Re: C'mon bush haters...
- From: Bobbie Gill <bobbie4@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:37:33 GMT
Timberwoof wrote:
In article <8c905$4319b2d5$4f20fd8$4891@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Fletis Humplebacker <!> wrote:
Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <j4afh1p447nhqg92irsl3juusevuk0bh28@xxxxxxx>,
> Steve T<rm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>jim rozen <jim_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>:Only a republican would be mean-spirited enough to try to score political >>:points from the enormous amount of human suffering and tragedy that's >>:happened.
>>
>>Uh... The Dems have already been out there blaming Bush for this one. >>Among them, Senator Charles Schumer, Rep. Harold Ford, Jr., and Wesley >>Clark. (Not to mention moonbats like Al Sharpton)
>>
>>Here's their logic.
>>
>>Bush causes global warming. Global warming causes hurricanes. It's Bush's >>fault.
>
>
> And the factual breakdown with this logic is what, exactly?
Exactly all of it.
Point out the erroneous claims of fact; don''t just claim they exist.
> Well, "Bush causes global warming" is a bit overstated. I grant you that > global warming has been going on for decades before Bush came to office.
Wow, how generous. How about basically since the last ice age?
No, not really, Temperatures have been pretty steady, and then started to drop slowly several thousand years ago. Agricultural activities of humans slowed the drop, but recent increases in hydrocarbon emissions have caused a sharp increase in global temperatures. There was an article in Scientific American a few months back.
>However, Bush > has done nothing[1] to reduce US consumption of fossil fuels,
Clinton and prior presidents did what exactly? Why is that the president's job anyway? Economy cars have been around for awhile now. Maybe Bush should have sent out the feds to confiscate all the gas guzzlers. Or replace them with hybrids like the tooth fairy.
Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, for one thing. Increased taxes on gasoline for another. Requiring SUVs, which are primarily used as passenger cars, to be built to passenger car safety standards.
But you can't blame Clinton for not having done anything; after all, we can't credit him with the eight years of prosperity we all suffered under his reign, nor can we say that the recession that followed was Bush's fault.
>and has even
> encouraged more such consumption. Bush has consistently ignored scientists > who presented evidence and arguments that would make it necessary to > reduce oil consumption and otherwise limit the profitability of big > corporations.
Again, why is it's the president's job to limit corporate profits and how does he decide who and how much?
I see you ignored what I said about the president ignoring scientists.
>He has
> also consistently caused government agencies to modify their research > findings to fit his political agenda.
According to Michael Moore maybe. What's his agenda anyway? To turn Earth into Venus so his oil buddies can sell more utilities? You guys need to get something going soon besides 'Bush is the bogey man in the closet', he's in his last term of office.
According to many editorials and reports in Scientific American and other science journals. Hell, after 9/11, Bush directed the EPA to declare that the air in New York City was safe to breathe. The EPA had no data to base that on. In fact, followup studies showed that it was actually pretty dangerous to breathe all that concrete dust and other crap. And that's just one example.
If concrete dust was the only concern then things would be good.
But sadly concrete dust wasn't the only component of the dust clouds.
Try the following:
Asbestos (in very large amounts as it was a component of the fire protection for the steel work and extensively used for pipe insulation)
Silica, from both the glass, concrete and all the ceiling tiles in the buildings.
Gypsum from the drywall
Just imagine how many photocopiers and laser printers were obliterated in those two buildings thus releasing the contents of their toner cartridges into the duct cloud.
How many computers and cellphones and the like were in those buildings releasing the contents of the batteries into the dust cloud.
You name it those buildings had it. Floor tiles, marble floor and wall panels,carpeting, aluminium, steel, paint both on the walls and stored on site by the construction trades, chemicals used by the building engineers for systems maintenance, chillers for the A/C system, cleaning products used by the cleaning staff.
The buildings were built in the late '60s early '70s so most of the ballast transformers would still contain PCB's, the building supply transformers which would have been oil cooled units and that oil would still be PCB, any on site storage for disposed PCB ballasts, fluorescent tubes which even if the WTC had switched over to low Mercury T-8's would have contributed a significant amount of mercury vapour to the dust cloud, all of the cars in the parkades below the towers and on and on and on.
I hate to say it but the death toll due to 9/11 isn't going to be 3,000, it's going to be far greater than that.
Forget Michael Moore. That's just a silly attempt at guilt by assoication.
> And I'll grant you that "Global warming causes hurricanes" misses the > mark. Global warming is by itself not a direct cause of hurricanes. > However, warmer ocean water does increase the likelihood and strength of > hurricanes. We know enough about the relationship between global > temperatures and hurricanes to say that the recent increase in the number > and intensity of hurricanes can at least in part be blamed on global > warming.
No we don't know that. That's your pseudo-science as theology belief. The earth's average temperature coincides with the solar cycles. It creates more and less cloud layers, which raises and lowers temperatures. How much a role man plays is highly questionable and driven by ideology, not science. Which is, ironically, exactly what you're complaining about.
The overwhelming consensus of climatologists disagrees with you.
> "It's Bush's fault" is a bit extreme. I'll accept "To the extent that Bush > encouraged climate and ecological research unfettered by politics and > formulated energy policy that might have reduced US contributions to the > global warming problem, Bush has no blame."
You're reinforcing the idea that liberals believe the government is god.
Given the rest of your whacked-out logic, this "conclusion" of yours is hardly surprising. Nevertheless, Bush's "energy policy," along with the rest of how he and his business puppets run government, is insane.
-- Bobbie the Triple Killer
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm
Check out: http://www.iuoe882.com/
[Bob@S01060050046f293e Desktop]$ emacs signature
Today's posting is brought to you by:
The numbers 0 & 1, Fedora Core 4 and Mozilla Thunderbird.
The ideal engineer is a composite ... He is not a scientist, he is not a mathematician, he is not a sociologist or a writer; but he may use the knowledge and techniques of any or all of these disciplines in solving engineering problems.
N. W. Dougherty, 1955
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: C'mon bush haters...
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: C'mon bush haters...
- References:
- C'mon bush haters...
- From: Chris Hornberger
- Re: C'mon bush haters...
- From: jim rozen
- Re: C'mon bush haters...
- From: Timberwoof
- Re: C'mon bush haters...
- From: Timberwoof
- C'mon bush haters...
- Prev by Date: Re: Letter from Michael Moore
- Next by Date: Re: Letter from Michael Moore
- Previous by thread: Re: C'mon bush haters...
- Next by thread: Re: C'mon bush haters...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
