What would we do without studies?
Answer to Quick Quiz: None.
And the downside is?????????????????????? After all, they are talking about New Jersey.
I’m offering you a job. You’re projected to make somewhere between $9000 and $88,000 per year. Hows that sound?
Posted by Oink
11/16/2005 at 11:26 PM
Yeah, I was going to mention the precision of the predictions. The thought of Newark being washed away just absolutely devastates me.
Monkeys could be projected to fly out of my lower extremities but I kinda doubt it’s gonna happen.
No facts ..... none. Got to agree with AndyJ, though. Been to Jersey ....... no T-shirt .... no return trip, either.
New Jersey: “What happens here, gets buried here”
Let’s see Bruce Springsteen write something about THAT!
As a person who spent the first 19 years of his life in the ‘great’ state of New Jersey...and since NJ is run just as effectively as Louisiana...and by the same party...I say “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink. Water, water everywhere and let the mutherfucker sink!”
Frank, your use of Boldface type says it all. Mainstream media reporters are morons with underhanded agendas
For pretty much the entire Moonbat-environazi-anti-nuclear and just about every group of fear mongers every phrase and comment the morons utter or write contains either would or could. Its the entire basis for all their “arguments” and absolutely meaningless (in the real world).
Here’s an example:Al Gore “could” get a job at at EXXON in their chemical research dept.
Posted by Paul "No Fear" Weir
11/17/2005 at 05:07 AM
Of course, their numbers are based on the IPCC research, which was done at the behest of the UN.
So, expect it to be just as accurate as any other UN ‘study’.
Having just read Michael Crichton’s excellent “State of Fear” puts all this enviro-wacko stuff into perspective. It is easy to be deceived by psuedo science and manipulation of data. I went along with this global warming bunkum for a number of years, but of late I started to wonder if it was all a bit Chicken Little. Now I am convinced it is a put up job. Anyway does anyone really worry about what Noo Joisy will be like in 2100? I can’t say I am overly worked up about it!
These hozers spelled the 1st word wrong, rizing. They spelled it - rising.
I quit reading this bag-o-lies after the 1st word.
Posted by Z Woof
11/17/2005 at 07:59 AM
When I was a Stock Broker, Jersey City was HQ for our main line of Mutual Funds, and the butt of jokes on the Shoutdown (audio updates). e.g. First Place in the new Sales Contest was a night on the aforesaid town with Sally, the NY Sales Manager. Second Place, two nights.
I was amazed how forrested & beautiful western NJ was. The Garden State—maybe if the ocean only swallowed the coast ...
Posted by Oink
11/17/2005 at 08:04 AM
I thought the liberals wanted more wetlands.
Posted by Silvergoat
11/17/2005 at 08:19 AM
First prize: An all expenses paid weekend in NJ
Second prize: two weeks “vacation” in NJ
Third (loser) prize: an entire lifetime wasted in NJ
Really? show me global warming, on a planetwide scale, with a consistent temperature change, ‘aided and abetted by man’.
I guess it was ‘aided and abetted by man’ when it was warmer during the 1100’s and around 0 AD and every other natural warming cycle that has occurred in the past ten thousand years?
I bet it was ‘aided and abetted by man’ when it was warmer a hundred million years ago, too…
Draven,OCM: There might be some truth to it, who knows? Right now, doesn’t look like human causation is much, or that there would be much we could do about it, if true. The fanatics can pound sand. I’m not going back to subsistence farming just in case.
Posted by Oink
11/17/2005 at 02:44 PM
OCM: Same question, but 1955 vs. 2005?
No question, we’ve
our nest. But change the global climate? Maybe, maybe not.
Posted by Oink
11/17/2005 at 05:43 PM
Too little, too late.
1965 Lake Erie water vs 2005 Lake Erie water? I’d damn sure pick today. I know what it was like in 1965.
The sewage is broken down by natrual processes, OCM. You know, like the manure you spread on fields to enrich the soil. That is as opposed to the manure you like to spread
hereelsewhere.
While we’re wondering… What has happened to all the rubber worn off of all the tires we’ve been using for a century? One would think that there should be a mound of rubber along the side of every highway.
Kerr ( re your #29); GIMME FIVE!
Posted by Oink
11/17/2005 at 11:58 PM
1. It’s a balance between human wants/needs and having something Wild&Natural to enjoy and preserve for the future. Immediate gratification shouldn’t always win. I’ve preserved 92 acres of wilderness by buying it.
2. I really noticed how much trash there was after I returned home from Germany. The Earth is a sphere—you can’t throw trash off the edge.
3. The non-industrialized countries are the worst polluters, per capita.
4. Environmental recycling systems are marvelous if you don’t overload them.
5. It would help us Conservationalists if Environmentalists would move to North Korea.
Posted by Oink
11/18/2005 at 10:08 AM
(Five to Oink and Dip)
OCM, where I live and where I take the occasional road trip (OH, PA, NY, IN, KY) I’m not seeing any trash alonside the road. The inside of my car is often a trash heap because I won’t throw crap out the window. I’ve always been that way. Most people I know are the same. Many keep some form of trash receptacle in the vehicle. Good way to reuse those plastic grocery bags; hang one below the dasboard and put your trash in it.
We have built wastewater treatment plants, at great expense, all over the damn place. My wastewater is treated by the county before it goes back into the river and this is a rural county. Metropolises are doing a good job too. Cleveland’s river won’t be catching on fire again, either. There are fish in the Buffalo river, which didn’t seem possible in 1965. It ain’t 1952 any more.
We’re not marching, we’re just doing what’s right without fanfare.
Not everyone has learned, I’ll grant you. I was outraged the other day when I saw someone roll down the window of their SUV and throw a paper cup into the street.
What I’m saying, OCM, is that we’re learning and improving the situation. It’s not perfect yet, probably never will be, but it is getting better. We’ll keep workng on it.
It’s kind of incongruous of you to be blaming mother nature along with us evil humans. Isn’t Mamma in charge of the environment? Oh yeah, she pops those volcanoes and stuff from time to time. BAD Mamma Nature, BAD! [looks for hand to slap] [probably just as well I can’t find one]
I can think of some things that used to happen that don’t happen any more. Ships dumping contaminated fuel at sea or dumping the crap that comes from cleaning tanks. It’s all controlled now and properly recycled or disposed of.
Stripmine sites now get reclaimed. Old waste dumps are being cleaned up. We’re learning and we’re fixing it.
I’m sorta curious about what you do with all the waste that you and your critters make on a daily basis. I’m sure it’s something postitive. Just wondering.
Um ... ah ... it’s small and biodegradable???
You’ve got a point there, Dip, and I’ve been guilty of that offense in the past. I’ve got a snuffer type ashtray in the vehicle now and I dispose of the dregs of my nasty habit in a more appropriate fashion.
Perhaps the fact that most of the ashtrays in cars are now poorly designed and often won’t hold more than four butts before being full could be a contributing factor. I know that the one in the car I just bought is inconvenient, nearly inaccessable and practically unusable. That’s why I got the other one. It takes up the cup holder space in the console, but I’ll live with it.
Solar Study Cool on Global Warming Claim
Another study has cast doubt on the global warming theory.
Recognizing that the Earth’s climate has been changing since the pre-industrial era, physicist A. Kilcik and his colleagues set out to determine if there is a link between variations in solar activity and changes in the earth’s temperatures, John McCaslin reports in the Washington Times’ Inside the Beltway column.
Is having a child—even one—environmentally destructive?
“We can’t be breeding right now,” says Les Knight. “It’s obvious that the intentional creation of another [human being] by anyone anywhere can’t be justified today.”
Knight is the founder of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, an informal network of people dedicated to phasing out the human race in the interest of the health of the Earth. Knight, whose convictions led him to get a vasectomy in the 1970s, when he was 25, believes that the human race is inherently dangerous to the planet and inevitably creates an unsustainable situation.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2005/11/16/gree.DTL
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by Oink
11/18/2005 at 03:28 PM
I was simply trying to point out that the ‘alternative’ theories to “Mankind is killing the planet” are getting out there, in the first article. Another sign is Michael Crichton’s book “State of Fear” which I own but haven’t yet read. (That particular stack is growing at an alarming rate. Work sucks. Need to win the lottery...)
The second was yet another example of overly alarmist asshats who make the news and unfortunately influence other people. This guy and Thomas Malthus would have had a great time together. Wasn’t some jackass predicting a massive population explosion back in the 70’s? As I recall, it was a popular theme (Soylent Green) along with a new Ice Age. Boy, how the times have changed…
11/17/2005 at 01:10 AM
11/17/2005 at 07:29 AM
