Or was Chance writing about real watergoing vessels?

4life:

You may have perfectly valid reasons to doubt an *individual* conclusion based on (for example) erosion records, continental drift, fossil records, ice core sampling, carbon dating, and so on — but if all of the measurements agree well, then that is (by definition) the best verifiability that science has to offer…

Anyway, it’s important to understand (and not blur) that crucial distinction, lest you invite the “you don’t believe in science” criticism: the big laugher with Global Warming Yahooism is that it is the scientists, not the measurements, which are the ones doing all of the agreeing!

If you follow the trail of money and power, I think the government motive for backing climate change is as obvious as its motive for socialized medicine: together they will give the government the authority to tell you what to drive AND what to eat (and of course the ability to tax, tax, tax, to punish your “selfishness” if you dare disobey).

In general, people — and Americans are particularly susceptible due to their generosity — want to help (whether it be to help the sick get medicine, or to improve the environment, or whatever the next thing is); and are therefore dreadfully susceptible to suggestion and manipulation.

So, how and when will the public humiliation come? Now instead of ‘Global Warming’ they call it ‘Climate Change’. So many regular people see the ridiculousness of it, and yet the people in government are true believers. I understand why the rest of the world is jumping on this bandwagon. They want us to hamstring ourselves economically. But why do we want to do this to ourselves?

What a bunch of frauds.

As long as the union run public education system continues to make excuses for the lack of science and math education we’ll have idiots pushing “global warming” and holes in the ozone.

I’d love to sell mine and get something bigger, slower, and cheaper to operate, but I’d have to give it away – and Alaska’s economy is still pretty good. I’d be lucky to get 30% of its survey value and it would probably have to be a cash sale or owner finance (and I ain’t that stupid).

And you’re right about the elitists’ attitude about RVs and boats. It would be very easy to attract a LOT of independent travelers taking their RVs to Interior and Southcentral Alaska via the Alaska Highway through Canada. But, we’d need a road to Haines or Skagway and more RV park space. Mention either of those and you get howls of protest from the Greenies and NIMBYs about not wanting “those people” here. Likewise, we get lots of large and even mega-yachts here every summer. We don’t have moorage for them, so they just throw out the hook in Gastineau Channel or Auke Bay and take their tender(s) in to shore. Consequently, all we get from visits by some of the richest people in the World is maybe whatever they spend in the bars and restaurants or glacier tours or such. But, try to use public funds, even tourist head tax funds, on dock and harbor improvements to handle larger private boats, and you get howls of outrage from the same Greenies and NIMBYs about how awful big boats are. Even for locals, the single biggest factor in ownership of a boat over about 30 feet is that it is totally worthless unless there is a place to put it, and there aren’t a whole lotta places.

I know a woman who held out for the slip rather than the boat in a divorce. ‘Course then she just trolled around for a man with a boat to fit the slip.

We know that ACORN has a revolving-door relationship with the highest levels of Obama’s administration. It would be interesting to see how many environmental extremist radicals have access or offices in Obama’s EPA and Czardom.

He’s talking to the United Nations.

He obviously doesn’t want any answers to his concerns coming from within the United States, he wants them handed down in Copenhagen by people nobody in the United States voted for.

That’s not to say that the science is unimpeachable — all you need to do to discredit it is find contradictory data (eg., the glass bottle in billion year old rock yarn), or come up with a verifiable hypothesis of your own which explains why the carbon isotope content in living things, and the relevant decay rates, might not be stable with time (which is also consistent with the fact that, for example, alligators are alive today and have been carbon dated to millions of years old as well).

In short, carbon dating is a *real* science! It can, and has, withstood lots of scrutiny. That said, I certainly don’t believe you’re an unruly teenager if you decide to disagree with the conclusions; skepticism is the foundation of *real* science.

Global Warming (at least of the Man-Made variety), however, is not real science; and it cannot withstand scrutiny (even mild scrutiny from a populace driven by common sense rather than some deep scientific insight). That’s why believers in it do not respond to criticism with facts; but with censure, mockery, and half-baked documentaries.

Why? Well, some hypotheses throughout history have been so self-evidently truthful that even good scientists fall prey to their own biases. Such is apparently the case here (not to minimize the profiteering motive); and in my opinion, the “machine” simply will not stop until the egos involved have moved on to that shining greenhouse in the sky (preferably by way of public humiliation after the hell they’ve put us through).

Watch this latest from Steven Crowder. No wonder these Ivory Tower folks think we’re idiots when they have to deal with the precious little darlings with skulls full of mush featured in the video:

Thank you.

ColdWarrior

www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com

Recycling is constrained by energy cost: you have to move the junk to be recycled to the recycling depot. You have to place it in a container, and they have to be sorted. Then all that stuff has to be broken down and separated and the parts that can be recycled have to be essentially remanufactured. All of those things take a lot of energy and they’re costly because of that, which is why more people don’t do it.

Imagine if we had more energy available to recycle at a lower cost: we’d be able to take the things that are currently economically infeasible to recycle and make new use of them.

We’d also be able to manufacture better products to replace old, worn-out ones, and we’d be able to do that less expensively because the energy cost would be lower. So people who want to replace their old windows with new, energy-efficient ones wouldn’t have to buy them from China where they use essentially slave labor to manufacture them. We could make them instead here in the good old U.S. of A.

The problem is that all of the Donks are fixated on this idea that the only way to “save the planet” is to increase the costs of energy and then skim the extra off the top and give it to people in South America. It’s astonishing that we’ve elected people who think this way, but we have.