Antarctic Melting Faster, Jacksonville still has no plan

[RiversideGator]

And as lastly, although I could not find the specific date that I attended Mr. Buckley's lecture at UF, the link here says enough for even simpletons to deduce that Bill was part of the series.

http://www.stetson.edu/administration/marcom/media/06dec/5apgar.pdf

Each year UF host many lectures just as Stetson University does if you don't want to take my word that he spoke there then fine.

I am refering only to this statement, not to whether or not WFB spoke at UF:

Bill Buckley is now speaking out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming.

[Ocklawaha]

Just so y'all know, JTA and their BRT plan is already testing for when the tide comes in...

Meet your worst nightmare... JTA's newest model.

"The Ebbtide II BRT bus" for the Beaches route.



Bet you already figured it was cost 100x more for a rail version of the same vehicle... and who would maintain or run it?

Ocklawaha

[gatorback]

Some people are just 3 off.  I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts.  What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point.  We need to start now.  We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan.  In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.

[gatorback]

I know I completely demolished your arguments and I'm sorry you're devastated.  My references:

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/953/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-f-buckley-jr

and

Your rag:  The National Review on Line.  William F. Buckley Jr. on Global Warming.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=

and

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-endanger24jan24,1,1831879.story

So, let's see.  I guess my sources include, The White House, The EPA, The LA Times, William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review to name a few. 

"You're fired!"

[second_pancake]

Some people are just 3 off.  I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts.  What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point.  We need to start now.  We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan.  In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.

Read the post I put up yesterday about the green initiative as reported from the Wall Street Journal.  I posted some information about Jacksonville's recycling program (current practices as well).

We can all banter back and forth stating our side and why we feel so passionately about climate change for or against, but the fact that can't be glossed-over is that there is absolutely no harm to ANYONE in taking actions that may possibly benefit us and the planet.  We do not NEED to use incandesent bulbs.  We do not NEED to have an 8 cylinder Cadillac car that uses 30 gallons of gas a week.  We do not NEED to drive 1 mile down the road to pick up toilet paper from the supermarket, and we do not NEED to buy bottled water in plastic bottles, get plastic shopping bags with every freakin purchase of chewing gum we make. In fact, believe it or not, we don't even NEED to have our air-conditioning running full blast at 64 degrees every minute of the day during the Florida summers ~gasp~.  All of these things are things we, as a very selfish (or non-selfish depending how you look at it) society have become accustomed to. The TRUE "inconvient truth" here is that none of these global-warming protestors want to do anything different than what they've done their entire lives.  They don't want to change, and by God no one's gonna make 'em ~hmph~.

How damned hard is it to buy a different light bulb?  How hard is it to have a seperate can for things that are recyclable?  Why can't you shorten your showers by a minute, stop worrying about having a freakin green 'lawn', and stop comparing yourselves to others to the point that you're competing over the bigger, the best, the most expensive, regardless of energy consumption?  Answer:  IT'S NOT, you just don't "want" to.

The really ironic thing about the comments posted by those 'individuals' is their claim to be Christian, and yet the idea of extravagence, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride, are what they are defending.  Here's an 8th sin for all of you:  Indifference.  Don't worry though, you've exhibited that one just as well if not better than all the rest.

[Charleston native]

He has been doing this for the past two years, Gatorback, stifling any possibility of discussing positive actions or making plans.

Ive saved the various threads for replay later.

Its so irresponsible that I feel that he should have to review the cost of the vapid obstructionism hes engaged in.

Whats worse, is the more the entire world realizes that climate change is indeed occurring, the less reliable the charts become.....but whose counting?

Right. Here's what you're basically saying: "The more people we convert into believing that the earth is warming, or the climate is changing, or somehow blame ourselves for the weather, the less attentive the world will be to the facts and data." Turn more individual thinkers into sheep...hmmm, smells like socialism to me.

As usual, 2nd pancake and yourself choose to stereotype people who profess to be Christians as individuals who choose not to toe the environmentalist line because they don't give a s--t. More disingenuous arguments...this is becoming a habit for you guys.

[gatorback]

Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too.  Everybody, except...you.  Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned.

[second_pancake]

Turn more individual thinkers into sheep...hmmm, smells like socialism to me.

As usual, 2nd pancake and yourself choose to stereotype people who profess to be Christians as individuals who choose not to toe the environmentalist line because they don't give a s--t. More disingenuous arguments...this is becoming a habit for you guys.

Interesting choice of words, "individual thinkers."  Just what about your way of thinking is individual to you?  Which of the ideas that you've regurgetated here are your own?  What philisophical pondering have you done to come to your conclusion about the state of our world?

If what I stated does not pertain to you, than logic dictates the answer to, DO you give a "s--t?" would be, yes.  So, if that's the case...if you're true to your word and not some mindless lemming or ultra-conservative drone, then what exactly is your argument against global climate change?  What have you chosen to care about and what are you indifferent to?  And while you're "thinking" about all of that, think a bit on the terms of socialism as well and ask yourself if technological advancement and the natural progression of a society is truely socialism.

[second_pancake]

Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too.  Everybody, except...you.  Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned.

Definitely not a bot, otherwise CN would have picked up on the NYT story I posted yesterday.  Oh well. And to think I was really looking forward to the arguments

[Charleston native]

Interesting choice of words, "individual thinkers."  Just what about your way of thinking is individual to you?  Which of the ideas that you've regurgetated here are your own?  What philisophical pondering have you done to come to your conclusion about the state of our world?

My only response to this would be: WTF? As a thinker, I think about the different facts that are presented to me on particular issue, then I decide what I think is correct and what I think is wrong about it. What's sad is that you condescend my reasoning because I don't follow your crowd nor do I think that I should be forced to.

If what I stated does not pertain to you, than logic dictates the answer to, DO you give a "s--t?" would be, yes.  So, if that's the case...if you're true to your word and not some mindless lemming or ultra-conservative drone, then what exactly is your argument against global climate change?  What have you chosen to care about and what are you indifferent to?  And while you're "thinking" about all of that, think a bit on the terms of socialism as well and ask yourself if technological advancement and the natural progression of a society is truely socialism.

Mandating usage of "technological advancement" without giving choice is a form of it, yes. Forcing people to change their technology, way of life, and their comfort because of a delusion...yes, this is a form of socialism. The premise is to control people under the guise of "saving the planet". When the microwave was invented, people were not mandated to use it...it gained popularity on its own.

I'm all for cleaner energy because locally, excessive levels of carbon monoxide does affect our local environments and community health; however, not at the expense of choices in the market place. I think its wise to recycle plastics (you know, the material you consider evil from your earlier posts) to keep landfills from getting bigger. Being good stewards of the earth is indicative of what we can do on a local level. However, all I ask is for the government to quit trying to force me to change my life based on a phenomena that is bogus or in question. Even if the earth was indeed warming, it is vain for man to think that something as small as us can change something that big and dynamic.

However, here's another question which is the underlying argument for this global warming tripe: who the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?! Who are you to tell me how far I should drive for toilet paper, how warm or cold I should keep my house, what kind of light bulbs I should have, or what kind of car I should drive? Good Lord, your earlier post wreaks of infringement on my freedoms. The "science" of the global warming has been debunked by legitimate sources, and I choose to live accordingly. In your case, you've bought this new religion, so you want everybody to change their lifestyle, all in the name of a supposed problem. THAT is socialism, telling me what I need for the greater good.

BTW, gator, you do a pretty good job of blogging manure around here, anyway.  I just don't have the time to respond to every single statement. Also, if the "world community" decided to jump off the Arlington Bridge, would you blindly follow? Nice work on your references...er...rags. Since when was the LA Times a fair, objective source? Center for Progress...ah, propaganda at its finest.

[RiversideGator]

I know I completely demolished your arguments and I'm sorry you're devastated.  My references:

http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/953/know-your-right-wing-speakers-william-f-buckley-jr

and

Your rag:  The National Review on Line.  William F. Buckley Jr. on Global Warming.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=

and

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-na-endanger24jan24,1,1831879.story

So, let's see.  I guess my sources include, The White House, The EPA, The LA Times, William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review to name a few. 

"You're fired!"

   Did you even read the articles you cited??  The first is merely a somewhat hostile bio on William F. Buckley, Jr. on a website owned by an organization known as the Center For American Progress.  The CFAP is a left wing front organization funded and probably wholly controlled by billionaire left wing radical, George Soros, and currently run by former Clinton Chief of Staff, John Podesta. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_For_American_Progress

I am not surprised that they dislike Buckley but I dont really see what probative value this piece has.  I freely admit (as does WFB) that WFB's father was involved in the oil business in Texas in the early 20th century.  If this invalidates his opinions then the opinions held by green fanatics such as you are similarly invalidated.

The second link is to an article on global warming by WFB in which he admits that his father was involved in the oil business:

I'd guess that, in the current mood, I should enter the datum that my father was in the oil business. But having done that, I think it fair to ask: Are we invited to assume that anyone who works in a business that generates greenhouse gases (a) is complicit in the global-warming problem, and (b) should resign and seek work elsewhere?

You apparently totally misread the article because Buckely does not in any way speak "out about how shameful and asphyxiating it was to discover a White House official had edited government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming."  Instead, he started the article with this introduction:

The heavy condemnatory breathing on the subject of global warming outdoes anything since high moments of the Inquisition. A respectable columnist (Thomas Friedman of the New York Times) opened his essay last week by writing, "Sometimes you read something about this administration that's just so shameful it takes your breath away."

What asphyxiated this critic was the discovery that a White House official had edited "government climate reports to play up uncertainty of a human role in global warming." The correspondent advises that the culprit had been an oil-industry lobbyist before joining the administration, and on leaving it he took a job with ExxonMobil.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDNiZGE0YWE1ZDY0Zjg5NDdjMGMzMjk1Zjk5ZTA2YmI=

So, he led off with a quote from a liberal columnist and then set out to shred the central point of that article by showing that the global warming movement is eerily religious in nature, that it seeks to silence its critics rather than to debate them in the arena of ideas and that even if the GW hysteria is true that the adoption of Kyoto by the US would not have slowed GW much at all due to the fact that the growing economies of China and India were not included in Kyoto and that China would soon produce more CO2 than the US anyway.

Did you actually read this article?  His article in fact says the complete opposite of what you claim.  Are you deficient in the area of reading comprehension or are you being intentionally dishonest, Gatorback?  Choose one or the other.

As for the EPA, they are staffed by permanent bureaucrats who are leftists and who have a green agenda.   The GW hysteria is simply being used as the stalking horse for this agenda.  No surprise here.

BTW, you could not "demolish" your way out of a paper bag. 

[RiversideGator]

Some people are just 3 off.  I've enjoyed researching to refute other's posts.  What's more important is looking forward which I think was stephen's point.  We need to start now.  We need start recycling everything, invest in pollution free energy, renewable resources, Environmental Protection, and Manage Global Warming none of which Jacksonville has a plan.  In fact, looks like Jacksonville, Florida is doing a 180 on working toward a better future for ourselves.

Read the post I put up yesterday about the green initiative as reported from the Wall Street Journal.  I posted some information about Jacksonville's recycling program (current practices as well).

We can all banter back and forth stating our side and why we feel so passionately about climate change for or against, but the fact that can't be glossed-over is that there is absolutely no harm to ANYONE in taking actions that may possibly benefit us and the planet.  We do not NEED to use incandesent bulbs.  We do not NEED to have an 8 cylinder Cadillac car that uses 30 gallons of gas a week.  We do not NEED to drive 1 mile down the road to pick up toilet paper from the supermarket, and we do not NEED to buy bottled water in plastic bottles, get plastic shopping bags with every freakin purchase of chewing gum we make. In fact, believe it or not, we don't even NEED to have our air-conditioning running full blast at 64 degrees every minute of the day during the Florida summers ~gasp~.  All of these things are things we, as a very selfish (or non-selfish depending how you look at it) society have become accustomed to. The TRUE "inconvient truth" here is that none of these global-warming protestors want to do anything different than what they've done their entire lives.  They don't want to change, and by God no one's gonna make 'em ~hmph~.

How damned hard is it to buy a different light bulb?  How hard is it to have a seperate can for things that are recyclable?  Why can't you shorten your showers by a minute, stop worrying about having a freakin green 'lawn', and stop comparing yourselves to others to the point that you're competing over the bigger, the best, the most expensive, regardless of energy consumption?  Answer:  IT'S NOT, you just don't "want" to.

This is what it all boils down to:  leftists such as you seek to first establish their moral authority on matters of the environment using a totally fictitious problem (GW) to aid them in this cause.  They then seek to control others by forcing them to adopt their agenda and lifestyle.  Look, pancake, I dont care if you live in the woods and worship trees while wandering about naked and using leaves for toilet paper.  I do care when you start to try to tell me how to live and use bogus science as your basis for doing so.  How about trying to lead by example and let the rest of us do our own thing. 

The really ironic thing about the comments posted by those 'individuals' is their claim to be Christian, and yet the idea of extravagence, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride, are what they are defending.  Here's an 8th sin for all of you:  Indifference.  Don't worry though, you've exhibited that one just as well if not better than all the rest.

Actually, your Christian theology is as warped as is your scientific knowledge.  You have already committed the mortal sin of denying Christ in any event.  Maybe gaia will help you on Judgment Day.  Good luck with that. 

[RiversideGator]

Apparently, the White House, EPA, WFB, and the entire world community is in on this scandle too.  Everybody, except...you.  Are you for real, or just a BOT that blogs manure when text including global warming is scanned.

Another fallacious argument.  The "entire world community" does not agree with the GW theory.  Not by a long shot.  Try doing some independent research for a change.  Or are you not capable of logical, linear thought?

[second_pancake]

From Webster's dictionary:

so·cial·ism       (sō'shə-lĭz'əm)  Pronunciation Key 
n.   
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Hmm, last I checked, our government wasn't exercising emminent domain over Dow or Phillips or any other company producing lightbulbs, and then distributing them based on what they think we should have, i.e. - each household should only have 4 lightbulbs and they should last 4 years, therefore, you only receive 4 lightbulbs every 4 years.  Nor does our government "plan" or "control" our economy.  WE, the consumers, the business-owners, the stockholders do.  And no, the Federal Reserve is NOT government controlled.  So, now that we've had a lesson in economics...moving on...

As a thinker, I think about the different facts that are presented to me on particular issue, then I decide what I think is correct and what I think is wrong about it

I would love to believe this to be true, however every single fact that was presented which came from an unbiased source (i.e. non-government, private-business employee) whose education exceeds any of ours here on this forum; whose life's work is in the study of life, our atmosphere and the inner workings of our planet; you wholly dismissed without even fully reading the information. So what exactly did you think about, what you already determined to be true based on other things you read, and political hear-say?  Things change.  We may not like it, but that's just the way it is.  Hell, if God were to come down from heaven and show up on my front door step one day, then I would have to admit his existence.  So, why then, when these facts are presented are they not even entertained??  You don't for a moment think something is the least bit amiss when so many scientists come up with the exact same results every single time they perform the tests they've done? You don't think it the least bit strange that the people presenting information against global warming have not duplicated the tests others have done and yet are using them as a direct comparison?  It's not odd to you that the timelines reflected in the data provided by the opponents does not span the same length of time as shown my those making the climate change claims?

I'm all for cleaner energy because locally, excessive levels of carbon monoxide does affect our local environments and community health

How can that possibly be true?  If carbon monoxide affects our "local" environment then it would have to affect our GLOBAL environment, and yet you say it doesn't. Doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense.

I think its wise to recycle plastics (you know, the material you consider evil from your earlier posts) to keep landfills from getting bigger.

Why does it matter if our landfills get bigger?  We're too "small" to have any impact on the planet, so just let it fill up.  Who cares.  We'll just keep covering it and it will make a great change to the flat landscape of FL.  Oh, wait. That would be building a mountain and changing the overall elevation of the land, which, if large enough, would actuallty change the topography of the planet, and as you stated, we can't possibly change something as "big and dynamic" as the earth.

Being good stewards of the earth is indicative of what we can do on a local level.

Uh...yeah, I saw the Republican debate last night too.  Thought I wouldn't watch cause I'm a "liberal", eh?  LOL.  Anywho, why is it good stewardship if there is nothing wrong?  I have to say, I'm getting really confused as to where you stand.  You want to fix something that's not broken, but you only want to do it locally even though if everyone did something locally it would have a global effect, but that must only hold true for positive impact because there's no such thing as global warming because again, we're all "too small" to have an impact?  I know you don't like it when I use your words against you, but....WTF???

all I ask is for the government to quit trying to force me to change my life

So, then you must subscribe to the school of, what-we-don't-know-won't-hurt-us, eh?  I suppose it would be better if the changes were made and you knew nothing about it?  That, my friend, is "force."  History has shown us that in a democratic society, even though laws may be passed that we feel are threatening our way of life, the people push back.  Remember prohibition?  What about when it was illegal, and life-threatening, to have an abortion?  If so many people were against what was happening right now, it wouldn't be happening.  And who knows, the CFLs may fall the way of prohibition.  We may all start using them and realize they suck and start buying incandesents on the black-market and thus bring them back into production.  Like I said earlier, things change.  That's life, and that's what's great about our country.

who the heck are you to tell me what I "need"?! Who are you to tell me how far I should drive for toilet paper, how warm or cold I should keep my house, what kind of light bulbs I should have, or what kind of car I should drive? Good Lord, your earlier post wreaks of infringement on my freedoms....you want everybody to change their lifestyle, all in the name of a supposed problem

Ahh, once again you make an assumption.  I wouldn't want anyone to make those changes only because of the environment.  I'd want them to change because driving a mile to the grocery store is about the laziest thing I've heard of unless you're handicapped, if you "need" your house that cold than you're extremely obese or are not of the human race (it is a fact that it is not a necessity for to survival for humans to have an environment at a consistent 64 degree temperature...we're warm-blooded afterall), and an 8 cylinder car guzzling 30 gallons of gas a week is complete and utter excess even if fuel supplies were completely renewable or unlimited.  Once again, you have a hard time with words and have confused "need" with "want", so let me consult Webster's for you once more....

need1 [niːd] noun
something essential, that one must have
Example: Food is one of our basic needs.

It really would make things easier if you would just say that you "want" certain things rather than claiming someone/something is taking away your "needs."  Also, if you could actually understand the difference between inherent rights and freedoms versus being accustom to a way of life.  They are indeed two completely different things you know.

Hey, I have an idea!  I can use use my socialist/liberal light-beacon, shine it in the sky, get my posse together and we'll collectivly pool our borrowed and begged-for money together, to buy you a dictionary.  

[second_pancake]

leftists such as you seek to first establish their moral authority on matters of the environment using a totally fictitious problem (GW) to aid them in this cause.  They then seek to control others by forcing them to adopt their agenda and lifestyle.  Look, pancake, I dont care if you live in the woods and worship trees while wandering about naked and using leaves for toilet paper.  I do care when you start to try to tell me how to live and use bogus science as your basis for doing so.  How about trying to lead by example and let the rest of us do our own thing. 

I don't classify myself, RG.  I am no more a leftist than I am a Christian a Buddist or a cyclist .  When you define yourself by one belief, thought or idea, you limit your ability to reason, to seek out the truth, and to understand the differences around you.  Which explains a lot about your posts, actually.  I have many beliefs, none of which fit neatly into the tight little packaging you and your friends like to call, liberal.  Sorry to disapoint.

I find it interesting how when your way of life is imposed on others you don't see it as an imposition or a revocation of rights, but when someone with beliefs like mine introduces a new idea or way of living into your realm, you immediately cry out loss-of-freedom.  RG, just think with me for a moment.  You suggested that you don't care if I want to live in the woods, "wander about naked" and use "leaves for toiletpaper", but if you're way of life means that all the land is used up to build tract homes, I have no woods to wander in.  If I want to live naked, but your laws say I must be clothed in public places, and because of your building, I no longer have a private place, then I'm forced to find clothing.  If all of your buildings are made from the trees that I used to live in and your way-of-life simply plants artificial trees, then there are no leaves for which to wipe myself.  Do you see the difference in our ideas, RG?  You still have lightbulbs, you still have houses, you still have cars, they would just be built from different things or using different processes.  But, if something doesn't change from how we are doing things now, then MY world is gone and I have lost my fundamental right to life.

Actually, your Christian theology is as warped as is your scientific knowledge.

This one I just don't get.  I guess what you're saying is what I've said all along and why I don't believe in organized religion; you just get to pick and choose the pieces of the bible that you want to believe in?