Coldest August Day in NYC in Almost a Century

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
  • Bookmark and Share

All you global warming skeptics, deniers, and court jesters better stow your potables, combustibles, and sharp objects safely from proximity of electronic equipment, because it was absolutely a frigid August day in the Big Apple Tuesday.

HOW COLD WAS IT?

Well, as reported by WCBSTV.com, this is the coldest August day in New York City in almost a century (h/t NBer Dave in Texas, emphasis added throughout):

The city along with the rest of the tri-state region is feeling the chilly effect of a cold front sweeping through the region, accompanied by cool rain showers.

Tuesday's high temperature in Central Park was just 59 degrees. The normal high for today is 82 degrees. The normal low is 67.

Hmmm. 23 degrees below normal. Think that will be featured on any of the network evening news broadcasts tonight? Or this:

"This unusual blast of cold air smashed our previous record for the coldest high temperature on August 21, which is 64 degrees, set back in 1999," CBS 2 meteorologist Jason Cali told wcbstv.com.

In fact, the 59-degree high tied the record for the coldest high temperature ever for the month of August in New York City, when it reached just 59 degrees in 1911.

Think New Yorkers would love to see a little global warming right now?

Surely I jest.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Philly too!

It was chilly in Philly as well today - 60 degrees tops.

Kiss my butt Heidi Cullen.

Blame everything

From my global warming alarmist friends, I've learned that it's perfectly acceptable to blame both record highs and record lows, record low highs and record high lows, etc. on global warming. In fact, whatever the temperature is right now, it's because of global warming.

Everything is because of AGW

Mojave, I believe tecnically speaking, youve just defined the first "law" of AGW.

So does this mean I can

So does this mean I can blame my growing waistline on AGW? 

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

CT, that is a great big

CT, that is a great big "yes" to your question.  Because of global warming it is too hot or too cold or too windy or too rainy or too dry for you to get outside and do some exercise to keep your figure trim. And, of course all of the above weather conditions are directly traceable to the Bush-Rove-Cheney-Halliburton combine that has run roughshod over the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to commit treason, feed from the public teat, to speak truth(erism) to power, etc., etc., etc.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention in your re-education classes, else you wouldn't have even had to ask that question.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Mojave, N' Noel, Record cold days V.S. hottest EVER?

 Noel,

I know you can compile this in a hurry.

"the record cold days V.S. the record hot days"

What is it like 6 to one,, all those dazes in Africia, and South America cold stuff. Where's the "hottest ever" dazes and dazes  to off set this cold?

Mojave,

your statement covers the climate change devotives . AKA carbon taxers. no matter what the weather we shall tax you. 

The Boston tea party went off over a 1/2 % tax!

 

 

Don't forget to Factor in the urban heat thinggy, over NYC ..!

 

Entitlement over infrastructure every SINGLE time.

 

But didn't you know? This

But didn't you know? This proves global warming, too. As one person once told me, "Some places will get hotter and some places will get colder." Some glaciers will grow, some will shrink. So everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it. That makes it an invalid non-falsifiable theory.

oh ohh

Heads up Floridians, better book tee times.

You can't use the isolated

You can't use the isolated record low temperature of one city to disprove global warming. It is "global" warming, you know?

The temperature of one city is only relevant if that temp is a record high, which proves beyond all doubt that we are on the brink of global disaster because of man-made global warming and requires that we spend more money to solve the (non)problem than the problem itself would ever cost if it did exist.

Seriously, Noel, you should know better. ;)

 

But when the temp in NYC

But when the temp in NYC soars into record highs, it's perfectly alright to use it as proof of global warming.

 

Go figure.

second law of AGW:)

second law of AGW:)

Yeah, well..... here's the

Yeah, well..... here's the bit I don't get, on this site.

If you don't believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else?

I mean, I am an atheist, and I can share the planet with religious people, and we all go about being nice to each other, and I'm just as nice as them. We just put it down to different reasons.

So, if you choose not to believe that humans have changed global conditions, that's fine. That said, why should someone be seen as a moonbat for fighting for cleaner air, more efficient cars, more forests, more efficient power stations, recycling, soil rehabilitation, etc?

Another question, and a technical one.... I understand the Bush Admin has passed legislation on the auto industry, to make mandatory an average fuel economy rate of 35mpg "across the model range" for all vehicles sold in the US, and I'm not sure of the deadline.

My question is; How will they measure it? Presumably, it has to be on models available, and not models sold. Will this mean a sudden scourge of re-badged Asian cars, with GM and Chrysler badges on them, just because they get 60mpg?

Also, I presume that the legislation has been partly conceived with exports in mind (like the Jeep Patriot, available with diesel engine in Australia and Europe) but I was wondering; would the 35 mpg be based on the US gallon or the Imperial gallon?

You are an

You are an atheist...

'Nuff said for me.

Hello Bigtimer! Not sure

Hello Bigtimer!

Not sure what religion has to do with it. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Enlighten

Enlighten you....

Impossible.

And how does my atheism

And how does my atheism affect the argument?

This is how:While the

This is how:

While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Genesis 8:22

I believe this and you don't:)

But they will cease

But they will cease eventually, right?

actual infinities

do not exist in this universe

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Eyecare, you have it backwards

"If you don't believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else?"

The problem is, the theories of the AGW people keep falling apart, but instead of working to prove they're right with better scientific validation, they claim consensus, attack the doubters, refuse to debate, etc, etc.   The media constantly fawns over AGW people and accepts whatever they say without speaking with anyone who dissents.   

In spite of all of the above, they "affect everyone else" with stupidity like Ethanol, which is the second worst idea to come out of this entire debacle.  (The worst idea is to make Ethanol mandatory.)

So, you have it backwards.  It's the AGW gang who, in spite of the above, are forcing stupid behavior changes on the rest of us.

Ok... I'll need to process

Ok... I'll need to process that. Do you know about the fuel economy bit?

fuel economy

Actually, I can't answer your questions with authority, except to say Ethanol gives poor gas mileage.

While I'm at it, I doubt there's a person on this site who isn't for cleaner air and water, etc.  It's an AGW falsehood to claim that if you don't agree with them you must not care about the environment.

Thanks RJ. I never

Thanks RJ.

I never mentioned ethanol. I don't know how it got associated with me. I was mainly about conservation and fuel economy.

It's like bigtimer's religious stuff. Nothing to do with me. See what I am up against? (in reply to your question on another thread)

Cheers anyway.

No Eye... You are the one

No Eye...

You are the one who mentioned that you were atheist in this all...

I did not... nor do I rarely mention my religion....

I responded to you saying you were atheist...which had nothing to do with subject.

You did not like it evidently.

 I'll go out on a limb

 I'll go out on a limb here bigtimer, and say our boy Eye here mentioned athiest because he feels it's an entitled, and protected group. But what he doesn't mention is he would probably have no problem with our religions being outlawed.

Athiesm simply put is a vexation on morality, or a vaccum of the human spirit if you will.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

"Athiesm simply put is a

"Athiesm simply put is a vexation on morality, or a vaccum of the human spirit if you will."

...or just self-reliance.

 hmmm, self reliance, yea,

 hmmm, self reliance, yea, now coming from a supporter of the nanny state, and entitlement socialists, I'll bet thats exactly what it is.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

Nanny what?

Nanny what?

not sure I get your point.

not sure I get your point. Is it ok for for a conservative to be an atheist?

boa... When you are

boa...

When you are dying...are you going to say or think you are just sucked up and you are not talking to God...as we all do?

If you are an atheist? 

I'm just saying that

I'm just saying that self-reliance is another way you could look at atheism. I have no idea what happens when you die. I know what I hope.

I'm not an atheist.

Oh, This is Rich

Bal the self-proclaimed liberal is advocating for self-reliance.

Does anyone see the delicious irony here?

Anyone?

Noel? 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

hi blonde

goodnight

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

 Or self-delusion,

 Or self-delusion, bal.

I do not subscribe to any particular religion.  However, I find it mathematically impossible to deny the existence of God.  The origin of life is a binary solution set: either life began by chance, or life began by design (God).  The British astronomer Robert Jastrow calculated the probabilities of life beginning by chance as one in ten to the forty-thousandth power.  In decimal form that would be a zero followed by a decimal followed by 39,999 zeroes followed by a 1.  Conversely, the probability for life beginning by design would have to be one minus the above decimal, which would be a zero followed by a decimal point followed by forty thousand 9s.

When calculating probabilities, anything with a probability less than one in ten to the fiftieth power is considered impossible, so, Bal, apparently you wish to believe in something that is 39,950 orders of magnitude beyond impossible.  Self delusion.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

I'm not an atheist. I'm

I'm not an atheist. I'm just saying. 

boa... Really as a friend

boa...

Really as a friend for a lomg time....

What exactly does ...'Just Sayin' ..//mean?

I'm saying that one could

I'm saying that one could look at atheism as a form of self-reliance.

Self reliance towards what

Self reliance towards what boa?

Exactly?

Self-reliance in terms of

Self-reliance in terms of moral guidance, ethics.

morals don't come from self.

morals don't come from self. morals are imposed on self. do you have kids? if so were they ever two year olds?

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Well, not FROM the self,

Well, not FROM the self, but an atheist can determine what moral code he will adhere to without religion.

Bal I agree with you - not

Bal I agree with you - not sure what all the fuss is about here - atheism and agnosticism are about self-reliance...

I don't know. I guess it

I don't know. I guess it sounds like I'm assigning a positive trait to atheists, and that's a no-no?

maybe, but quite often it

maybe, but quite often it seems people here get knee-jerk contrary just for the sake of it:)

Hardly a day goes by that

Hardly a day goes by that I'm not accused of that. :-)

well, you are a non-neo-con

well, you are a non-neo-con behind enemy lines:)

oops a new moniker is born:(

FROM where then Bal?

???

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

From life experience? From

From life experience? From watching the actions of others and determining if those actions are something they agree with or not? From books? From friends? From Bazooka Joe comics?

from, from, from

just pushes it back a notch -- where's the grounding?   do you notice the US getting more self-indulgent?  can this last?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

I notice more

I notice more self-indulgence, but then there are plenty of religious people who are self-indulgent. Wildly successful people who are avid church-goers.

ah Bal

even i at times am the hypocrite.  does that mean the moral code is wrong or the person is wrong?

but back to the grounding question:  each of your examples of where one might get their morals had to get their's somewhere else (even the writer of Bazooka Joe) that's why i said it just pushed it back a notch.  So, notch, notch, - - - -notch where does it start (ground)?

Also, once you get to being able to make up your own morals how do you tell some else that rape is wrong? or beastiality? or slavery?

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Sure, most of man's morals

Sure, most of man's morals eventually come from religion, but an atheist, I assume, would rather determine for themselves what a "good life" is instead of having it told to him from something he doesn't believe in.

Society determines whether your morals fit with the population at large. 

It's the old country buffet

It's the old country buffet approach - you maybe try a little Christianity, maybe also have some Judaism, a cup of Hindu, a glass of Bhudda, mix and match - create your own platter:)

That's also "No. 7 w/ snow

That's also "No. 7 w/ snow peas" I believe.

society determines

here we go again, same ride different name.

have a goodnight balboa

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

An objective evaluation of

An objective evaluation of the behavior.

Does behavior X affect someone else?

If yes, would I dislike being affected in the same way.

If yes, then it is not a behavior to engage in, as engaging in it will raise the rate of its occurance.

Common occurances are generally accepted.

If the behavior is generally accepted, then that will raise the odds of it happening to me.

Therefore not engaging in "immoral" behavior can merely be an exercise in physical self-preservation, regardless of whether it is an act of spiritual self-preservation or not.

Does behavior X affect

Does behavior X affect someone else?
what objective basis do you have for qualifying this as a moral absolute? why not 'every man for himself' or 'might makes right' these could be argued to be equally objective as yours.

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

It's not a moral

It's not a moral "absolute." That's the point.  It's a logical conclusion.  It may not lead to the same moral set as most religions (masturbation being morally wrong for example) but is sufficient to lead to a peaceful and prosperous cohabitation.

Examine your "every man for himself" and "might makes right" concepts using the process I just outlined.

If you take advantage of others, you make taking advantage of others a common practice, thereby making it likely that you will be taken advantage of.

It also applies to positive behaviors like charity.

Most know this as the "Golden Rule"... you just don't HAVE to get it from religion.  You can get it just by watching cause and effect between individuals, groups, societies, nations...  Analyzing visible data is called... science? Good morality is scientifically sound.

khris

what logical conclusion? it's an assumed premise. you want a safe society?

1 Pax Romana

2 Communist China

3 Stalinist Russia

4 Jonestown

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

It's a logical conclusion

It's a logical conclusion that to preserve one's self, one should not engage in behaviors that would damage one's ability to be preserved.

I don't see why this is a difficult concept. 

 One effectively builds the world they wish to see by setting precedent.

You cite examples of societies where the constituents did NOT abide by the methodology I described.  They assumed morality would be provided by the society, rather than taking a concious self evaluation of each behavior as I have described again.  I'm glad you merely reinforce my point: morality can come from self, and is most effective when it does.

bal, maybe it's time for you

bal, maybe it's time for you to try a more scientific method on some of these issues:)?

MikeB

Do you have a link to the paper in which Robert Jastrow calculated these odds? I would like to do a 'peer' review.

Mandrake, check your

Mandrake, check your PM. 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

ditto.. I think? dang these

ditto.. I think? dang these computers...I never can figure them out :)

That's not really

That's not really a meaningful analysis of the statistic.  Looked at another way, others would say your numbers DISPROVE the existence of a God.

Stated differently one could claim that if there existed 1x10^40 celestial bodies (which there are significantly more than that) it would nearly GUARANTEE life would exist in the universe.  And again, that's merely life as we know it.  Who are we to declare as fact that "life" is only "life" if it is in the form that we know it?

To other posts... I strongly object to the notion that atheism is some "moral vacuum."  If you've never been an atheist, how can you claim to know what morals you would or would not have?  Not having a book to look at which supposedly defines everyone (and laughably so) of the creed in question makes it rather difficult to take such generalized statements seriously without a shred of evidence.

It might not have occured to you that morality is the logical result of evaluating long-term costs and benefits to personal happiness and survival of the species.  This conclusion is wholey reachable without some threat of supernatural fire and brimstone.  Religion does NOT manufacture morality, but it does provide a convenient delivery mechanism to those who would be so base, obtuse, and short-sighted as to reject morality without some threat of reprisal.

In that regard, you may find many atheists to be MORE moral than some of the religious who are good merely because of some fear of eternal torment.

I for one am glad that religion as a happy by-product keeps those sheeple in line who would otherwise be jerks (or worse), in addition to its more noble primary functions such as promoting altruism and providing senses of worth and meaning to life for those who need it.

That said, atheists who find the mere existence of religion offensive to their senses are just as illogical as terrorist zealots who take offense at the existence of other major religions beyond their own.  Those whiney babies that feel they should be entitled to life in a bubble free from exposure to different ways of life need to grow up.

I have no problem sharing the planet with the religious, so long as they're not crashing my flight into a building because I'm not "one of them".  I feel my morality has guided me to success in dealings with others, and I have yet to receive any complaints of wicked "moral vacuum" to the contrary.

But back to the question really at hand: 

Conservation is a great policy... today's environmental policy makers are practicing anything but.  Just ask the founder of Greenpeace why he left his organization.  Ask Latin America how much corn tortillas cost these days (Ethanol was mentioned before).  Lowering TOTAL energy usage at any cost is NOT a wise thing to pursue. Making energy use more efficient AND cost effective IS.  Civilization, just like any ordered system, uses energy to be maintained or expanded.  The bottom line is, if you make energy usage more efficient, you dont' have to FORCE people to adopt it, as it will be in their best interest.  Just look at the energy efficient microchips being built into newer servers; large corporations can realize cost savings on their electricity bills.  No one is twisting their arm with regulations to adopt energy efficient systems at some exhorbitant price that will threaten profitability and harm economic development.  This is the free market at work, encouraging innovation. 

When a hybrid costs the same as a non-hybrid at sticker, and provides the same power and features, it will be in my interest to adopt.  But regulating that a certain percentage of all vehicles sold must be hybrids is silly... and yes that's an actual law now.  By removing choice, you damage the free market system.  Somehow car sales must meet this quota, even by becoming un-profitable on their sales, or face stiffer penalties.  And then we wonder why Daimler decided to ditch Chrysler?

 

khyris

there are 10 to the 22 stars if each has 10 planets thats 10 to the 23.

most are in those portions of galaxies where radiation would make life impossible

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/

7x10^23 is merely the number of stars visible with current telescope technology.  Interested to see where you pulled your # from.

Any extension of distance creates a new sphere of visibility with an enormouse order of magnitude.

It's not unreasonable for there to possibly be 1x10^40 celestial bodies, and again your statement about radiation is making the assumption that life would only exist as we know it (which was the premise of the 1/1E40 number to begin with).

But the point remains just the same... no amount of math will ever prove or disprove the existence of a God... or that a room full of monkeys with typewriters will or will not ever produce the complete works of Shakespeare in an eternity.  The NYT is as close as we get to proving a bunch of underdeveloped simians write amusing fiction.

Sorry, Khrys, but you are

Sorry, Khrys, but you are off on your numbers by a long way.  10^40000 is a number larger than the estimated number of atoms in the universe.  Here is one site that gives the estimate.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

thanks mike

one huge a$$ed number indeed.  (and that's only 80)

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

I admit that I misread

I admit that I misread 1E40000 as 1E40, but even so, consider that using the snapshot of celestial bodies as a guage is flawed in that it is only 3 dimensional.  As time passes, as infinitely as the universe, I think you will easily arrive at 1E40000 combinations of places vs times, or "situations" where life could begin. Multiplied by the 1E-40000 probability of life beginning in a situation, that's 1.

All I'm saying is that others will read it differently.  If the universe is infinite "enough" and time is infinite "enough" then your statistic will become "1." 

Again, a probability is NEVER a proof, one way nor the other.

Khrys, review your post and

Khrys, review your post and your probabilities.  The probability of life existing in this universe is already 1.  We are here, we are alive, therefore the probability of life existing is 1.  The probabilities of the different ways life started must add up to 1.  Again I assert that it is a binary solution set: either life started purely by chance, or life started by intent (God).  The probability of life starting by chance has been calculated as one in ten to the forty thousandth power (which is thirty nine thousand, nine hundred fifty orders of magnitude beyond mathematical impossibility).  Therefore, the probability of life begining by intent is one minus one in ten to the forty thousandth power (expressed in decimal form as a zero,decimal, and 40000 nines).  This probability would be true anywhere in the universe.  Just as "dice have no memory", neither would  the different atoms throughout the universe.  If you flip a coin, the probability of it coming up heads is one in two, no matter if you are standing on earth, or on a planet that is in another galaxy.  The coins have no memory.  For both coins to come up heads, the probabilites are one in four (one chance in two for both coins).  So, if the probability of life occurring by chance on earth is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, and the probability of life occurring by chance in another part of the universe is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, the probabilty of life occurring by chance in both places is much less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another.

Additionally, neither time nor the universe is infinite.  The universe began around 14 billion years ago (estimate), and with the recent photographic evidence of dark matter, it has been proved that the universe is also finite.  The probability calculations still stand unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Flat out wrong.  A coin

Flat out wrong.  A coin sitting on the sidewalk head-side up does not have the probability of coming up heads equal to 1 if you flip it.  You misrepresent how statistics work and what they mean.

The assertion of a Binary Solution set is unimaginitive. Consider the possibility of time travel and life going back to create itself. Consider the possibility that time loops upon itself. Consider all the myriad physical laws we have yet to understand (why does gravity work?) and then say there are only 2 possible reasons?  Before you scoff at merely 2 more possibilities, consider that they are no less unreasonable than an "all powerful consciousness that controls everything."  Heck, consider the possibility of a coin landing on edge.

I have a B.S. in Applied Mathematics, and you are badly misrepresenting the application of statistics.  Yes, coin flips and dice have no memory and are independent events, but the probability of having "at least one" positive event DOES increase as you increase the COUNT of events.  You just asserted that the if I flip a coin 10 times in 10 different places, the odds of it coming up heads would be exactly the same as if I flipped it once.  That is flatly FALSE.

The probability of "at least one event" is 1 minus the probability of 0 TOTAL events.  Of a single coin flip, it is 1 - .5, or .5

But of ten flips, the odds of getting heads is 1 - (.5^10) = .999 or 99.9%  NOT .5 as you just claimed.

This is called the Archimedean principle, and it is the same reason how the probability for life was the 1E-40000 number you gave (if that's even correct) as opposed to just being .5 probability of the "binary set" of life exists or life doesn't exist.  Count affects probability... because the coin having a COUNT of 2 sides is the REASON it's event probability .5  If a coin had 3 sides, its event probability would be .333 not .5..... NOT "the side you want" vs "not the side you want."

Assuming binary solution sets is a faulty premise.  If you over simplify the model, you can make the numbers say anything... but that's not mathematics, and that's not a proof.  The entire POINT here is that Math CAN NOT prove or disprove a God, UNLESS you assert that God is mathematically quantifiable, and even THEN not through statistics.  If you have the equation for how God works in your back pocket, let us know. Infinity is a representation of a concept, not a mathematical quantification.

 The rest of your post is just silly... How can you assert you know that time and the universe is finite when we have no idea that we even understand the NATURE of time.  There may be theories, but there are no proofs.  Your timeline is of course referring to the rate of expansion of nearby bodies by calculating doppler redshift in light spectrum.... which is a nice guess, but doesn't even account for the possibility that the "center" or "origin" of such expansion might not be a static point.  Nor does it account for the possibility that the visible universe may merely be a localized concentration of matter, much as a rain droplet is a cohesion of water particles from a cloud.  Nor does it account for the possibility that the universe has expanded and contracted before, or may do so again.  NOR does it necessarily describe the nature or "limit" of space itself, merely the movement of matter within space.  Dark matter, of course, is some invisible and undetectable theoretical substance (much like God) that might create a gravitational field to account for the deceleration of expansion beyond that of what visible mass could account for.  I've seen the photographic evidence (which is evidence of symptoms, not DM itself), and while supportive of the DM theory, it's hardly conclusive, any more than a runny nose is conclusive of pneumonia.

 

If you look at it philosophically: 

If science could prove God, faith would have no value.  If God is omnipotent, he can decide whether science may prove him or not.

Ergo, if God intends faith to have value, he would not allow science to prove him.

So, if you claim science proves God, then your faith in him is worthless.  If you value your faith, pray you haven't proved him.

Don't worry, the good news is that you haven't proved him, not even close, even less than you've proven this absurd 1E-40000 number, or dark matter, or finite time and space.  Even with the premise of the 1E-40000 number, look here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2283

Is it 1E-40000, or is it .95 x .333 = 31.3%??? Why is your source any more or less knowledgeable of the existence of God than this one? Or any other human on the planet?

The best news is that you haven't disproved God either.

 

 Khrys, either you have no

 Khrys, either you have no knowlege of probabilities, a very bad reading comprehension problem, or are being disenguous.  A coin sitting heads up on a side walk has a probability of one of being heads...it's already there.  Now, if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a one in four chance of coming up heads twice in a row, a one in eight chance of coming up heads 3 times in a row, etc.

The probability of life existing in the universe is one.  It's here, we are alive, we exist, the probability is one.  How life came to be is a binary solution set, the probabilities of each possibility of how it came to be must add up to one.  Go back and read my comments, and then get some knowlege of probabilities.

 

"A communist is someone who reads Marx.  An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx."  Ronald Reagan

Thank you for not actually

Thank you for not actually replying to any of the math I presented, we'll see who needs to "get some knowledge of probabilities."  How about option D, YOU have have very poor reading comprehension of what YOU wrote: 

"So, if the probability of life occurring by chance on earth is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, and the probability of life occurring by chance in another part of the universe is one in ten to the forty thousandth power, the probabilty of life occurring by chance in both places is much less than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another."

But the RELEVENT fact you would gain from a PROPER application of statistics is that :

"the probabilty of life occurring by chance in at LEAST one of two places is much HIGHER than one in ten to the forty thousandth power, as the two occurrences would be independent of one another." Because life does not NEED to spontaneously develop in TWO (or more) places to satisfy YOUR premise that it might occur by chance AT ALL.

Here's another quote from you:

"if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a one in four chance of coming up heads twice in a row, a one in eight chance of coming up heads 3 times in a row, etc."

Again, I have no problem with your 5th grade arithmetic, but your knowledge of statistical relevency is pathetic:  Why do you assert the coin has to come back heads ALL 3 TIMES for "heads" to spontaneously appear in the universe? ever? It's wrong!

Let me fix your quote for you:

"if you pick it up and flip it, it has a one in two chance of coming up heads (assuming a fair coin), a THREE in four chance of coming up heads at least once in two flips, a SEVEN in eight chance of coming up heads once in three flips, etc.

The chances of "at least once" will increase with every flip.

Big surprise, picking up that ridiculous 1E40000 sided coin (which is already heads, as life exists here) and flipping it somewhere else in the universe is relevant, because it has, does, and will continue flipping all the time, everywhere.

Your argument, that God exists because life began ANYwhere is faulty.  God would be likely to exist only if life began EVERYwhere AND the probability was the same 1E-40000 as only then would the lower probability of MULTIPLE successes (which you did present correctly) be relevent.  Except, if it began everywhere, then it wouldn't be unlikely, and the "probability of life spontaneously beginning" would have originally been determined to be close to 1, not 1E-40000.

Do you see why your logic is circular yet? 

Probabilities of complicated models are built from results of experimentation and observation, they are not usually pre-conceived and then the results expected to follow. Something so simple as a coinflip is an exception to that rule.

You can't use a pre-conditioned state to determine a probability.  So you can't use the coin's state as heads to extrapolate that the next flip will end up heads. THAT's what I said.  I never wrote "a coin that is heads only has a .5 chance of being heads" as you obviously mis-comprehended. 

Bottom line... if you flip that coin enough times, no matter how many sides it has, it becomes MORE likely that it will come up heads at LEAST once.  Every place, at each point in time, is an independent flip. That's a LOT of flips... more than 1E40000.

The obsession with a "binary solution set" is unproductive and unimaginative when dealing with something as incomprehensible as the universe.  What if the universe tends towards life?  Why can't that be a third option?  Much like how gravity always tends towards the attraction of all mass ... yet you can't perceive the attraction of our nearest star (Proxima Centauri) to yourself.  Maybe if you had some advanced equipment 100 years down the line, but in the meantime, we can only estimate through math what that affect should be.  What if you just can't perceive the universe's slow but present hypothetical natural tendency towards life?

Ever consider the possibility that your solution set may include coin-faces you haven't perceived?  Obviously you hadn't perceived option D above, yet D is what clearly satisfies occam's razor.

Despite your absurd 1E-40000 number, despite your fascination with binary sets, despite your circular logic, despite your lack of writing comprehension (let alone reading), despite your ignorance of Archimedean sets, despite your flawed application of independent events, despite not addressing ANY of the mathematical figures I posted, are you still willing to cling to the assertion that God is proven fait accompli?  In an indirect way, you've only addressed the philosophical portion of my last post... blind faith obviously IS important to you.

The good news is that's the most convincing reason you've posted for God to exist.  At least for you anyway: Cogito Ergo Sum   ...  "If you think it, then it is so."  It's an alternative interpretation of "I think therefore I am."

Math will NEVER prove nor disprove the spiritual.  That's why it's called spiritual... meaning "not of the physical world."  I'm sorry that's difficult for you to accept.

I'm still waiting to see the rationalization behind this magical 1E40000 number... I showed you mine.

 

Khyris

 You make many claims to possibilties for origins (one drop of many, time curling on itself, life going back in time and seeding itself) there is no need to go into them without you first providing some reason for taking them seriously.  They are on a par with me saying that since no one has ever seen Einsteins brain.......(he was an alien, he was a robot, he was pick something)  Points is just because there is possibility does not mean an intelligent person has to take a claim seriously.  Like when your five year old says the cat ate the cookies (you don't really think well it is possible the cat opened the cookie jar ate some and put the top back on.........do you?)

Your denial of big bang cosmology (which has an amazing record of scientific verification) would need some basis of substance before you call someone silly for claiming time has a beginning 

Now to some of your philosophy:

If science could prove God, faith would have no value

Same logic:  if science could prove your spouse exists love would have no value.  Your first premise is faulty the argument fails. 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

I have not once "denied"

I have not once "denied" big bang cosmology.

I deny that mediocre mis-applications of statistics "prove" life was created by God.

Nothing more and nothing less.

 

But do tell, why are these possibilities to expand the solution set not worth considering?  Even one of them?  One drop of many perhaps... If I've seen one universe, why can there not be more? 

"The ground in front of me is flat, surely the entire world around me must be flat as well! There is no other explanation!" Perception is reality.

Your comparison is not on par...I'm the one claiming that because we've seen OTHER people's brains, Einstein STATISTICALLY, probably had a brain too.

Because other possibilities improve as you increase the set towards infinity, then STATISTICALLY, the probability of life occuring by chance increases as well as you increase the set (universe) towards infinity.

Yet, if your 5 year old claims the cat did it every day until he died on his 100th birthday, then no matter how unlikely the odds of the cat being guilty, suddenly it becomes statistically significant.  Again, expanding the set (time in this case) improves the probability that the cat may have been guilty at LEAST once.  And sometimes 5 year olds are right, when you're talking about probabilities and not absolutes.

I never said anyone was silly for saying time MIGHT have a beginning... I called it silly to assert that time MUST be FINITE.  Why must I entertain this premise, and no-one is willing to entertain the premise that time and space MIGHT be infinite?

 

Your example is not the same logic either... try instead:

"If science could prove all attraction was merely the result of chemically induced infatuation, then love would have no value."

My premise, and subsequent argument hold up just fine.

The same logic would be:

If I can SEE 1 + 1 = 2, scientifically reproduceable every single time in the physical world, then blind "faith" that 1+1 = 2 "because the bible told me so" would have no spiritual value... because instead it falls into the realm of mundane reality.

One drop of many perhaps...

One drop of many perhaps... If I've seen one universe, why can there not be more?  why would i consider it?  you are making outlandish claims of "it's possible" and want me to prove a universal negative?  What i said was before we should consider your notions you need to provide reasons for us to.  Until then Occams Razor applies.

Why must I entertain this premise, and no-one is willing to entertain the premise that time and space MIGHT be infinite?  this denies Big Bang cosmology which claims time has a beginning, so you are technically correct you have not once denied it you've done so repeatedly. 

Your premise does fail.  Why do you believe that "if science proves God exists faith has no value"  Also why would anyone believe faith is blind?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Why would you consider it?

Why would you consider it? Because I'm being asked to consider that God exists and is the sole reason that life could have begun? And what I propose is far more probable, let alone possible, than accepting "God Exists" because of flawed math.  That's why you should consider it.  Again, I'm not saing God existing is impossible, I'm saying that you can't mathematically prove God, and it certainly hasn't been done in this thread.  You likely can't see for 10 miles in any direction from inside your house, but it's very probable that more exists beyond what you can see.  We can't see the universe beyond our current technological capabilities.  It does logically follow that there probably exists more universe than we are capable of seeing at present.  Please explain why that is "outlandish."

The possibility that time and space MIGHT be infinite does NOT deny big bang cosmology.

You are familiar with light? A ray that has a starting point, yet infinite length?  A ray that is also a geometric concept of a starting point, yet not finite?  Why is that absurd or contrary to Big Bang Cosmology? Answer: it's not anymore than the world being round "denies" the teachings of the Bible.

Not sure why you insist I'm "denying" it when I have NEVER denied it.  That's categorically untrue.

Whether the universe is infinite or not isn't really necessary to prove the overarching point... that statistics can't prove nor disprove a God.   I was using it as a teaching tool.  Even if the universe was 1 cubic foot and lasted for one second, both a foot and a second are finite lengths that contain an infinite number of subdivisions.  Unless you quantify this 1E-40000 number (which we're still waiting for the source) in terms of probability per unit of distance per unit of time, then it's truly meaningless.

I provided you examples of why my premise holds. Just saying "no it doesn't!" isn't a constructive argument, but I'll answer your question just the same:

I "believe" that faith is the human method of measuring and expressing the spiritual.  You can not define God in yards or hours any more than you can measure how good or bad the head of a pin is by the number of angels dancing upon it.  Without even getting into faith, using science to express God is like using a watch to measure a distance, or a ruler to measure mass.  You could measure distance with a watch if you knew velocity.  You could measure mass if you knew density.  Faith is the way we relate the physical (mathematic) universe with the non-physical (spiritual).

If science can demonstrate the spiritual, then faith is a useless  adapter when my pocket calculator would be able to answer any spiritual or moral questions with an unlimited degree of exactness and certainty.

The whole point of faith is believeing something that you do not know.  If science proved God, every person awaiting death would be like the guy who cheated the lottery... feigning mock surprise as his "lucky" number was called.  Faith is what, for many, inspires morality when NOT being watched by others.  How good is a good deed when one is never bad merely because they know they're being watched?  Wait, science will give me that answer...

Does this premise sound absurd to you yet?

Ok, so if you choose respond to nothing else here... answer one question, slowly, articulately and thoughtfully:

Do you think that God has been mathematically or statistically proven to exist? And do you believe your answer because of science.... or because of faith?

 

khyris

Big Bang cosmology holds that time began 13.8 billion years ago.  True or False?

A ray that has a starting point, yet infinite length actually light rays at most can only be 13.8 billion light years long, not infinite. (see above)  Also, there are philosophical reasons which mitigate against any actual infinities.

I have faith because of:

     1 the preponderance of the evidence

              a) abiogenesis

              b) universal creation

              c) design characteristics of the universe

              d) anthropic principle (fine tuning of physics)

     2 eyewitness accounts

     3 personal observation

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

True. And Big Bang

True. And Big Bang cosmology proposes an infinite universe, which you deny.

A geometric ray is infinite.  If a ray of light is finite, then what is the longest it will ever be? ever? how about now? is it the same length? now? how about now?  We're talking about situations in the universe being infinite because time creates infinite situations... so yes, the passage of time is important to defining the length of a ray of light, as evidenced by your own measurement: light-YEAR.

A ray is considered a non-countable non-closed set as far as statistics is concerned, and can only be expressed by an inequality.

I didn't ask you why you have faith.  That's nice and all, but it wasn't the question.  Those are good reasons to have faith.  They are not scientific reasons, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Big Bang cosmology proposes

Big Bang cosmology proposes an infinite universe, which you deny.  no it doesn't, and the same goes for a ray of light.  At any time in reality you can always measure the time/distance to the beginning.  That is part of the reason i mentioned 'actual infinities' and the philosophical reasoning which describes them as impossible.  You may wish to research this (or not your choice), start with it is impossible to traverse an actual infinity.

 time creates infinite situations.  time has no power to create anything, you assertion is without basis.  Also the very term light year assumes boundries and limits as do all measurements

A ray is considered you confuse a convention with ontological existance of light. 

I did not claim God could be proven scientifically though i believe that He can reveal himself to all and will in His time.  Actually my first portion of why i believe in God was dealing with those elements which can be falsified or supported by scientific investigation. 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Yes, it does. Again, just

Yes, it does. Again, just saying "no it doesn't" without bothering to reference any counterpoint to the evidence I presented isn't a valid argument. 

Traversing an actual infinity isn't relevent to the discussion either, read Zeno's Paradox.

Thank you for taking half the sentence out of context.  It just reinforces the growing impression I have of your argumentative style.  Your word-games not withstanding, I'm certain you understand the concept of how the passage of time leads to differing situations.

I confuse nothing about a ray.  You confuse the ontological existence of light as a prerequisite for domain of the universe.

Your argument about measurement implying boundary is disingenuous. A unit of measure may be bounded, but a scalar coefficient of that distance is not, as you well know.  And you know that any bounded measuremeant contains no limited finite count of possible subdivisions.  And you also know that because we can measure an interval does not imply that the universe is also finite and measurable.  Could be, but is not implied, and is counter to Big Bang cosmology.

If you do not claim God could be proven scientifically, then we are in agreement, and I am not sure why you persist in argument. Unless you feel I am threatening your belief in God, which again I assure you I am not.

 

in a nutshell Khyris, At

in a nutshell Khyris, At any given time t, the age and size of the universe are set to certain measureable quantities.  There is no time t' where this is not true.  You can mathematically, quite easily set t'=t+infinity, though in reality such a time can never be reached and therefore is not in the set of time in reality.

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

Khyris

As time passes, as infinitely as the universe

The big band about 13.8 billion years ago is the beginning of time.  That's 4.351 X 10 to 17th seconds. 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

oooook.... let's be

oooook.... let's be irresponsible and call that a "fact" rather than a theory... just for your argument's sake.

Then when does time end?

If/when the universe recontracts... will time stop?

you are the one holding the

you are the one holding the infinite premise i am merely stating the accepted view of Big Bang cosmology which you continue to say you do not deny.  then you claim it irresponsible to assume it is true?  (i don't deny it but it is not true! seems to be your position)

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

sigh....Yes, I believe

sigh....

Yes, I believe (for now) the accepted view of Big Bang cosmology, which you have consistently denied.  Hello pot, meet kettle.

There's nothing wrong with an infinite premise... because it IS the "accepted view" unless you're "denying" relativity.

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11839.html

"The accepted view" indicates only the beginning of this universe as a single point.  It does not say "time will stop" if/when the universe recondenses.  "The accepted view" even says that the universe's expansion is accelerating: http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html 

Even if it was hypothetically recondensing, it does not say that this "must" but the first cycle of expansion/recompression, nor does it say it will be the last, nor does it say the universe has a maximum physical dimension within any of those cycles, nor does it say there couldn't be an independent "Big Bang".  These are merely statements you would be MAKING UP to imply the universe is finite.  Psst, just like AGW, which started this whole thread, the debate is not over which is why there's nothing wrong with your mathematically disproven finite premise either... neither is an attack against "the accepted view" of Big Bang cosmology.  I'm not sure why you even care about that point as it's not relevent to the argument to the extent that it doesn't affect the lemma.

The physical universe has (and will have as time continues) an infinite number of permuations in arrangement of time, space, matter, and energy.  Do you disagree with this?  If so, tell me what the finite number of permuations is. 

Lemma: A larger sample set (open or closed) implies increased probability of "at least one" over a smaller closed set.  That's statistics. Can you argue with that?  That's the primary complaint I have here: that the opposite was stated to be "true" and then used as a "proof" of the existence of God.  That's junk science and AGW should have taught us not to accept it.

If the opposite is not "true" (it isn't), then God isn't "proven". Nor disproven.

I know, I gave you a lot of questions, but the only one you had to reply to was "Do you think God has been scientifically and mathematically proven?" ... the rest of this big bang cosmology "debate" is prevaracation.  I answered your "Yes or No" question AGAIN and you still haven't answered mine.

the astonomy cafe

please, the philosophy is sophomoric, answer this:  at what point does the universe become infinitly old or infinitly vast?  It can not you can always measure the time/distance to the beginning.  The universe is bounded, expanding yes, but bounded.  Were it infinite it could not expand since expansion assumes getting larger or older.  It is impossible to get larger or older than an infinte amount.  Why do you think it is 'Quantom' Mechanics?  The very term quantom defines measurement and boundry.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

botg You are my

botg

You are my hero.

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

thanks i guess but

you are the one riding the desk serving our finest (btw, nice fish)

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Thanks, 8lb 4 oz.  a great

Thanks, 8lb 4 oz.  a great fight.

The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.

 

botg

When it comes to dealing with the infinite the human race is hopelessly out of it's league. It's like trying to read Shakespeare to an ant. Let me ask you this, which set has the greater number of members. The set of integers or the set of rational fractions? 

both are abstract

both are abstract mathematical ideas.  Please list them both (ie: actualize their infinity) completely then i will answer.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

botg

ok,

N = {1,2,3...n};

and

R = {1/1, 1/2..n/n} where n is an infinite number.

Which set has the most members?

...n

is also an abstract representation.  list the actual complete series.   the discussion is 'actual infinities' hypotheticals such as an endless line of elves are not actual.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

botg

LOL, ok I give up. I admit I cannot 'list' all the known numbers in the universe. This question has puzzled the greatest mathematical minds of mankind..but you have defeated them all..good job:)

You didn't bother to read

You didn't bother to read what I linked to:

"In general relativity, a universe with an infinite spatial extent today (something you can establish experimentally) must also have had an infinite spatial extent at its instant of 'birth'."

So the answer to your question was that the universe became infinitely vast at the instant of its birth.  The rest of your sentence becomes wrong.  Not sure why you continue to deny that when you're the one zealously defending that the "accepted view of Big Bang cosmology" is magically the only valid explanation of the universe.  It's the "only" explanation, and you deny one of it's principle tenets. Logic anyone?  And why can I only include "what is" and "what was" in the calculations?  We're talking statistics here... "what will be" is just as important.  Give me one good reason not to include it.

"you can always measure the time/distance to the beginning" Oh really? What's the distance to the beginning? You measure the distance "to" it, but you forgot the "from."  There's 2 end points in a finite line segment.  What's the other one? The (current) end of the longest ray of light you seem to suggest, once again ignoring the infinite nature of time?  Why not a foot further? Is a foot further somehow not universe because there's no light in it? If I make a hoffman box which filters out all EM radiation, is the volume it contains no longer included in the volume of the universe?

The universe is not bounded, and it is infinite.  The universe is not expanding, the light and matter WITHIN the universe are expanding apart.  You make no distinction between time, energy, space and matter.  Maybe you figured out the unifying equation that has eluded even Hawkings... care to share it?  I'm sorry I have to resort to sophomoric philosophy to make a point clear on your level, which apparently favors trivializing through invective rather than reasoned response to a full page of argument.  If the mathematics here weren't primary school when they aren't being outright ignored, I wouldn't have to philosophize.

Bounded and infinite are NOT mutually exclusive terms when used in rigorous mathematics (which is not a forum for purely emotive conviction).  The set [5, +infinity) is bounded below by the set (-infinity, 5), and yet is infinite.  The set of real numbers in the bounded set [1, 2] is infinite. And just because they can't be listed on a page doesn't make them not-real.  That's the reason why we have mathematical expressions.. and the manner with which you dismissed mandrake's valid sets isn't mature, dismissing a non-countable set as not a set because it can't be counted.  That's like saying Clinton got no B.J. because nobody had him on video tape.  That's like dismissing a red apple as not an apple because it is red... it's ridiculous.  Yet it's the same absurd argument you're using for denying the infinite nature of the universe... "If I can't see it it must not be real!"  That's rather hippocritical when you then use the example of Quantom Mechanics, which no-one can "see" and yet we have enough evidence to accept it as a working theory.  Just because the real numbers is an infinite set, doesn't mean we can't understand the quanta between 1 and 2, and measure the mechanics of mathematical operations between the two.  Quantom Mechanics textbook math problems examine a finite space and time for experimentation purposes, but in no way can be extrapolated to imply a finite universe.  OK, then using your own methods of argument... can YOU explicitly list on a page all of the "finite" arrangements of time, matter, and energy from the beginning of time to your alleged "edge" of the universe?  What? Can't list it? Then by your own logic the physical arrangement of yourself sitting in front of a computer screen is all just hypothetical elves.  Using the urbandictionary.com definitions of set, countable, bounded and infinite contribute nothing to the scientific evaluation.

As for picking on the symantecs of the word "create," who's sophomoric now? Fine: "The passage of all time in past present and future is statistically likely to be inclusive of an infinite variation of situations." Happy?

You admit statistics hasn't doesn't and won't prove God, so the argument here is done as far as I'm concerned.  Your continued insistance that "the universe can't be infinite!" is pointless juvenile baiting, no matter how right you think you are.  It can be infinite.  No one's proven it, but it's been shown that it can be.  I think we're done here.

infinite spatial extent

infinite spatial extent simply put no matter how far you measure you can always extend, just wait. (a theoretical abstaction)

i understand the mathematics and the ability to work with infinity in a mathematical system.  It just does not coincide with physical reality.  As of right now the universe is x seconds old and y meters across.  At any given point is the future it will be x+delta seconds and y+delta meters.  There is no point where these numbers reach infinity.  So yes there is a theoretical infinity to the universe which can be easily expressed mathematically but there is no actual (real) infinite universe.  If you look at the equations that Einstein came up with you can see the the correlation of time, mass, and lenght to their velocities as factors of the speed of light.  Which is exactly why You make no distinction between time, energy, space and matter Why would i make distinctions in spacetime?

Time and dimesion (at least 10 dimensions) is part of the creation in this expanding universe.  In fact the center of the universe is not within the 3-dimensional matrix that we can directly contact.   It is akin to being on the surface of a balloon that is expanding (don't push the analogy too far) where those on the surface known the expansion but can not access the center.

 

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.  

-

-

Time ends when the human

Time ends when the human race dies out. Time is a purely human concept. What happens after we are gone is none of our business.

huh?  sequential events

huh?  sequential events occur which no human being has ever seen.  Being experienced by people does not create reality.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

LMAO... that's the age old

LMAO... that's the age old question, where is Schrodinger's cat?

If a tree falls in the woods....

;)

If you cannot see the

If you cannot see the simple analogy, then I don't know why everyone brands me as the idiot, when someone else goes out and advertises him/herself.

An atheist can live in a world with religious people, and they can all live together. It doesn't matter what they believe, as long as they treat each other well....... (now, a bit of a brain leap, but you can do it!) IT'S ABOUT THE "NOT BELIEVING" BIT. YEP..... THAT'S A HINT!!!

Someone who doesn't believe in climate change still has to live in the world, so why would they be automatically against anything enviro friendly?

I know, in context, the vast majority are not.

Now... you, little person suffering SMS, what was your problem with one being an atheist? You clearly had one.

 

RJ, please! Blonde, or anyone else who hates me.... Surely you will defend me against this:-.......

Eye-criminy

who said anything about hating you?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

It was "RJ, please. Blonde

It was "RJ, please. Blonde OR anyone else who hates me"

Loosen up!

Eye... I do not know you

Eye...

I do not know you or hate you....

You should not bring religion into the falsehood of AGW.

Then again in my opinion only mine, you will pray and know God for forgiveness for anything you know in your heart you did wrong.

You should not of brought this up.

I know I am going to be told to go to the Woodshed now....

I have been here since this site was the wild west....I find it sad now that I have to be worried about something called the Woodshed... 

BT -- this odd chap is

BT -- this odd chap is beginning to remind me of that German kafkeer, or whatever he was called.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

You haven't been reading my

You haven't been reading my posts. I said nothing to insult religion.

I'm simply saying I can share the world with the holy, so why can't climate change believers and non believers?

Please note, bigtimer. You got all angry about Gods. I didn't.

Oh, and quoting scripture doesn't work on me.

Cheers.

Eye, logic dosent seem to

Eye, logic dosent seem to work on you either. There are no Gods. There is A God.  

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Eyecare, it looks like your reputation has preceeded you

It's all in the presentation, and yours seems to be a combination of prickly-in-your-face (but) poor-little-picked-on-me.

Part of your problem is that you have no concept of (or apparent interest in learning about) the history of this board.  For example, there are several atheists on this board who have no problem, but I can tell you that there have been quite a few atheists who have crudely attacked religion. 

It's up to you to learn, grasshopper, and not necessarily up to us to accomodate every new poster with an attitude.

 

RJ

learn to spell my friend you put a "t" in poser

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

RJ and Jack...I sure

RJ and Jack...

I sure hope you guys understood what I was trying to say in the long run of all things.

I feel alone.

Not the first time, nor will it be the last.

I did, BT

...and always do.  

No reason to feel alone, friend.

BT and religion

oh yeah right, a regular thumper

actually my friend i laughed when i read that it's not you, just isn't now me on the other hand do have my moments

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

botg... I hope you do not

botg...

I hope you do not misunderstand me....

I do not get what you just posted?

BT

i remember the threads with MrBishop, ConservativeVoice, and DebJMSmith. You were rather upset with a lack of respect for others beliefs. You are not one to push your beliefs on others. I was merely stating that such a behavior would be more like me on occasion (i did occasionally post to Eugene)

 

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

So are you saying you think

So are you saying you think I am implying my belief's on others now botg?

BT

no, i thought it funny that of all the people here Eye would accuse you of such.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Hey all you

Hey all you guys/gals...

Got to go my man is home...

Catch ya later....

RJ, this was in reply to your post, but it slipped down.

Ah, Master. I dare say much time will pass before I can snatch the pebble from your hand!

I appreciate the points you make, and on most, I have a different view, naturally. I must say, I don't feel "picked on". It doesn't bother me. I can understand why I am perceived as prickly, because I come here, ask questions, and am then hit with a wave of automatic "oppositionism", but I am more offended by ignorance and having words put in my mouth, than being 'picked on'.

As for knowing the history of this site, and understanding what has happened with others in the past, I can see where you're going, but I can't walk that road with you, for this simple fact. I haven't just stumbled onto any website message board. I have stumbled onto a far right fundamentalist website.

I doubt you would call it that, and in your heart, you probably don't believe it is. That's fair enough. Read regular members' comments on the "nappy headed ho" thread, however, and I think you'll see where I am going.

See the post above yours, by basement dweller (my way or the highway) telling us there is only one God, and I think you'll see the percieved 'unity' here is probably more of a myth than most would like to believe.

We're up to about comment no. 150 now, and still no one has come near answering a simple question I'm really interested in, about how car manufacturers will cope with the 35 mpg ruling, and what gallon it's based on. I thought Union Jack (I sooooo wanna be an American!!!!) Bauer might have had an interest too, as he lives in the UK, but sadly no, and my humour was lost on him.

I think the main reason was that noone actually read all my post. I ask questions, therefore I am a troll/communist/nazi etc. That's another funny one. Many people here; Union Jack among them, seem to think that "communist" and "nazi" are the same thing.

Yet I'm the stupid one.

RJ, you answered intelligently, with a glimpse of humour, and you have my respect.

Poor Eyecare

Why on earth would I hate you?

I find you to be rather a typical troll, pathetic in your postings because you've not yet learned to debate with facts, logic, and cogent analysis.  So far, you've merely dropped little annoying (and in your mind) provacative posts, lacking substance, and certainly lacking in style....even though you think they're stylish.  As I proved to you the other night, you are sorely mistaken. And now you've devolved to the "poor me" post.  Alas.

Having said that.....

Let me see if I can give you a little clue here. 

Someone who doesn't believe in climate change still has to live in the world.

You are not understanding something very basic here.  So try to read along S L O W L Y.

We're not saying we don't believe that the climate is changing.  What we don't buy is the hairy scary tactics of Al Gore and the left who insist that the cause of this change is Anthropogenic Global Warming....due to the activities of human beings.

We ridicule Al & his ilk because they insist most vehemently that there is no possible natural cause at all for climate change (warming or cooling).

And you've once again missed the point that those of us who feel this way are most certainly for a cleaner and more beneficial environment.....as long as it's not at the expense of human existence.  Most of us are ardent conservationists....did you know RJ is a hiker?  I'm an angler?  Danbo & I are scuba divers?  We are all supremely interested in maintaining the highest levels of conservation and proper human use of these resources which interest us.

Do you despise pollution caused by coal plants?  Yes?  Then why are you opposed to clean, safe, nuclear power?  It's a knee jerk liberal reaction.  Nothing more.  So try to re-think your liberal positions in a logical framework.  The results might surprise you.

Am I getting through to you on at least the most basic level yet?

 

David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive

 

Hello Blonde. Where did I

Hello Blonde.

Where did I say I was against clean safe nuclear power? That's at least the third post in this thread telling me I said something I didn't.

1) God. 2) Ethanol 3) Clean safe Nuclear Power.

Given that my first point and questions were very clear and simple, maybe it's the people on the attack who need to read it again..... Slowly.

So?

Try dealing with idiots like Leon, hater and others we've had here.

Some people disagree with you for various reasons.  Some are prickly, some are not.   Some are reacting to an image of you based on past encounters.   It's no excuse to not make intelligent arguments. 

(Regarding ethanol, I know you didn't mention it....I did...because you mentioned gas mileage.)

I mentioned gas mileage

I mentioned gas mileage because I was curious about their guidelines. As far as I know, it is genuine legislation, and I don't have a problem with it at all. I don't even know how I feel about ethanol. I don't know enough to argue.

I know the Jeep Patriot VW powered diesel qualifies at 35mpg. Most normal cars wouldn't; let alone SUVs, so presumably, they have to offset a normal average of say 15 to 20? with some buzz box that can cross the country on a tank.

Anyway, RJ, Liverpool's Dave, Union Jack Bauer, Bigtimer, etc. Don't know why you got upset...... again.......

Shiftwork, have to go.

Eye spy with my little i

sometimes eye you get what you look for

gotta love the chief justice now don't you?

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Bush's legislation has more

Bush's legislation has more to do with breaking the dependance on foriegn oil because the liberal moonbats won't let the U.S. drill our own reserves, or build more refineries.

These same politicians, and activists with dubious support from the MSM will also not allow us to have the most efficient power generating facilities which are nuclear.

The last refineries, and nuclear plants were built in the 1970's, since then population, and demand have far outpaced supply.

Now with that being said keep in mind we conservatives also appreciate all the above mentioned such as clean air, more forests etc., etc.

I love feul economy primarily because I dont' like paying a small fortune every time I fill up. I primarily recycle because it is better for the manufacturers to use trash, than raw materials when making products, which in turn is also better for my pocket.

The problem is AGW is the age old "have's, and have not's" argument disguised as the newest alarmism from the left. Liberals think it's unfair that the U.S. is so prosperous, and the majority of the rest of the world is not.

This has nothing to do with the Earth, but everything to do with breaking the back of capitalism, and introducing some socialist utopia, or hippie Mecca if you will.

You say you are an Athiest but live in harmony with those that are religious, I applaude you. The problem is with the left, it is the few trying to push their politics on the many, and not living by their own virtue.

 

 It's not about "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

I agree with the pure

I agree with the pure economics side of it, although I too, like to see clean environment anyway. I'm not anti nuclear once we make it safe.

As for the fear you seem to seriously have about capitalism being taken away, I'm obviously living in a less threatening part of the world. I thought you were safely housed in the US.

 Well then you need to

 Easy, Capitalism+ free market= freedom, and prosperity

 You need to edumucate yourself dear boy, because the left wants us all out in the rice fields.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

Yeah, well..... here's the

Yeah, well..... here's the bit I don't get, about people like you.

What makes you make this idiotic statement?

So, if you choose not to believe that humans have changed global conditions, that's fine. That said, why should someone be seen as a moonbat for fighting for cleaner air, more efficient cars, more forests, more efficient power stations, recycling, soil rehabilitation, etc?

So... in your mind anyone who points out the obvious flaws in the unproven hypothosis that so-called global warming is caused by mankind's small output of Carbon Dioxide compared to the CO2 produced in nature..

Anyone who doesn't buy into that automatically doesn't want clean air to breath? That's an absurd declaration on your part.

CO2 has no affect on the quality of air. In fact, it is an essential element in our atmosphere.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Hello Union Jack Bauer/

Hello Union Jack Bauer/ Liverpool's Dave! How about your cricket team today eh?

I didn't realise I had made an idiotic statement. I was just saying that there seems to be automatic resistance to anyone who stands up for the environment. As a Londoner, living in England, UK, you would appreciate the difference between smog and clean air.

You surely wouldn't criticize a person's choice of a Ford Focus or Fiesta over a Vauxhaul Corsa versus say a Vauxhaul Omega?

That's the problem. You make

That's the problem. You make idiotic statements, and don't even realize it.

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Surely UNION JACK BAUER aka

Surely UNION JACK BAUER aka LIVERPOOL"S DAVE isn't suggesting he doesn't live in London, England, UK?

Gnight!

You sound like one of those

You sound like one of those cyber-stalkers we read about. Try reading my Newsbusters bio.

Are you on drugs or something?

Check out my latest YouTube...but only if you support the troops and their mission: Better Men Than Me/The Battle For Fallujah

Eyecare

EC,

I congratulate you for asking some very important and valid questions which I hope to answer to your liking and/or amusement:

[W]hy should someone be seen as a moonbat for fighting for cleaner air, more efficient cars, more forests, more efficient power stations, recycling, soil rehabilitation, etc?

What you've asked here assumes that AGW skeptics want dirtier air, less efficient cars, less forests, less efficient power stations, no recycling, and no soil rehabilitation. Correct?

Do you really believe that anyone wants dirtier air, etc?

Are you kidding?

I am a skeptic, but I have allergic asthma. I want cleaner air than you quite likely. This has NOTHING to do with clean air. NOTHING.

Furthermore, I want to reduce America's dependence on oil, and DRAMATICALLY increase fuel efficiencies. Honestly, WHO WOULDN'T?

You're totally misunderstanding this issue, and the position of most conservatives on most environmental issues. Though we strive just as much as greens for cleaner air, less dependence on oil, and greater fuel efficiency, we're not willing to sacrifice the entire economy and our very way of life on costly solutions to environmental problems that might not exist and might not do a damn thing.

All of this discussion concerning CO2 admittedly in the eyes of the IPCC will have little impact on temperatures. We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we can impact climate at all. As such, until we've identified beyond a shadow of a doubt that what we're currently doing is actually raising temperatures -- a conclusion that has not been made by any qualified scientist regardless of what the media have presented to idiots around the world -- and, maybe more importantly, have proven that our behavior can actually reverse such impact and reduce temperatures, why would we spend billions nay trillions to do anything?

When you can answer this question, I will venture to answer the rest of yours. Fair enough? ns

excellent points Noel

I agree with everything you say in your post. However, I respectfully submit that posts like this muddy the waters and make it appear as if you are just constantly ridiculing gw.

Kyoto - hell no!

Why not more posts of a constructive nature that might actually "reach across the aisle"? Like let's lead in alternative energies, reduce foreign oil reliance, clean the air, create jobs, and make US the leaders. I would really love to some of those constructive arguments rather than (perceived) constant ridicule.

Respectfully yours,

Uncle Buck

UB, this a media bias

UB, this a media bias website. The aim of the editors and contributors is to show liberal media bias. Noel hs done that here. I agree that we should strive for constructive solutions, but that is not the purview here.

As for as reaching across the aisle, you cannot reason with people who have avered that the "debate is over".

restless

 I agree that we should strive for constructive solutions, but that is not the purview here.

i must disagree as the removal of error is, at times, the most constructive thing you can do.  Try building a castle in a swamp without first removing and replacing the sub-foundational muck.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Botg, I think you

Botg, I think you misunderstand my post. I don't buy into AGW one bit, nor do I want madated what I can drive, how much energy I can use, or the like. I don't want these restrictions on businesses either. I am thinking more along the lines of pollution than carbon footprints. As much improvement as there has been in America as far as smog and such goes, I don't think we should stop trying to improve the ways we do things.

Improvement, however should be market driven, not madated by government. Business and industry will do this anyway as the market already has Detroit building hybrid SUVs. It is the MARKET that will drive enviromentalism. I have said here before that I don't in any way believe that my truck, my barbeque, or my farts contribute one bit to the weather patterns of the planet.

***EDIT***

Btw, the main point I wanted to make to Uncle Buck was that it is not the purpose of this site to do research for AGW alarmists ( though we ususlly do) but that it is a place to point out liberal bias in the media.

restless

i must agree with those sentiments.  And all the time and energy spent on the falsehoods could be used more wisely.  How about informing people of the clean air associated with nuclear energy?  How about mandating that the electric companies actually pay for the excess electricity put in the grid by people who have gone to the expense of put in photo-voltaic systems?  What of the mercury in compact flourescent bulbs?  Why not drill ANWR, can't we do it cleaner than any other country?  Have you been to pristine ANWR in January?  Yes lets pursue improvement, i agree.  My only previous point was that exposing bias IS constructive as it removes obstacles to construction.

“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”   -Chief Justice John Roberts

Point taken. Agreed.

Point taken. Agreed.

agreed

I do understand the purpose of this site is to expose liberal media bias and I appreciate that. And I will try to do a better job of recognizing the humor in Noel's posts at times. But I would also hope that Newsbusters can - at least at times - strive to rise above the left extremist sites and point out constructive ways forward for US that we can all agree on. I like Bloomberg;s way forward on the whole gw - focus on solutions that clean the air, reduce foreign oil reliance, lead US in technology, create jobs, and save individual consumers $$$ and make US all better for it.

UB

UB,

That's asking a lot. Who do you know that can "point out constructive ways forward for US that we can all agree on?" You want me to espouse ideas concerning climate change that everyone can agree on? You think I, or anyone else, has that ability?

Al Gore has much more financial resources than I, far greater political contacts, and a fawning media sycophantly waiting breathless for every one of his disgraceful non sequiturs, and he can't "point out constructive ways forward for US that we can all agree on." In fact, likely a majority of Americans are opposed to his views, or, at the very least, not interested in sacrificing their incomes to advance them.

Yet, you're hoping I can?

Wow, talk about performance anxiety! :-) ns

These arguments get endless

The right wants to debate using facts. The left wants to debate with lies and or really bad inuendo.

Nobody in their right mind is AGAINST cleaner air, better fuel mileage, energy independence, etc. This is a fact.

Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html

UB

UB,

As you've noticed, I do a lot of writing on this subject some of it serious, some tongue in cheek. There's so much to ridicule in this issue that you certainly wouldn't begrudge some levity.

Does this muddy the waters? I don't think so, for those with an above room temperature IQ recognize that these posts are trifles intended to point out the absurdity of media rants about heatwaves and above normal winter temperatures.

As for reaching across the aisle, this is a conservative website. I'm not here to reach across the aisle. My audience at this site is conservative, and it's not wise to forget that.

On the flipside, I'm much more "green" than you could possibly imagine. I bet my "carbon footprint" is well below the overwhelming majority of Americans in my income strata, certainly including Al Gore. I'm all for most of the "green" solutions out there except taxation to solve a problem that might as we speak be reversing itself much as it has since the dawn of time.

As such, allow me these comical dalliances. After all, if we can't laugh at something as silly as global warming, what can we laugh at?   ns 

 

Ponts taken - thank you

Points taken Noel. Thank you for reminding me read into the humor of your posts. Sometimes I lose that - especially after a long day :) Still would LOVE to see more - there are some - but more constructive posts that lead US. Thanks for the feedback!

Why should they be seen as moonbats?

Eyecare, the reason they should be seen as moonbats is that they continue to push lifestyle changes on me because of their beliefs, and attempt to make it law so it is mandated.  Algore wants to abolish the internal combustion engine, and Sheryl Crow wants to dictate how many squares of toilet tissue I use.  They want to raise the price of gasoline so no one will buy it and force us all into buying hybrid vehicles.  But of course, it's okay for Streisand to have a massive air-conditioned horse barn because she's an elite liberal, more enlightened than the rest of us idiots.

I am a stay-at-home mom with only one car (we were hit by an illegal alien in 2005 and our other car was totalled).  We live a seven-minute walk from my children's school.  Algore can blab all he wants to me about a so-called "carbon footprint"; assuming that it does exist for the sake of argument, his footprint is several hundred thousand times that of mine.

Until it is proven with the scientific method and retested beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will not pay more taxes or change my lifestyle for junk science.  Let the free market dictate what happens and it will take care of itself.  They can continue publishing articles about "moose burps" (unfortunately, I'm not kidding) and plan on killing moose to change the environment, or they can move on to their next cause-celebre and shut-up because I'm sick of it.

Thanks Texasnantz. That

Thanks Texasnantz.

That was the best answer I've had yet.

I'm not with the lunatic fringe either. That's what's so hard to get across on here. Streisand's a/c horse barn is stupid. Toilet paper nowadays is largely made from recycled paper anyway, and Ms Crowe's example is extreme, as are moose burps etc. Levelling forests to plant soy, and raising fuel prices to curb use is more idiocy.

I am interested in ideas though. Some may turn out to not work, and fair enough, we get rid of them. Afterall, the first people who suggested removing lead from products like paint, petrol, and plastic, or CFCs from spraycans, were seen as moonbats.

As for it ever being "proven", you nor I will ever see that proof because we can't live long enough. However, while we're here

I'm probably sick of most of the same ideas and celebrities you are.

Thanks.

"If you don't believe in

"If you don't believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else?"

If you do believe in global warming/climate change, does it have to affect everyone else? For all I care, you can use a horse-drawn carriage to get around, live in a tent and make your clothes out of dead leaves, if that's what floats your boat. Just don't tell me I have sign up for your religion, especially if all you've got to back up your thesis is a 1 degree increase in temperature that "may" have occured over the last 100 years on a planet where fluctuations in temperature over the history of this planet is the norm, not the exception.

"That said, why should someone be seen as a moonbat for fighting for
cleaner air, more efficient cars, more forests, more efficient power
stations, recycling, soil rehabilitation, etc?"

One isn't seen as a moonbat for wanting these things, one is seen as a moonbat for the way one fights for, and claims one makes about these things. One is also rightly seen as a moonbat when one has to lie about and make up "facts" to prove one's mythological flavor/catastrophe of the moment.

And if one believes man can control the climate, one is rightly seen as a moonbat because one IS a moonbat.

Noel... Surely you do

Noel...

Surely you do jest.

Right?

Wow, that is amazing,

Wow, that is amazing, especially with the "heat island" aspect of a big city. This has Rove's fingerprints all over it.

Right now it's almost that warm up here in New Hampshire-at the base of Mt. Washington it's currently 56 degrees, although it's 43 up at the summit but with 100 mile visibility

http://www.mountwash...

Del... I know this is not

Del...

I know this is not the right place to put this...but I was thinking today that the Rove Machine out-did the Screamin' Dean Machine again today....

Brilliant how he got that hurricane to to to Mexico and lower oil prices for a day or two.

Still on the job!

On a day like today, all I

On a day like today, all I can think of is Billy Crystal's imitation of Edward G. Robinson in "The Ten Commandments":

Where's your global warming nnnnooow, see? Nyaaaaah.

I hope RJ reads this

I hope RJ reads this thread.... and Blonde. It will make their next questions so much easier to answer.

It's all relative

Here in Iowa, our temperatures are near normal in the low 80's, but the humidity is positively tropical, plus we're getting torrential rains.  Personally, a nice 59 degree day sounds wonderful to me right now.  I'd love a break.  A 59 degree day must only seem cold to people who live in places like Florida.  About 4 months from now it'll probably sound absolutely balmy to me.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Sounds like good

Sounds like good vegetable-growing weather, which we would kill for this season here in the Northeast.

Speaking of Ioway, are you anywhere near New Hampton? Or West Liberty?

Del Delmonte, to finally answer your question...

I didn't see your question until just now.  I work near New Hampton part of the time for my job, so I am familiar with it somewhat.  I'm a long way from West Liberty.

When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.

Frigid -- ooooooh

Aaahhh, the self fulfilling prophecy that is AGW.  Gotta hand it to the alarmist whacko's

"Think New Yorkers would

"Think New Yorkers would love to see a little global warming right now?"

Living in San Antonio, I would like to see the 50 degree temps myself. After the rains we have had, coupled with the heat starting to return, it is getting a little steamy down here.

Off topic, but I must rebut TexasDams assertion on Saturday that Bexar county (San Antonio) went to gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. We most certainly did not. Bexar went to Bush/Cheney in 2004 and 2000.

Just wanted everyone to know that.

From a San Antonio native...

Not even Travis County went to Kerry in 2004.  If that wasn't sad (for him) I don't know what is. 

You'd like to see the 50 degree temps in San Antonio this time of year?  Hell, ten degrees lower and San Antonio shuts down!!! 

Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest.

just another cold day in

Just another cold day in hell. Noel's constant pointing out of cotton farmers who wish it were hotter in Texas etc. ad nauseum is true evidence against gw. Ooops - got that wrong - Noel was just pointing out that if it was the other way around, the MSM would be all over it. Stupid me. Funny how maybe 20% of Noel's posts are another cold day in hell. Never mind if Noel is pressed - he will say that he never said this was proof against gw. He's just pointing out that the other side would have claimed it was proof if it was the other way around. Great stuff!!! Keep us informed!!!

Uncle F*ck,

Ahh, isn't it getting close to time for the third shift to get cranked up over at the Waffle House? Hey, there are some seriously hungry people out there just craving some scattered, smothered, covered & chunked hash-browns right about now.

Wouldn't want to keep 'em waitin', would you?

Chop, chop!

you want fries with that dave

Great comeback - U DA MAN!!! How'd you know I work fast food??? How can I debate with that - U DA MAN!!!

How'd you know I work fast food???

Ahh, let's just call it a hunch.

'sides, it rhymes with lunch.

Something I didn't really get today.

 Why is it Dave we at  NB

 Why is it Dave we at  NB end up with all the KOS rejects. Someone needs to talk to Moulitsas, and tell him to start re-directing his bastard children over to LGF. We are too nice to them over here.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

I'm more than willing to be

I'm more than willing to be less nice to them, but I fear the NB editors will not approve.

  I know were PG over here

  I know were PG over here Restless, but every once in awhile I like to sneak in a little nudity.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

"I know were PG over here

"I know were PG over here Restless, but every once in awhile I like to sneak in a little nudity"

I hope you are talking about the female form, and if so, I will be scrutinizing your future posts more closely. ;>)

Blazer,

Why is it Dave we at NB end up with all the KOS rejects.

LOL-If I knew the answer to that, I'd be a contributor here at NB instead of a member.

I think it is mainly because NB, and particularly Noel, is rather tolerant of these people. Besides, uncle_buck is pretty mild compared to some we have, and have had, here over the last year or so.

I was just yanking his chain a little. :-)

 Yea, I notice they are

 Yea, I notice they are fairly tame (lame) in comparison to most. I guess what your sayin' is they come here because they can't hang with the big bats on the cave ceiling over at KOS, or haven't learned to type the F-word in 500 languages yet, including the binary ones used by moisture evaporators.

.

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

Yeah, as soon as they learn

Yeah, as soon as they learn to combine Star Wars quotes with partisan politics, they'll REALLY be in the big time!

Allways fighting the "evil

Allways fighting the "evil empire" balboa,  just ask Reagan, I'll say he hit it pretty big.

 "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

"No, sir! I didn't see you

"No, sir! I didn't see you playing with your dolls again."

- Colonel Sandurz, talking to Republicans

See? I can do it, too!

 Who needs dolls

 Who needs dolls bal, when I can come on here, and play with plastic people like you?

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

I'll have you know I'm 100%

I'll have you know I'm 100% breathable cotton blend.

 I thought I saw you

 I thought I saw you before, thats you on the left isn't it? :)

 http://theminiaturespage.com/uploads/ports/85/85608525.jpg

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

UB

UB,

You're welcome. ns

may i have another

Thanks Noel

May I have another :)

Might want to check my "excellent points Noel" post above, lest the attacks continue. But that's fine - uncle buck has thick skin - especially on the buttocks - and don't forget - I'm just a fast food guy that is a KOS nut (NOT) - don't even know the website - and I'm glad everybody here is taking it very easy on me. Thank you - may i have another!

Or maybe I'm just another balboa - is that all you got Mr. T? Hit me - c'mon - c'mon. I'm LMAO - thick as it is.

 

UB

UB,

You took "You're welcome" as an attack? ns

 He must be a masochist

 He must be a masochist Noel. Break out the whips.

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

nope

Nope - not that comment ... just the many other posts that appear to be all over my fast food KOS loving thick butt.

But interested to see what you think of my "excellent points Noel" post ...

Noel,

Actually, I think uncle_buck was aiming that at me.

Hey, I deserved it. :-)

Besides, I think UB does actually contribute some humor to NB on occasion.

Lighten up, UB.

I was just playing around with ya. Twelve hours straight in the office would make anybody a little loopy.

I'm just a fast food guy that is a KOS nut (NOT) - don't even know the website.

-Yeah, sure, and my little Schnoodle Oliver just sprouted wings and flew through the living room.

LOL-I gotta hand it to ya, that was a good one.

 

seriously

Seriously - believe it or not - never even seen KOS website once in my life. I could google - but zero interest in what I understand is an exremist website. Waste of time.

UB,

LOL-Damn, you really need to get out more (on the net, that is).

I don't know what the proverbial web-site from Hell would actually be like, but Kos at least provides us with a faint glimpse.

'night, all.

 

Dave R is closet KOS?

Are you saying you're a closet KOS guy Dave R? LMAO.

What does KOS stand for anyways? Kooks on Something or other?

 

 

 

 "What does KOS stand for

 "What does KOS stand for anyways? Kooks on Something or other?"

 

Actually no, but good one, I think I'll use it. :) 

 

"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "

                   - Ben Kenobi on  Liberals, and the MSM.

Re-Incarnation

Hmmmm . . .

Something seems very familiar here . . .

KOS stands for

KOS stands for "Daily KOS", which is the blog site of an extremely radical left wing blogger, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga.   He's been gathering a huge following, and has been affecting Democrat politicians, who have begun pandering to him.

KOS... K-OS .... Kay

KOS... K-OS .... Kay -Os.... Chaos!

Coincidence? I think not.

I know he says the phonetic pronunciation is coast without the T... but he's not exactly a reputable source... not even when it comes to his own name

I would think that many

I would think that many fans of the late and brilliant Canadian comedian John Candy would take offense at your using one of his names.

Hey Begala, this guy needs your latest talking points.

"I agree with the pure

"I agree with the pure economics side of it, although I too, like to see
clean environment anyway. I'm not anti nuclear once we make it safe."

Safe? You mean safe like swimming pools or bathtubs? Perhaps you can tell us how many people died last year because of nuclear power. Then maybe you can tell us how many died because of the noble effort of environmentalists doing everything they can to prevent the use of DDT. Even better, maybe you can compare the number of bicycle-related deaths to the number of nuclear power-related deaths.

And you wonder why environmentalists are so often viewed as moonbats, lol. Well, there's your answer.

You just gave everyone the

You just gave everyone the answer as to whom the moonbats really are.

Keep going. You are funny.

"dinga ding ding ding danga dang dang dang"

At least you are

At least you are consistent with your dumbass statements. Keep up the great work, Sparky!

Ah!, so you must be a... DDT

Ah!, so you must be a... DDT salesperson?

Rodney (Eyecare), do you have the most remote clue

of the history of DDT, or are you just spouting because you've heard somewhere that DDT is "bad?"    Or perhaps some leftist teacher made Silent Spring required reading?   BTW, did you know that book has been the direct cause of the death of millions?

See, the problem is, Rodney, those foolish posts make it obvious that you know nothing about DDT, while most posters here can run circles around you with their knowledge on the subject....that behavior, Rodney, is one of the reasons that you don't get no respect.....  ;^>

 Well, obviously it's cold

 Well, obviously it's cold there in NY...there aren't any moose burping there.....jeez.

Obviously, Rosie must be

Obviously, Rosie must be out of town this week.