we defeated the recession in record time, but we also are racking up our deficit... the fed seems to be on the case, and rates keep going up (which means the economy is getting stronger)... this was a necessity, unless we wanted to go through twice the recession... no thanks..[/b]
Healthcare for ILLEGAL immigrants and 44 million Americans don't have any-many are workers that lost their jobs overseas and some in this administration say it's good to ship them overseas--Whose fault. [b]come on... this is a state/city initiative... there is not health care for illegal immigrants b/c of the federal gov't... that is up to cities like LA and Denver to make up stupid rules like that...[/b]
Gas prices $2.00+/gal. in yrs past Presidents Carter(gas lines) + Clinton took the blame -whose fault now for $2.00+/gal.? [b]we went through this in another thread... we have little to nothing to do w/ gas prices...[/b]
These are REAL PROBLEMS and I'll use 1 of Ronald Reagans lines"When I'm STEERING the ship"(he was taking responsibility). Harry Truman said "the Buck stops here".
Iraq was supposed to cost $2 billion and is now over $300 billion and I don't think "mission accomplished" yet. come on... [b]2 billion? who said that number... the senate approved a 80 billion dollar bill to go there, and around 80 billion every year since... never heard of 2 billion...[/b]
[right][post="92160"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

i don't think bush has done perfect, but i'll use an old saying too: "you play w/ the cards you are dealt" and i feel he is doing a great job w/ the shitty hand he was given...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='May 16 2005, 06:17 PM']i don't think bush has done perfect, but i'll use an old saying too: "you play w/ the cards you are dealt" and i feel he is doing a great job w/ the shitty hand he was given...
[right][post="92937"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

Didn't Bush inherit intelligence files on Bin Laden and Al-Quaida, a record budget SURPLUS, and the goodwill and respect of the rest of world. Before Bush entered office America was the unquestioned leader of the free world, if he is so close to the Suadi's(which he his) he should have seen this coming and taken the threat more seriously. Condalezza Rice or someone dropped the ball on 9/11 and someone should take the blame, I think it's very weak of this administration to pass off blame like they do. He has yet to capture the man who claimed responsibility or invade the country were 15 of 19 hijackers have came from, but he has managed to secure the oil fields in Iraq while Haliburton reaches record profits and thousands of American soldiers and Iraq citivans die all the while.

But on the homefront he's managed to polarize a nation that was breifly united for a time after the tradgey of 9/11 by an equally stubborn and ignorant domestic policy. He's been the first and only president to not create more jobs than were loss or to combat the threat of outsourcing(which is quitely just as dangerous as terrorism) and he's probably the worst environmental president in the last 50 years because he doesn't believe in global warming(just another example of this administration's ignorance and arrogance). He picks on Iraq, but does nothing to N.Korea who are flaunting their nuclear capabilities everyday and Iran has just resumed production of Nuclear gas. What a fucking mess he's created in just a short time, that might be the most remarkable thing he's done with his presidency besides make Dick Cheney a billoinaire.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 17 2005, 01:04 AM'] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]   [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]   [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

Didn't Bush inherit intelligence files on Bin Laden and Al-Quaida, a record budget SURPLUS, and the goodwill and respect of the rest of world.  Before Bush entered office America was the unquestioned leader of the free world, if he is so close to the Suadi's(which he his) he should have seen this coming and taken the threat more seriously.  Condalezza Rice or someone dropped the ball on 9/11 and someone should take the blame, I think it's very weak of this administration to pass off blame like they do.  He has yet to capture the man who claimed responsibility or invade the country were 15 of 19 hijackers have came from, but he has managed to secure the oil fields in Iraq while Haliburton reaches record profits and thousands of American soldiers and Iraq citivans die all the while.

But on the homefront he's managed to polarize a nation that was breifly united for a time after the tradgey of 9/11 by an equally stubborn and ignorant domestic policy.  He's been the first and only president to not create more jobs than were loss or to combat the threat of outsourcing(which is quitely just as dangerous as terrorism) and he's probably the worst environmental president in the last 50 years because he doesn't believe in global warming(just another example of this administration's ignorance and arrogance).  He picks on Iraq, but does nothing to N.Korea who are flaunting their nuclear capabilities everyday and Iran has just resumed production of Nuclear gas.  What a fucking mess he's created in just a short time, that might be the most remarkable thing he's done with his presidency besides make Dick Cheney a billoinaire.
[right][post="93092"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

U do relise bin laden was a threat before 9/11 dont you smoov?? Clinton could have done something about it but he didnt. He didnt do anything in his admistration but remained deadlocked on the important issues to just pass the buck here buddy.

and he's probably the worst environmental president in the last 50 years because he doesn't believe in global warming <<< It doesnt exist...... How can you be that conceded to think that something that has been here for a billion years will be destroyed by something that we did in 100?? i dont think global warming exists on the mass scale these scientist thinks


[url="http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm"]http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm[/url]


read this smart guy and maybe we can still knock some sense into you.. but probly not cause ur way to damn stuborn to ever admit ur view is distorted

[jza10304]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 17 2005, 09:19 AM']and he's probably the worst environmental president in the last 50 years because he doesn't believe in global warming <<< It doesnt exist...... How can you be that conceded to think that something that has been here for a billion years will be destroyed by something that we did in 100?? i dont think global warming exists on the mass scale these scientist thinks
[right][post="93158"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I'm speechless.


I just saw a Southpark episode where they were making fun of people who didn't believe in global warming ("Goobacks"), but I didn't think it was real. How do you explain the smog in L.A., the melting away of the icebergs in Greenland and other places, destruction of rainforests leading to climate changes in those areas. Is it all a hippie conspiracy??? There are over thousands of "educated" people all over the globe each doing research that are coming to similar conclusions.

The Earth will not go anywhere, but the creatures inhabiting it will (Dinosaurs, other prehistoric creatures, extinct species). The Earth will not blow up just become uninhabitable or a much more difficult place to live in if we keep on the current pace.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 17 2005, 11:32 AM']I'm speechless.
I just saw a Southpark episode where they were making fun of people who didn't believe in global warming ("Goobacks"), but I didn't think it was real.  How do you explain the smog in L.A., the melting away of the icebergs in Greenland and other places, destruction of rainforests leading to climate changes in those areas.  Is it all a hippie conspiracy???  There are over thousands of "educated" people all over the globe each doing research that are coming to similar conclusions.

The Earth will not go anywhere, but the creatures inhabiting it will (Dinosaurs, other prehistoric creatures, extinct species).  The Earth will not blow up just become uninhabitable or a much more difficult place to live in if we keep on the current pace.
[right][post="93179"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

Do you believe everything you watch in southpark?? I never said we wernt harming the enviroment. But no global warming in the sense as you know it doesnt exist did you even bother to read the link i posted before you posted this dumbass comment? probly not..... and btw this year we are expiencing a colder then normal year but yes we are heating up like lil hot potatoes.. thats it [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img] [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/24.gif[/img]

[BengalsCat]

How bout this link but u will probly just read over it again..... global warming isnt the threat u think it is man.....


[url="http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm"]http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm[/url]


TEN GREEN MYTHS, HANGING BY A THREAD
TEN GREEN MYTHS, HANGING BY A THREAD
BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE SCIENCE — HEY THE MYTHS ARE DEAD
THOSE GREEN MYTHS ... GET THEM OUTTA YOUR HEAD

[jza10304]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 17 2005, 10:49 AM']How bout this link but u will probly just read over it again..... global warming isnt the threat u think it is man.....
[url="http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm"]http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm[/url]
TEN GREEN MYTHS, HANGING BY A THREAD
TEN GREEN MYTHS, HANGING BY A THREAD
BUT WHEN YOU SEE THE SCIENCE — HEY THE MYTHS ARE DEAD
THOSE GREEN MYTHS ... GET THEM OUTTA YOUR HEAD
[right][post="93184"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
I read your links, but I can post links that claim Global Warming is happening. What's the point? I even addressed by writing that thousands of "educated" people are coming up with similar conclusions.
[url="http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html"]epa.gov[/url]
[url="http://www.globalwarming.org/"]Global Warming[/url]
Nice Haiku by the way....

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='jza10304' date='May 17 2005, 12:24 PM']I read your links, but I can post links that claim Global Warming is happening.  What's the point?  I even addressed by writing that thousands of "educated" people are coming up with similar conclusions.
[url="http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html"]epa.gov[/url]
[url="http://www.globalwarming.org/"]Global Warming[/url]
Nice Haiku by the way....
[right][post="93199"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

18,000 scientist signed an accord that stated people where blowing Global warming out of proportion... If you had read the link you would notice the trends in global warming?? no u didnt . i am gonna keep calling you out that till you read something on the subject before going the EPA tells me so its true.. Fuck no its not. We had the greatest increase in global warth before 1940. << BEFORE THE EMERGANCE OF CARS and other areosal sprays that people site as the MAJOR REASON for global warming. Since 1940 the warming has been minimal which leads most people to believe that


The November 2000 negotiations at the Hague, Netherlands, on implementing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change took place against a backdrop of lobbying by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These NGOs used selective science and inaccurate news reports to demand that the United States accede to international demands for drastic, immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [b]However, a closer look at the evidence shows that they downplayed uncertainties in the studies that they cited, and ignored other studies that cast doubts on the need for immediate emission cuts. [/b]


There research was flawed to begin with. Global warming exist but not the extent that we will ever in our childrens childrens life time have to worry about. Please tell me how we are now colder now then it was for the average. but we are all at risk of dieing due to global warming

Almost all of this increase has taken place in the last fifty years, yet the global temperature today is somewhat below the average of the last 10,000 years. << cited from

Claim: This warming will cause global disaster.
Fact: A somewhat higher global temperature would be beneficial. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the global temperature has usually been higher than it is today. A long high plateau occurred between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. This period is called the Neolithic Climatic Optimum, not the Neolithic Climatic Disaster. Another shorter rise around 1000 AD has a similar name: the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Global temperatures were at a minimum between 1300 AD and 1650 AD. This period is called the Little Ice Age. To put it simply: Heat good. Cold bad. Can any Canadian really doubt this?


Anything else u want me to debunk... It doesnt exist.. Do some reasearch.. ACtual work and you will find SCIENCE backs this up with good reasearch. U can also disprove the research used at kyoto and understand why there research was faulty if you put in some time...

edit: do know i tried to take out anything that resembled name calling but i dont know if i got it all cause i was pretty heated when i wrote this.. people are un fucking believable

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='May 17 2005, 11:47 AM']18,000 scientist signed an accord that stated people where blowing Global warming out of proportion... If you had read the link you would notice the trends in global warming?? no u didnt . i am gonna keep calling you out that till you read something on the subject before going the EPA tells me so its true.. Fuck no its not. We had the greatest increase in global warth before 1940. << BEFORE THE EMERGANCE OF CARS and other areosal sprays that people site as the MAJOR REASON for global warming. Since 1940 the warming has been minimal which leads most people to believe that
The November 2000 negotiations at the Hague, Netherlands, on implementing the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on climate change took place against a backdrop of lobbying by environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). These NGOs used selective science and inaccurate news reports to demand that the United States accede to international demands for drastic, immediate action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [b]However, a closer look at the evidence shows that they downplayed uncertainties in the studies that they cited, and ignored other studies that cast doubts on the need for immediate emission cuts. [/b]
There research was flawed to begin with. Global warming exist but not the extent that we will ever in our childrens childrens life time have to worry about. Please tell me how we are now colder now then it was for the average. but we are all at risk of dieing due to global warming

Almost all of this increase has taken place in the last fifty years, yet the global temperature today is somewhat below the average of the last 10,000 years.  << cited from

Claim: This warming will cause global disaster.
Fact: A somewhat higher global temperature would be beneficial. Since the end of the last Ice Age, the global temperature has usually been higher than it is today. A long high plateau occurred between 8000 BC and 4000 BC. This period is called the Neolithic Climatic Optimum, not the Neolithic Climatic Disaster. Another shorter rise around 1000 AD has a similar name: the Medieval Climatic Optimum. Global temperatures were at a minimum between 1300 AD and 1650 AD. This period is called the Little Ice Age. To put it simply: Heat good. Cold bad. Can any Canadian really doubt this?
Anything else u want me to debunk... It doesnt exist.. Do some reasearch.. ACtual work and you will find SCIENCE backs this up with good reasearch. U can also disprove the research used at kyoto and understand why there research was faulty if you put in some time...

edit: do know i tried to take out anything that resembled name calling but i dont know if i got it all cause i was pretty heated when i wrote this.. [b]people are un fucking believable[/b][right][post="93207"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I used to love that song by EMF, thanks for the compliment.

There's two sides to every story, smart guy.

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1759"]Click Here...[/url]

Global Warming Policy Update—5/2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]Global Warming

In February 2005, the Climate Stewardship Act was reintroduced in Congress. This comprehensive global warming legislation takes an important first step toward limiting the heat-trapping emissions that are contributing to global warming. Since its introduction, UCS activists have sent more than 115,000 letters to their senators and representatives urging them to support the bill. This summer, UCS will continue to build support for this important legislation.
Climate Stewardship Act

In February 2005, Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) reintroduced the Climate Stewardship Act (CSA). The 2005 bill is almost identical to the original bill introduced in 2003, which was supported by a bipartisan group of 43 senators. This comprehensive legislation takes an important first step toward limiting the heat-trapping emissions that are contributing to global warming—threatening our health, economy, and environment.

In order to build momentum for the CSA, a companion bill was introduced in February in the House of Representatives. The principal co-sponsors of the House version are Representatives Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and John Olver (D-MA). More than 65 representatives have added their names as co-sponsors to this bill.

Since reintroduction of the CSA, UCS activists have sent more than 45,000 letters to their senators and representatives urging them to support the bill. You also sent more than 600 letters to the CSA’s primary sponsors thanking them for their leadership in fighting global warming. Thank you for making your voice loud and clear.

Although it is unlikely that the House will take up the CSA during this congressional session, Senators McCain and Lieberman are pushing strongly for a vote in the Senate. The time frame for a Senate vote is not clear, but the debate over the energy bill this summer may present a timely opportunity for consideration of the CSA.[/quote]

Btw, of all the things I said about Bush it's interesting to me that the environmental issue is the only one you want to debate, I didn't know Republicans were such tree-huggers.

The United States has an impressive history of investing in the capabilities and respecting the independence of scientists. This legacy has brought us sustained economic progress, science-based public health policy, and unequaled scientific leadership within the global community. However, actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine this legacy, and as a result, policy decisions are being made that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment.

Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether.

These activities are of grave concern to members of the scientific community as well as to those who rely on government information to inform policy decisions. But they should also concern the American public, which places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information and one that will protect our health and safety.

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm"]Global Warming does exist....[/url]

Why would scientist make this up, you sound like a conspiracy theorist now.

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

Here's something just for you BengalsCat.

Responding to Global Warming Skeptics
-- Prominent Skeptics Organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[quote]Global Climate Coalition
[ [url="http://www.globalclimate.org/index.htm"]http://www.globalclimate.org/index.htm[/url] ]

Founded in 1989 by 46 corporations and trade associations representing all major elements of US industry, the GCC presents itself as a "voice for business in the global warming debate." The group funded several flawed studies on the economics of the cost of mitigating climate change, which formed the basis of their 1997/1998 multi-million dollar advertising campaign against the Kyoto Protocol. The GCC began to unravel in 1997 when British Petroleum withdrew its membership. Since then many other corporations have followed BP s lead and left the coalition. This exodus reached a fevered pitch in the early months of 2000 when DaimlerChrysler, Texaco and General Motors all announced their exodus from the GCC. Since these desertions, the GCC restructured and remains a powerful and well-funded force focused on obstructing meaningful efforts to mitigate climate change.

Spin: Global Warming is real, but it is too expensive to do anything about. The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Funding: Corporate members (industries, trade associations etc.)

George Marshall Institute [ [url="http://www.marshall.org"]http://www.marshall.org[/url] ]

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.


Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.

Affiliated Individuals: Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist from Harvard; and Frederick Seitz.

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine


The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

Spin: There is no scientific basis for claims about global warming. IPCC is a hoax. Kyoto is flawed.

Funding: Petition was funded by private sources.

Affiliated Individuals: Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Frederick Seitz


Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) [ [url="http://www.sepp.org"]http://www.sepp.org[/url] ]

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won t be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

Affiliated Individuals:S. Fred Singer,Frederick Seitz

Greening Earth Society [ [url="http://greeningearthsociety.org"]http://greeningearthsociety.org[/url] ]

The Greening Earth Society (GES) was founded on Earth Day 1998 by the Western Fuels Association to promote the view that increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 are good for humanity. GES and Western Fuels are essentially the same organization. Both used to be located at the same office suite in Arlington, VA. Until December 2000, Fred Palmer chaired both institutions. The GES is now chaired by Bob Norrgard, another long-term Western Fuels associate. The Western Fuels Assocation (WFA) is a cooperative of coal-dependent utilities in the western states that works in part to discredit climate change science and to prevent regulations that might damage coal-related industries.


Spin: CO2 emissions are good for the planet; coal is the best energy source we have.

Affiliated Individuals: Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling, David Wojick, Sallie Baliunas, Sylvan Wittwer, John Daley, Sherwood Idso

Funding: The Greening Earth Society receives its funding from the Western Fuels Association, which in turn receives its funding from its coal and utility company members.




Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change [http://www.CO2science.org]

The Center claims to "disseminate factual reports and sound commentary on new developments in the world-wide scientific quest to determine the climactic and biological consequences of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content." The Center is led by two brothers, Craig and Keith Idso. Their father, Sherwood Idso, is affiliated with the Greening Earth Society; the Center also shares a board member (Sylvan Wittwer) with GES. Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

Spin: Increased levels of CO2 will help plants, and that's good.

Funding: The Center is extremely secretive of its funding sources, stating that it is their policy not to divulge it funders. There is evidence for a strong connection to the Greening Earth Society (ergo Western Fuels Association).[/quote]


Everybody has an agenda, some want to save the earth and some want to continue making money.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 17 2005, 01:09 PM']I used to love that song by EMF, thanks for the compliment.

There's two sides to every story, smart guy.

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=1759"]Click Here...[/url]

Global Warming Policy Update—5/2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Btw, of all the things I said about Bush it's interesting to me that the environmental issue is the only one you want to debate, I didn't know Republicans were such tree-huggers.

The United States has an impressive history of investing in the capabilities and respecting the independence of scientists. This legacy has brought us sustained economic progress, science-based public health policy, and unequaled scientific leadership within the global community. However, actions by the Bush administration threaten to undermine this legacy, and as a result, policy decisions are being made that have serious consequences for our health, safety, and environment.

Across a broad range of issues—from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive health, and nuclear weapons—the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding science advisory committees altogether.

These activities are of grave concern to members of the scientific community as well as to those who rely on government information to inform policy decisions. But they should also concern the American public, which places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information and one that will protect our health and safety.
[b]
[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm"]Global Warming does exist....[/url][/b]
Why would scientist make this up, you sound like a conspiracy theorist now.
[right][post="93219"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


went to your link u know what i am gonna take fact by fact and disprove it just cause ur so damn stuborn

Since the beginning of the 20th century, Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°F (0.6°C). <<<<<< Yes it has.. ALso The grestest temp increase was from 1900-1940 Before C emmissions.. NEXT


Over the last 40 years, which is the period with the most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5°F (0.2-0.3°C).<<< must reliable data?? i have read numous reports stating the average climate shift was .8 over the cource of the centuary. I got that data from weather reports. So this means .4 shift from 1900-1940.. and the same shift for the next 60 years after we have already gotten cars


Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400 to 600 years. Yes it has but somehow we ARE STILL UNDER THE AVERAGE TEMP of plantet over the last 100 million years or so.. but what the hell does science know

Seven of the 10 warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. In fact, the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began was 1998, when global temperatures spiked due to one of the strongest El Niños on record.

Yes this might have been true. Bgt take this into consideration. Here in florida we are having one of the coldest summers ever. So what would this mean?? fucking nothing climates shift and we have weather patterns change. This is what NATURE does.. but no there is no possible chance that it just happend to be in a warm streach in the 90 no possible way... what ever


Ice has more displacement in the water around it then water does. If u let ice melt in the glass the water line recedes.. But the global warming doomsday theroy kind of uses the exact opposite to scare you!

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Bengal_Smoov' date='May 17 2005, 01:16 PM']Here's something just for you BengalsCat.

Responding to Global Warming Skeptics
-- Prominent Skeptics Organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Everybody has an agenda, some want to save the earth and some want to continue making money.
[right][post="93223"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]


See u got me wrong here.. I believe in protecting the enviroment. I believe in stopping polution. I dont believe in using Green house gasses as a scare tatic to make people believe our world is going to start boiling. This is bologna. Honsetly i would do anything to protect the enviroment. I believe from the reseach i have read and written about that we are going through a normal climate shitft. I mean think about it.

Think on this for a minute man

Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT [b]96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources[/b], mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

But this is the biggest concern for us to be polutting??? yep thats it


MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.


[b]MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out. [/b]

REad this do u know what this means? Well aparently we are cooling and heating and cooling then heating again.. Ohh no does this mean the worlds ending no smart ass it means the WORLD IS TAKING CARE OF IT SELF. CYCLES are the key here they have witnessed in the PAST<< UKNOW THAT SHIT THAT CAME ABOUT BEFORE U OR I WERE HERE??????????? that the same things accure over time including this weather shift. it has happend before.


keep comming guys... it doesnt exist as you know it.. Global warming does exist. But its not going to END OUR EXISTANCE.. i am telling you u are alarmists. Nature takes care of it self.....

But no these enviroment agency twist facts... They use about half the information reported on it.. not all of it because there is a clear trend here and in the past for GLOBAL WARMING.... its happend before and it will happen again

[jza10304]

I found it on the internet, it must be true (by the way I love how this thread has evolved)

I think you are missing the point BengalsCat. What me and Smoov are trying to say is that you can find "think tanks" and "scientists" out there who will be on opposite sides of just about any theory. You have to at least acknowledge that. If cars and factories aren't polluting as much then why is the air out in less urbanized areas much cleaner than in cities?

By the way, since when do you not believe everything your government tells you? (sorry just a cheap shot )

Here is another article similar to yours but on the opposite side:

[url="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/page.cfm?pageID=498"]link[/url]

[quote]Fact vs. Fiction on Climate Change
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We've just had the coldest day in June -- so much for global warming!

Fiction: Just look at X: it's the coldest day/month/year on record ... or: Region X has cooled by Y°F over the past two years! There is no global warming!

Fact: Statements like the one above are deliberate attempts by climate contrarians to confuse and mislead the public. It's an attempt to disprove the reality of global warming with a cold weather anomaly. This is not only scientific bogus, comparing apples and oranges, but outright dishonesty. Weather is the state of the atmosphere at a given time and place, defined by variables such as temperature, moisture, wind, and barometric pressure. It is highly variable from day to day. By contrast, climate describes long-term weather patterns, with average temperatures and precipitation totals as well as typical occurrences of climatic extremes (such as normal dry periods or tropical storms) being used to characterize the climate for a particular region. This distinction is very important. Averages are always made up of numbers differing from the mean. Global warming is about the average going up. Over time this will make extreme colds become less likely.



Oh, what's a few degrees?

Fiction: A few degrees temperature increase won't matter much, and besides, warmer is better -- fewer cold-related deaths, longer growing seasons, lower heating bills. How many people actually notice the difference between 86 and 88.5°F?

Fact: Considering that in some regions people experience large daily temperature ranges (20-30°F), climate skeptics try to convince the public that global warming by a few degrees is nothing to worry about. This is another version of deliberately confusing weather and climate (see above). A small increase in the average temperature, however, obscures extremes and patterns of warming that are quite troubling: nighttime temperatures increase more than daily averages; there are already and will be more extreme heat but less extreme cold events; poleward latitudes warm more than other areas, etc. While the benefits of warming pointed out in the skeptics argument are certainly among the potential impacts of climate change, the potential negative impacts -- such as heat-related illnesses and deaths, increased heat stress for crops, greater energy needs for cooling etc. -- are strategically omitted. Moreover, it bears emphasis that the difference in global average temperature between the last ice age and the present day is about 9°F! This puts the IPCC's projected range of climate change-related global average temperature increases of 2.5-10.4°F in an entirely different light.



Human CO2 emissions are small compared to natural CO2 exchange.

Fiction: The 4.5% of the world's greenhouse gases that humans generate is insignificant when compared to the 95.5% generated by nature.

Fact: It is indeed true that human emissions of CO2 are a small percentage of the total carbon cycled through the different components of the Earth system: plants, soils, rocks, the oceans, and the air. But these human emissions are by no means insignificant. For the last 420,000 years, until the beginning of the industrial revolution (~1750), this cycle of carbon exchange was in a quasi-stable equilibrium, i.e., the continual release and uptake of carbon kept CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere fluctuating between 180 ppm (parts per million) and 280 ppm. Since 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31%, to a present level of 367 ppm. This increase in the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels and large-scale deforestation and land-use change. These human activities have forced the carbon cycle out of the state of equilibrium and out of the known range of variation.



Satellite temperature records don't show any global warming.

Fiction: Satellite temperature records do not show a warming trend over the past 20 years, and ground-level data are incorrect and exaggerate the warming.

Fact: It is true that temperature records derived from satellites show either less warming than surface temperature data or even a cooling trend. Recent studies (most notably a study by the National Academy of Sciences published in 2000) found, however, that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. It is important to note that many surface temperature records date back to 1860, while satellite records only date back to 1979. With such a short data record, observed trends can be strongly affected by extreme conditions -- such as the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo which decreased atmospheric temperatures for several years. In addition, satellite and surface data differ in what they record: surface thermometers measure the air temperature at the Earth's surface, while satellite data take temperatures of different slices of the atmosphere. Including records for the upper atmosphere -- where the depletion of the ozone layer has had a cooling effect -- will lower the overall temperature trends observed from satellites.



The observed warming is all due to solar variation, not human activities.

Fiction: An increase in solar irradiance is the main cause of the Earth's current warming trend. Therefore, reducing fossil fuel emissions would not impact the Earth's temperature.
Fact: Current scientific understanding leaves little doubt that the sun's radiant output impacts the Earth's climate on both decadal and centennial time scales. However, it is only one of many components affecting terrestrial climate. According to the findings of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the warming effect due to increases of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is estimated to be more than 8 times greater than the effect of solar irradiance.



What about the 19,000 scientists who claim we should not worry about global warming?

Fiction: There is no scientific consensus on climate change. Just look at the 19,000 scientists who signed on to the Global Warming Petition Project.

Fact: In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, and a short petition calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the Academy's Proceedings, which it was not. The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early 2001 in an renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty negotiations.[/quote]