Knights & Knaves Alehouse

did i mention that i don't like this thread?

Sure, Axe, there's a world democracy. In the sense that there's a vote-based system for designing rules where the majority sometimes overrule the minority.

The fact that the minority, are pissing and moaning about it doesn't mean it isn't a democracy.

Speaking of democracy, by the way, isn't it time the US made an instalment on the several million dollar debt it owes the UN?

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:Speaking of democracy, by the way, isn't it time the US made an instalment on the several million dollar debt it owes the UN?

True, but I'd guess we're probably deducting the cost of several massive troop deployments we've made for the UN since the Korean War. That should more than cover our dues.

Joe, back on what you were saying: I understand, and sometimes the barrage of stuff through the media seems overwhelming. The best thing to do is simply be an informed person and rely on a good education. With each succeeding generation, that becomes harder I understand, but it can be done.

For example, my science education was based in the early '80s, when a high school diploma was something to be treasured. Drawing from that, I know several things:

1. I know that the "Greenhouse Effect" and a greenhouse work on seperate principles, but what's in a name, hmm? I have a greenhouse, and I don't rely on CO2 to keep it warm in there, I rely on the lack of convection of heat through the glass.

2. CO2 is actually a poor greenhouse gas. Water vapor is much better.

3. CO2 is also one of the heaviest gases known. Thus it sinks. So the question becomes: how can CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere?

Since the CO2 question has recently shifted to "it's trapping heat in the oceans"... since well over 70% of CO2 is in the ocean, other ideas arise.

4. Heat rises.

5. Since water vapor is a better greenhouse gas, and since the ocean is basically made of water, wouldn't it be more reasonable to assume that it's the water trapping the heat? Assuming heat sinks, of course.

Now given this, what conclusion can I draw? Should I embrace the "CO2 by humans is the culprit" scenario, or should I guess that forces more out of our control are at work?

Here's an alternative approach: I got up this morning and found most of the orange juice was gone. Should I assume someone broke into the house last night, drank my juice, and then left without taking anything else or leaving any other sign, or would it be more reasonable to assume my GF drank it before she left this morning?

Personally I'd throw the UN out of the United States and let them headquarter in France. Its become a useless mouth piece for thug bully dictators and their limp wristed European socialist/communist elight counterparts. Think about it, putting the dictator of some 3rd world sham country on the same level as England or the USA. Give me a break...your litterally dealing with known killers and torturers (and not just one or two) and allowing them to form blocks with European nations (that behind the scenes are making secret deals). The UN, like anything else, is a tool to be used to gain leverage by the have nots. Even your aware enough to see that...right?

How about the US take all the money it waists on the UN and give the US tax payer a break. Or maybe actually send that money in the form of aid to starving people, or perhaps put it into setting up a space station on the moon (thus keeping the money in the good ol' USA and at teh same time creating the next engine of new technology to feed back into US private business, to further dominate the world scene?

The fact of the matter is issues (like Global Warming) and organizations (like the UN) are tools to gain power and influence. Think about it, behind "well intentioned" communism was/is personal greed of a few people, behind socialism is the same, and so is true with the global warming movement (and as SKA said, communists and socialists into controlling of people and industry would love such a move toward "control").

The sad fact is, many people will use anything to gain power (both sides). The fact that you don't even consider these "facts of human nature" as possibilities (when thinking about global warming) speaks volumes.

What ever happened to common sense and logic. If humans are a drop in the bucket for producing greenhouse gasses, why not focus on things humans are really responsible for (such as deforestation, and wiping out the fisheries). These are much more important issues. If global warming was that bad, then as another poster mentioned, go after the main contributor...termites, not cars and power stations.

SemajTheSilent wrote: I got up this morning and found most of the orange juice was gone. Should I assume someone broke into the house last night, drank my juice, and then left without taking anything else or leaving any other sign, or would it be more reasonable to assume my GF drank it before she left this morning?

Depends on what game system you're using for your life. If it's Deadlands or Call of Cthulhu, missing orange juice could be something you really ought to handle with extreme caution. Even if your GF says she drank it, she might have been kidnapped and brainwashed by the people who actually sneaked into the house and drank the orange juice. Check the cabinets.

P&P: "Sure, Axe, there's a world democracy. In the sense that there's a vote-based system for designing rules where the majority sometimes overrule the minority. "

Sounds like what happens to nice kids that go to rough schools, a bunch of bully thugs take their lunch money.

Seriously, the USA does more good for the world and gets less credit then one can imagine. Its really pathetic. What we need is another Bill Clinton commi in power, that will get the "world body" hot for the USA again...sure it might mean subverting our own federal laws to the international thug organizations that P&P is so fond of. But hey, all that matters is that people like us, right?

A person who enforces the rule of democracy is technically called a "policeman" or a "soldier", not a thug.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:I was interrupted before drawing conclusions from the last post, sorry.

Q. What's the purpose of defence expenditure?
A. To protect the state from threats, including threats as yet unknown.

Q. Does the environment pose a potential threat?
A. Unknown. Many people believe so.

Q. Is there evidence that the environment poses a threat?
A. Hurricanes.

Since much of the global warming argument centers around our wallets, allow me to interject this.

Sure, who wants to pay $7/gallon for gasoline? No one I can think of off the top of my head.

The U.S. spends about $5 billion per month (on short notice I could only find a 2004 number) attempting to stabilize Iraq. The Netherlands contructed the Maeslant Storm Surge Barrier for under $500 million. IIRC, the Dutch spent about $20US billion over a nearly a 30 year period before the barrier became their final solution. Less than $1US billion per year. A similar system would work very efficiently to protect most of the New Orleans area. However, for over a year (really 30+ years), the U.S. Congress has held the position that this is too great an expenditure to preserve Louisiana's, and thereby the country's, wetlands and the greater New Orleans area.

Granted, the Dutch were out to protect their entire nation, the U.S. would simply be protecting 1 out of 50 states. Well, not even the entire state really, just the part of the state that supports the oil and gas industry, New Orleans, and the part of the state that actually refines the oil. Louisiana refineries account for over 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. That's just under 20% of the nation's domestic capacity.

Remember what happened to your price at the pump when things were shutdown for just a couple of weeks last year? Well, if south Louisiana's wetlands (land, even wetlands, are your first line of defence against storm surge) are not spared from the intrusion of the Gulf of Mexico, and another Category 3, 4 or 5 hits the area just right, then you'll be knifing each other to get gas as low as $4 a gallon. Now, that's your national perception. I've seen firsthand, and personally, what happens when federal, state and local officials lack the political will to do what's necessary when they've had years of undisputed data on what practically every meteorologist acknowledged was going to happen.

Now, with prior undisputed forecasts and even an actual event to prove them out, national politicians still think spending money to better protect southeast louisiana is a waste of money.

Gas up that Hummer while you can baby, cause I guarantee you that you're on borrowed time. Forget global warming, we can shoot ourselves in the foot with more ordinary climate conditions. If we can ignore something that was known to happen sooner or later, it must be real easy to ignore something that for some/many is at best just a maybe.

For the record, my voting pattern hardly qualifies me as a liberal. Since we're casting aspersions anyway though, let me just add that the bunch that's been running the U.S. Congress for the past decade has definitely put the Con in Neo Con. Cool. That was totally unproductive, but hopefully it can turn up the partisanship on a topic that has way too much of it already.

jgbrowning wrote:

blackprinceofmuncie wrote:The idea that the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that humans are causing global warming is propoganda, pure and simple.

And now we're just debating sources. See, your source isn't any better than my sources, because I'm not a scientist and I lack the capability to determine which source is more scientifically credible because of that.

But BPOM is a scientist. So his sources are bound to be better than your sources. If you lack discernment, then let BPOM be your guide.

Glgnfz wrote:sorry, but i simply hate this thread!

Me too

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:I was interrupted before drawing conclusions from the last post, sorry.

Q. What's the purpose of defence expenditure?
A. To protect the state from threats, including threats as yet unknown.

Yes, though many people believe that we're in the midst of a positive feedback loop right now. Spending a lot of money on defense ==> more countries threatened by you ==> more countries becoming a threat ==> spending more on defense.

Q. Does the environment pose a potential threat?
A. Unknown. Many people believe so.

Many people believe so, but even if it is a threat it's unknown whether we can do anything about it.

Q. Is there evidence that the environment poses a threat?
A. Hurricanes.

The 2006 hurricane season was one of the weakest in recent memory. Of course, the doomsayers will probably say that it is the exception that proves the rule.

PapersAndPaychecks wrote:As I've said, I personally espouse the idea of giving the US a deadline to comply or face trade sanctions.

Hmmm, well, you could do your part by refusing to distribute OSRIC to the U.S.

Don't wait for the government, take action instead.

TheRedPriest wrote:For the record, my voting pattern hardly qualifies me as a liberal. Since we're casting aspersions anyway though, let me just add that the bunch that's been running the U.S. Congress for the past decade has definitely put the Con in Neo Con. Cool. That was totally unproductive, but hopefully it can turn up the partisanship on a topic that has way too much of it already.

A week of Bush is like a year of Clinton.

Mythmere wrote:

SemajTheSilent wrote: I got up this morning and found most of the orange juice was gone. Should I assume someone broke into the house last night, drank my juice, and then left without taking anything else or leaving any other sign, or would it be more reasonable to assume my GF drank it before she left this morning?

Depends on what game system you're using for your life. If it's Deadlands or Call of Cthulhu, missing orange juice could be something you really ought to handle with extreme caution. Even if your GF says she drank it, she might have been kidnapped and brainwashed by the people who actually sneaked into the house and drank the orange juice. Check the cabinets.

The Old Ones approve my choice of brands?

They need to keep their tentacles off my woman or I'll change milieus and go Doc Savage on their asses.

"A person who enforces the rule of democracy is technically called a "policeman" or a "soldier", not a thug."

Hey thats just what Dwane, our gradeschool bully used to say!

If a democracy tried to enforce rules that went against the US constitution, (either foreign or domestic) you'd likely have a bloody revolution on your hands, depending on how far they pushed it. Given that in our country 80% of the press is controlled by far leftists, and that voting centers have been turned into bus stops for homeless and poor minorities shipped in by Dems over many days (due to early voting laws) its a wonder it hasn't come to that.

Incidently did anyone notice Shumer and company were silent about gun control this year (despite the Amish shootings)? Looks like they realize its one of those "live free or die" topics best avoided. And for now it seems to have worked.

dcs wrote:

Q. Is there evidence that the environment poses a threat?
A. Hurricanes.

The 2006 hurricane season was one of the weakest in recent memory. Of course, the doomsayers will probably say that it is the exception that proves the rule.

Excellent idea. We dodged the bullet for a year, so let's roll the dice on dodging it another 5, 10 or 20 years. Obviously, hurricanes present no significant threat to the U.S. coastline, and thereby the nation's economy. To say othewise, you're merely engaging in doomsaying.