Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

None of your snide invective alters either that you are completely wrong about America having saved England, or that your vicious remarks to McT, Piffka and to anyone else reveal the hatefulness you all to frequently spew at people--simply because you disagree with them.

You are absolutely laughable .......... when you write crap like this you must be looking in the mirror because even I couldn't describe your tactics any better.

You can say what you like, everyone here knows just how vicious you act. I only respond with invective when it is used against me. You respond with rage and hatred to the least hint of disagreement. Talk all you want--everyone knows it.

You're kidding with this, right?

How many times have you barged into conversations spewing one invective after another? You are hardly one to be scolding anyone about their online behavior.

By writing the above you indicate that Hitler had an alternative when he Preempted Stalin'.s plan to invade all of Europe. I don't pretend to be a historian but a quick search of Google exposed the little "goodie" below which exposes Stalins plan and destroys the myth that Hitler had a choice. I suggest we let Walter determine the accuracy of the information below.

<The critical moment of World War Two - if not of the twentieth century - is generally regarded as Adolf Hitler's decision in 1941 to launch an unprovoked assault upon a hitherto neutral and peaceful Soviet Union. Operation Barbarossa, as it was called, is perceived as the great tactical mistake which doomed Nazi Germany to defeat. Icebreaker, by Russian historian Victor Suvorov, exposes this scenario as nonsense. This extensively researched piece of historical revisionism provides compelling evidence that Operation Barbarossa was a reluctant pre-emptive strike against a massive Soviet military machine which was at that time poised to invade not just Germany, but the whole of Western Europe.>

You've got your nerve. You spewed out some hatefulness at Dys the other day, and when i called you on it, without any invective and not a single personal remark, you went off. You do exactly that all the time--barge into a thread and begin hurling insults.

You and Rayban are of a type, Free Republic orphans who can't wait to find a site with people to bash, because even you get tired of the amen corner. Neither of you participate in the community here, neither of you visit any forum other than politics, with the exception of a thread in another forum into which you hope to inject politics, such as this one.

Telling someone that they have displayed ignorance, which is precisely what Rayban did, may be unpleasant, but it is not invective.

McTag said that 99% of the world disagreed with Rayban and our "colossus of a president." Too bad if Rayban didn't like that characterization of the Shrub, it wasn't personal invective. But this is how he responded:



I didn't find it necessary to characterize Rayban as "an arse" in order to show just how hopelessly ignorant the contention about saving England was.

Piffka responded by pointing out that Rayban was being an ill-mannered arse, that being so won't change global warming and that the members of her family who have served in the military never felt the need for loud, public and militaristic displays. So Rayban responded with this:



Piffka and McTag are both courteous, decent members who visit many fora, exchange greetings and pleasantries with other members who are their friends, and contribute valuable knowledge to the site, and manage to do it without resort to vile characterizations of others.

You and Rayban can think of me what you like, and sneer at my criticisms--i can take the heat, and i will speak out when i see disgusting, invidious remarks like this.

Now run along, McG, and get your conservative moderator buddy to pull these posts like you did in the other thread when it all got to be too much for you.

I've nothing to determine.

However, I think, this is close to the 'best' neo-nazi piece - if not THE best - I've read recently.

Sounds a good deal like Nazi apologetics to me. In Mein Kampf, Hitler laid out his plan to seize the Ukraine as lebensraum for his "master race," before Stalin even came to power. I refer you to Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, Simon Montefiore, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 2003. That work is based on an extensive review of Soviet records now available with the end of the Soviet regime. He clearly demonstrates that Stalin did not expect to be attacked before 1943, that he had no plans to attack to the west, and that he was caught completely by surprise by the invasion. That silly statement above ignores that the Soviets had been badly humiliated in their first attempt to invade Finland, and had been obliged to commit major resources to a second attempt; and it ignores that major portions of the Red Army were committed to east Asia, confronting the Japanese, with whom the Soviets had only signed an accord in April, 1941, less than two months before the invasion. It ignores that the Red Army had been seriously crippled by the show trials and purges of the late 1930's. In short, i consider that statement to be laughably wrong.

Your turn.

Quotation from Rayban's source:

source

I see Walter weighed in while i was responding. I second his opinion about the neo-nazi character of that passage.

Oh-Oh...wait one while I go back to google

It is further worth noting that not only was the silly passage off topic with regard to the theme of this thread, it was tangential and irrelevant to a discussion of whether or not the United States "saved" England in the Second World War. And that topic only arose because of a scurrilous remark made to McTag when he pointed out how many people in the world disagree with the Shrub's position on global warming.

Yes, right, Set, but as you know, some people "with a special understanding of the world" always try to get the curve to their main topic.

Would that be . . . poor misunderstood Hitler?

Well, some have just read Irving.

heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .



okbye

Oh, Rayban's prize googled site got raided by the police, and disabled. Now why does that not surprise me.

Yes, I was a bit surprised when describing Mr Bush as "a colossus", even ironically, brought that heap of ordure on to the thread.

Mr Bush is so far in hock to petro-chemical paymasters that he will oppose any and all environmental initiatives.
So his legacy is set to be debt, social division and pollution; diminished domestic security, and decreased international standing for his country. A colossus, I don't think.

Those of you who are not hysterical about the global warming panic, might find something interesting in piece by Robert Samuelson.

Greenhouse Hypocrisy

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.


Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In India, he says, about 500 million people lack electricity; worldwide, the figure is 1.6 billion. Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they won't sacrifice economic gains -- poverty reduction, bigger middle classes -- to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries will account for about two-thirds of the growth. China's coal use is projected almost to double; its vehicle fleet could go from 24 million to 130 million.

Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise. Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?

Source

This could serve as a blanket condemnation of politicians in general, on the whole gamut of "hot button" topics, not just global warming. Politicians are absolutely necessary to the process of implementing and maintaining the social contract. They are not, however, to be trusted when they feel their public image is in the balance. They bear close watching, constant and vigilant supervision.

The remark about those who "are not hysterical about the global warming panic" was gratuitous and unnecessary--it does nothing to help the debate, and definitely lowers its tone. As for Mr. Samuelson's piece, it is congent in its condemnation of political grandstanding. It is not, however, reliable as scientific review. Although Mr. Samuelson was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 1998 as a commentator, there is no reason to assume that his speculations on the topic carry more weight than the opinions of scientists who study the climate for a living.