I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read.

As soon as you accept the idea that you are in control of your thoughts you will be able to create your own happiness.

When you do the right thing, enjoy it! When you take positive actions, enjoy them. After all, they are leading you toward positive results. Pat yourself on the back. Truly enjoy the fact that you’re making positive progress, and the negative temptatio…

Comment by mighty hypocrite

Yes, respiration–that’s part of the point; the North American human population is now several times what it was in George Washington’s days.

FYI – Carbon MONOxide is the deadly emission from autos, trucks – CO2 is emitted from a variety of sources including respiration. (But you knew THAT….)

Strange, Mighty, but you never struck me as a fun person to be around, either. Too much misplaced anger and venom. Incidentally, I like good comedies and musicals, but I’d rather spend my money now and then to see something educational than see Tom Cruise in another car chase.
a) is probably the stupidest comment you’ve made yet. In addition to more CO2 eating trees in North America than during the time (of) George Washington…in North America, there are also many more people–not to mention CO2-emitting automobiles, polluting factories, and various other things that didn’t even exist in his days–something that one doesn’t have to be a scientist or an “attorney” who can’t spell “breach” correctly to know or notice.

But I guess, neither you nor Seixon understand a thing of what I am writing. So, keep pushing your foot on the gas pedal until it hits the ground. “Scientists” are communists that want to forbid you the use of your wheels, puppy.

What have you written, other than personal attacks and ad hominem? I haven’t seen you make a single post with substance – ever. As for pushing my foot on the gas, I haven’t driven a car since the end of July 2005. Scientists are not communists, but a select few most likely are. Juan C, you’re not listening to the scientists, you are listening to Al Gore and the media passing off the opinions of a few scientists as the opinions of all.

It’s funny that you’d plaster me with the label of someone who drives the pedal to the metal and that’s why I have the stance that I do – especially since it is almost 100% certain that you emit far more CO2 than I do.

*****I LOVE it when progs play pyscho”babble” (but they are often SO good at it that it might be a shame to ruin their elitist fun.) You are correct in noting I am anti-socialist. As a philosophy, I find it “anti-human nature”. It is very degrading to the human spirit NOT to have effort and results rewarded. It is very degrading to do for others what they can and should do for themselves. This does not mean that we are not good neighbours or should lend assistance to those in their time of need. It does mean I am apalled that those who profess to love freedom want an entire group of people reduced to subservience. This is the very essence of robbing someone of dignity, the dignity the left professes to promote – but does not.

I do not doubt the earth is experiencing a warming trend just as I was scared to death of polar ice caps when I was a little kid. What is flagrantly egocentric is the notion that humans can postpone or halt natural evolutions (there have been many) of the environment. I understand the scientific rationale of the environ-alarmist community, and I do not disagree with the findings. But as the earth has warmed and and cooled to the point of freezing throughout the history of the planet, I believe trying to subvert a naturally occurring phenomenon is a mix of egocentricity, secular humanism and politically necessary alamism.

Hold on just a second there, Slick. We don’t know that the hurricanes were stronger before the late 60s, because we didn’t have complete records back then? But, somehow we do know that they follow a cycle and we did have strong hurricanes before there were satellites? You’re going to have to pick one: either we can’t say hurricanes are stronger now because we didn’t have a way to record them before the late 60s, or we can say hurricanes were just as strong in the past because we apparently did have some way to record them back then. Which is it? You’re wrong either way, but at least try to be logical and consistent with your arguments.

I guess I need to give it to you with a tea spoon. Before 1970 and use of satellites, we were only able to measure hurricanes that humans were close to, or that struck land. In other words, to make a reading on the barometric pressure, we’d need someone with a barometer close enough to the hurricane to get a reading. As you may know, not all hurricanes hit land, thus before 1970 and satellites, many hurricanes went unrecorded.

At the same time, some hurricanes did hit land and we were able to measure those hurricanes. If there was a ship out in the water around a hurricane, we’d also be able to measure it, although this would be essentially hit and miss.

Therefore, as I tried to explain, we know that there were hurricanes earlier on that were as strong as the ones we’ve just had. Due to the fact that we are now able to monitor all hurricanes with our satellites, we cannot make a good estimation of the trend of the frequency of hurricanes due to the fact that we obviously were not able to track all hurricanes before we had satellites.

We cannot give a good finding on the frequency of hurricanes as far as a trend over the past century namely because we do not have enough data from before 1970. Yet the data we do have shows that there were in fact hurricanes back then that were as strong as the ones we have now.

Was that so hard? You’d have figured it out yourself if you weren’t so caught up in trying to make me seem like an idiot. Saying I’m wrong either way doesn’t make much sense when you don’t even say how or why I am supposedly wrong. The hurricane experts agree with me because, well, I’m just citing what they’ve said. I have no idea who you’re listening to.

If you people can’t be intellectually honest, at least try to show us a flash of intellect.

Flash of intellect, is that what they call having a mind that can only comprehend a binary signal? “Well either we could measure hurricanes or we couldn’t!” LOL

here yah go, pro’s and con’s

“Corp. America” is the largest farmer in the USA right now as they control the largest percetage of the farms. So, you don’t need to look to the future to see when the corporations and CEO’s will care about planting things. They have beening doing it for many many years.

I like the idea of this cycle with Corn, but I see a problem. We already plant and harvest most of the fields in the US. Sure, some sits as CRP land, but more then 95% of it is still farmed to this day. What I am trying to say is why will Ethanol change anything when it comes to the actually planting and harvesting of crops? If America went 100% Ethanol, we really wouldn’t be planting that much more crop each year, maybe 1%-2%. I still like Ethanol, but I am curious how it will all shake out.

For starters, can these ethanol plants use any type of plant to produce it? I cannot imagine that all the corn in the USA would be even close to enough to produce the Gas we need. Furthermore, our Cattle eat most of it right now, so is there an equal replacement of food for our cows and pigs? How about humans that enjoy corn? Obviously prices for it will go through the roof and it won’t be usuable as a food for humans or cattle in the long run. Maybe I am wrong about it and we have way more corn then we actually need right now. I am just guessing that we can’t possibly have enough corn for everything we would use it for. I know today, E-85 is priced at $2.30 per gallon while regular octane 87 gas is right at $2.90 so I can see an economic savings right in front of me. My only concern is if this is actually emission friendly.

TO JIMB:

Whoever the hell you are, bite me. I simply asked a question. I never once inferred that I knew or agreed with it. I have actually read that many many times through out the last few years. No I don’t think having the ocean currents stop is a good thing, who would? Either way, lay off the drugs and go socialize a little.