CalvinBall wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:i got polled by some company last night. they asked if i would vote for gerlach or trevedi. as i mentioned earlier i thought i was in that district now and after double checking im actually not. anyways, polls have some serious flaws if i am included in a sample i shouldnt be included in.

Did they call your landline or cell phone?

landline. i am less than a mile from the dividing line. so maybe they got confused.

I'd guess other people who share your same middle three numbers 610-XXX-1234 are in the district they were trying to poll and they were randomly generating the last four numbers to exchanges in the district to build the sample. They should have a way to filter you out though I would think - matching your phone to zip+4 and checking or something. Otherwise it doesn't tell them a whole hell of a lot.

"global warming"

jesus fucking christ

Soren wrote:

"global warming"

jesus fucking christ

cant expect much from interwebz loudmouths.

CalvinBall wrote:

Soren wrote:

"global warming"

jesus #$!&@ christ

cant expect much from interwebz loudmouths.

Happy to discuss if you like.

To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

td11 wrote:
bill clinton was something else

Good god, that answer from GHWB was worse than anything we've seen from Romney. How did Clinton not beat him by more than 6 points in the popular vote?

Soren wrote:To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

Most accept that there's been a warming trend (although there is recent evidence suggesting that it ended 16 years ago). Not quite a supermajority accept that manmade activity has had an influence on global temperatures.

The earth went through periods of cooling, then warming, many times long before the discovery of fossil fuels. Seems like a stretch to be certain that "this time, it's different."

It's an important issue for continued study, but no matter the amount of hand-wringing, the nations of the world will continue to burn fossil fuels for as long as they are the cheapest fuel available. To the extent that we disdain cheap fuel and handcuff the economy accordingly, China and other developing nations will have an even cheaper, more abundant supply.

Fracking looks like a very useful interim measure between heavy crude and green energy.

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

Most accept that there's been a warming trend (although there is recent evidence suggesting that it ended 16 years ago). Not quite a supermajority accept that manmade activity has had an influence on global temperatures.

The earth went through periods of cooling, then warming, many times long before the discovery of fossil fuels. Seems like a stretch to be certain that "this time, it's different."

The term "global warming" doesn't include a cause, except in the minds of conservative blowhards. One can accept the data while disputing the theory of causation.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

td11 wrote:
bill clinton was something else

Good god, that answer from GHWB was worse than anything we've seen from Romney. How did Clinton not beat him by more than 6 points in the popular vote?

Every time I look at it, I hope GHWB won't look at his watch this time. And he always does.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

Most accept that there's been a warming trend (although there is recent evidence suggesting that it ended 16 years ago). Not quite a supermajority accept that manmade activity has had an influence on global temperatures.

The earth went through periods of cooling, then warming, many times long before the discovery of fossil fuels. Seems like a stretch to be certain that "this time, it's different."

The term "global warming" doesn't include a cause, except in the minds of conservative blowhards. One can accept the data while disputing the theory of causation.

He's talking about areas where the government ought to regulate for environmental reasons. The cause is pretty damn important because if you're trying to fix a problem knowing what is causing said problem and what effect your fix is likely to have on it matters.

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

Most accept that there's been a warming trend (although there is recent evidence suggesting that it ended 16 years ago). Not quite a supermajority accept that manmade activity has had an influence on global temperatures.

The earth went through periods of cooling, then warming, many times long before the discovery of fossil fuels. Seems like a stretch to be certain that "this time, it's different."

The term "global warming" doesn't include a cause, except in the minds of conservative blowhards. One can accept the data while disputing the theory of causation.

He's talking about areas where the government ought to regulate for environmental reasons. The cause is pretty damn important because if you're trying to fix a problem knowing what is causing said problem and what effect your fix is likely to have on it matters.

I realize that but the was referring to his use of quotes around the term, as if it wasn't happening at all. Soren's response seemed to come from that angle as well.

But I was really just doing a driveby anyway, so continue with this nonsense.

hwga

TomatoPie wrote:Fracking looks like a very useful interim measure between heavy crude and green energy.

sure if you have no issue with carcinogenic compounds leaking into drinking water (more evidence of that here) and earthquakes

There are two broad classes of "conservative blowhards" who are skeptical of global warming:

1) the 1%ers who own lots of fossil-fuel production or fossil-fuel consuming industry
2) those who perceive that a lot of the noise over global warming is anti-business propaganda.

It's hard to have a rational and scientific discussion, because the deniers and the anticapitalists are so entrenched. But there simply is not nearly enough evidence to know with certainty about causes and cures or even if cures are needed

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:

Soren wrote:To discuss what? Global warming isn't up for debate. We might as well argue over whether or not the planet is less than 7K years old.

Most accept that there's been a warming trend (although there is recent evidence suggesting that it ended 16 years ago). Not quite a supermajority accept that manmade activity has had an influence on global temperatures.

The earth went through periods of cooling, then warming, many times long before the discovery of fossil fuels. Seems like a stretch to be certain that "this time, it's different."

The term "global warming" doesn't include a cause, except in the minds of conservative blowhards. One can accept the data while disputing the theory of causation.

He's talking about areas where the government ought to regulate for environmental reasons. The cause is pretty damn important because if you're trying to fix a problem knowing what is causing said problem and what effect your fix is likely to have on it matters.

I realize that but the was referring to his use of quotes around the term, as if it wasn't happening at all. Soren's response seemed to come from that angle as well.

But I was really just doing a driveby anyway, so continue with this nonsense.

Exactly.

TomatoPie wrote:It's hard to have a rational and scientific discussion, because the deniers and the anticapitalists are so entrenched. But there simply is not nearly enough evidence to know with certainty about causes and cures or even if cures are needed

Certainly we don't know anything definitively, but one of the enormous problems is that, by the time we have enough data to know for certain, it might be far, far too late to effectuate change that would help our species.

Soren wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Fracking looks like a very useful interim measure between heavy crude and green energy.

sure if you have no issue with carcinogenic compounds leaking into drinking water (more evidence of that here) and earthquakes

There's evidence both ways, but it's easy to ignore either if you choose. My judgment, from what I've learned, is that the promise is so great -- to forestall energy shortages and to get an abundant supply of relatively clean and cheap fuel -- that the risks are both tolerable and manageable. I think most folks now know that the "my water is flammable" stuff was not caused by fracking or even newly discovered since fracking. Kind of like global warming, there's lots of opportunity for lawyers, for making money, for taking sides without gathering enough data.

If you look at the trajectory of investments in fracking, you can conclude there's a lot of smart money in it. That alone does not prove its safety, but it expresses some confidence that it will pass EPA and other government sniff tests.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:It's hard to have a rational and scientific discussion, because the deniers and the anticapitalists are so entrenched. But there simply is not nearly enough evidence to know with certainty about causes and cures or even if cures are needed

Certainly we don't know anything definitively, but one of the enormous problems is that, by the time we have enough data to know for certain, it might be far, far too late to effectuate change that would help our species.

I hear ya, that's not crazy. I don't share your alarm, but I don't find it unreasonable.

So if there exists the possibility of dumping tons (literally, tons as in the unit of measurement) of carcinogens into tributaries of the Delaware river you have no issue with that because there exists the opportunity to make money in the mean time?

the natural gas companies won't even tell you whats in the fracking chemicals. but you don't really need to know that because anything that can melt stone/earth isn't good for the environment.