A question about Dungy

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

     "However, when you wake up one morning, and you're informed that there's 6 feet of seawater in the Big Dig ( I was going to say Wall Street but then, a lot of people would approve of Wall Street being inundated ), you'll be angry and wonder why no one ever did anything about climate change while we still had time."

    But that arguement is based on fantasy and fear. I could say that you'll be angry when the next little Ice Age hits and the use of oil is outlawed and you're in your house freezing. Remember, there is a growing group of scientists who believe we're headed into the next ice age. Maybe should listen to them while we still have time....
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Richie its hard to buy into what you are saying when its been raining for almost a month straight here in NE. The winter is longer and colder, the summer is not what it used to be. If not global Warming what? And I am not asking as a 100% certin global warming freak I am just saying the weather is not the way it was when i was a kid. I cant remember havign a whole summer ruined by rain the way they predict this summer. They say its going to be sh*tty out all summer long here in Boston. It rains everyday like we live in Seattle. We had a blizzard in April a few years back and it was one of the biggest in Massachusetts History....in April. All I am saying is it is clear to me at least that the weather is changing and it does not seem to me that the weather would change by itsself, I beleave that something is deffently happening on this plannet and things are changing. I agree with Yapple, but I also see you point as well so I guess I could say Im on teh fence.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    Whenever I start believing that I can alter the atmospheric destiny of an entire planet by financing a bizarro Democractic spending spree, I like to listen to this:


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk

    (please be paitent)

    That always does wonders for my perspective.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]...The winter is longer and colder, the summer is not what it used to be. If not global Warming what?...
    Posted by MVPkilla[/QUOTE]
    Killa
    Did you mean the winters are getting warmer and shorter, because longer and colder would seem to support global cooling.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Whenever I start believing that I can alter the atmospheric destiny of an entire planet by financing a bizarro Democractic spending spree, I like to listen to this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk
    (please be paitent)
    That always does wonders for my perspective."


    Placing our problems of health, security and cosmic destiny in the hands of meatball politicians is bound to make anyone cynical.
    Also, the words "global warming" are misleading, especially during New England blizzards or when it's 12 below out here.
    Instead of "global warming", it should read "catastrophic climate change", regardless of which political party here, or in other countries, throws money in the wrong direction.
    Also, I don't think we have to worry about the demise of American industry because of new environmental rules and regulations. Both parties and runaway corporate self-interest have succeeded in making American industry just another program on The History Channel.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jimnagle. Show jimnagle's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    The planet hasn't warmed since 1998, and has been cooling since 2001.  Even 1998 was exceeded by two years form the 1930's.  Notice they're not calling it "global warming" anymore, but "climate change."  Cap and trade is a massive attempt to rush us further down the Marxist road Mr. O so desperately loves. 

    And how about his posturing on Honduras?  The tin-horn president Manuel Zelaya, buddy of Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega, tried to pull a coup by bypassing the legislature and the constitution with an illegal referendum to eliminate presidential term limits (same thing dictator Hugo did in Venezuela).  The Supreme Court, the Congress and the Attorney General instructed the military to remove him physically from office, thus upholding their constitution.  Now Obama and the lamestream media are calling Zelaya's removal a coup, ignoring the fact that Zelaya was the one who was trying to execute a coup.  Obama couldn't be bothered about Iran (maybe because they hate Israel, as he also seems to), but is all exercised that Zelaya was denied his chance at dictatorship, and is leaning heavily, along with his dawgs Chavez and Ortega, on the Hondurans to reinstate big Z.  So far they've managed to hold out and continue to uphold their constitution.  Kudos.


     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    MVPkilla, you still haven't answered a single question I asked.

    Perhaps it is because this is a political debate, and not environmental. In fact, I know it is, because those who first formulated the theory of "Global Warming" and then tried to pass it off as science had a very strong political agenda that's still being pushed in the name of the theory: large, central government, establish a soft tyranny (which later leads to a hard tyrrany).

    "The winter is longer and colder, the summer is not what it used to be. If not global Warming what?"

    Our June was the coolest June since 1913. June in southern Arizona is our hotest month (the monson keeps July and August slightly cooler than June). The last two winters were some of the coldest in the United States since they started keeping records. The 1 degree celsius warm up (and that's the high estimates) over the last hundred or so years has been completely erased over the last 18 months.

    Why?

    The largest reason has been a very inactive sun in what should be it's most active time. How cold will it get? That's still being debated, but some think the next Little Ice Age is quickly appraoching.

    Here's a question, though: is it better that Earth warms a little, or cools a little?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from MVPkilla. Show MVPkilla's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I dont know if its better for the earth to warm a little or to cool a little. I can only assume both are bad for us and everyone else. If it gets to warm the Ocean will rise and all that and if it gets colder it will becoem as you say a small ice age. Either way is bad for us. After reading all these posts Richie I have realized that i have been wording my arguments wrong. I should have simply been saying climate change instead of global warming. You keep bringing up "global cooling" as if that is some how better either way our climate is changing and things are not teh way they should be. And Richie I am trying to keep up with you and its not easy haha I am not expert I just enjoy the conversation so some of your questions like the very very very broad question of "why" you keep asking me I cant answer. I am not some all knowing thing or anything like that so I cant answer some of your questions. I thought i had answered some or the ones i could but i guess i didnt. I am glad to see some more people getting envolved maybe some people who know a bit more then myself as i would love to see you go toe to toe with someone who knows a bit more then myself.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "I dont know if its better for the earth to warm a little or to cool a little. I can only assume both are bad for us and everyone else."

    Why can you only assume both are bad? This goes back to a question I asked earlier: What is the most ideal global temperature? Everybody assumes it is what it was 100 years ago, but how can we know that? Maybe a warmer or cooler temperature is most ideal.

    "If it gets too warm the Ocean will rise"

    I always find this one humorous. Most glaciers that are "in danger" of melting are floating on the ocean. If those melt, it's just displaced water--it won't cause the oceans to rise. The main thing that causes the oceans to rise or fall is the temperature of the water. The ocean water near glaciers stay a very even temperature because there is a constant source of ice. (It's like ice cubes in a cup, if you want to think of it that way). It's the ocean water not near the ice sources that change temperatures (think El Nino and La Nina).
    But back to melting ice causing the oceans to rise, it would take an almost unfathomable amount of melting ice to do that. What would happen to the weather if all of that frozen water liquified? Lots of precipitation, which would cool the planet and make new glaciers.
    Another important thing to consider when talking about the [extremely remote] possibility of the oceans rising is that we as a human race will have to adapt, just like our ancestors. What makes us think we're immune from adapting? 

    "You keep bringing up "global cooling" as if that is some how better"

    Global cooling, in my opinion, would be much worse than a rise in global temperatures. I keep bringing it up, though, because that's the direction we are headed.

    "I should have simply been saying climate change"

    Right, but the questions should be what is causing the climate to change? What caused all the climate changes throughout the history of Earth? Are those factors still at work? Can we as humans, despite the fact that we can't change the direction or intensity of a mere thunderstorm, change the weather on a global scale?
     
    But I also understand that this arguement is not simply environmental. In fact, it is far more political than environmental.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I think this thread is headed for a climate change!
    What's next?
    Term limits?
    New types of energy?
    The deficit?
    Balanced budget?
    Third parties?
    Prison system overhaul?
    War?
    Peace?
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 347pg. Show 347pg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy




    Now, what shall we talk about?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I think these "scientists" (who are funded, by the way, by the politicians who approve government spending) are making a mountain out of a molehill. When they came out with this "global warming" concept (I believe it was Al Gore who started it), it was stated that the effect was to be massive flooding of the coastal plain...in about 20,000 years! I don't know about any of you, but I don't plan to be around then! Millions of years ago the earth was one big hunk of molten mass, then it cooled. There have been ice ages where the whole planet has cooled drastically. And all this happened before humans were even thought of! This proves that the planet itself is evolving, and climate change will happen with or without us putting our two cents worth in. I think humans vastly overestimate their place in the overall scheme of things. Long before we evolved thousands of species lived, died, and became extinct. Thousands more evolved to take their place. I think it's a bit egotistical to think we have the power to decimate the entire planet! Even were a nuclear war to happen, the earth would simply adapt and create new life forms to inhabit it. Though we as humans may become extinct ourselves. I can get behind trying to cut down on pollution which affects animals, birds, and sealife adversely. But to suggest that if I drive an alternate fuel vehicle that somehow I'll "save the planet" is absurd! As a previous poster stated, it's all political manuvering. Mother nature is a much more powerful force than we could ever hope to be, no matter our grand illusions of our own importance. IMO, these so-called "experts" are merely speculating, based on a fraction of a percentage of the history of the planet. All this is a scare tactic meant to scare the populus into making changes the select (or elected) few deem to be important...or profitable to their own interests. And as sheep the majority of people buy into this. After all, we're the ones who elected these fools, we certainly wouldn't put them in office if they were total morons! If they spent half the time and money they do on this trying to feed all the hungry people in the world, or fixing the healthcare system so everyone could afford it, a lot of our real problems (the ones plaguing us today) might get fixed. Once again, man fails to comprehend that we are but a minute piece of the whole puzzle! Climate change is an ongoing thing, and will continue whether we are here or not.

    On a side note (sort of), I jumped in on this thread, not being bored enough to read twenty pages, even at 6 AM. I'm wondering what the hell all this has to do with Tony Dungy!!! The last time I read this post they were discussing gay rights and racial issues. My, how our thoughts wander when there's no football to hold our attention!!!
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    If politicians and corporate leeches live and breathe oil, coal and nuclear, why would they want to kill the golden goose by instituting new environmental rules, regulations, taxes etc. As someone else pointed out here, there's nothing wrong with breathing clean air and drinking safe water even if we can't control nature.

    "My, how our thoughts wander when there's no football to hold our attention!!!"

    My thoughts are always wandering. And we wouldn't be on this forum, talking about all of this, if it weren't for football. Go Pats!!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Belenus555. Show Belenus555's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    For everyone who either is in favor, or strongly leaning in the direction, of implementing environmental initiatives such as the Kyoto treaty; please take the following points into consideration:

    1/ Which ones shall bear the greatest burden and who are those exempt from such measures? Because, regardless who how beautiful and inspiring the speeches are in favor - remember that such measures are carried out by politicos and bureaucrats. Meaning, there are always going to be those (i.e. individuals, companies, and even countries) who will be exempt from said measures - another definition for 'politics as usual.'

    2/ Cui bono? Who gains from such a measure? What individuals and/or entities stand to make buckets of money from such measures? Who will accrue even more power at our expense?

    3/ How does it affect our country from a geopolitical perspective [Note: I am include military issues within geopolitics since armed conflict has always been termed politics 'by other means.']? How many true friends does our country have around the world? Very, very few. When you're Goliath, everyone wants you down due to the always lethal combination of fear, envy, and their own naked desire to become the next Goliath.

    In other words, we should be very careful who are positioning themselves as mankind's saviors - because for every true savior, there are at least 999 others who are out to get theirs at everyone else's expense: especially the USA's.

    4/ How do these measures affect us as individuals and/or families? Do we want to sacrifice a standard of living that have put us on the front row of the world's economic grandstand or give up even more of our rapidly disappearing freedoms just to please those who will profit politically and/or economically from this?

    For those who want to impose draconian measures of any kind on their fellow citizens - be careful of what you wish for.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "If politicians and corporate leeches live and breathe oil, coal and nuclear"

    What's wrong with oil, coal and nuclear, by the way?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "What's wrong with oil, coal and nuclear, by the way?"

    Oil and coal are filthy. It's inevitable that we'll have to replace them. Of course, not in our lifetime, so why worry?
    Nuclear is insane. Unless you live far from Harrisburg or Kiev. Then it's just someone else's bad news. There are three things in life you can count on: Death, taxes and whenever a spokesperson for the nuclear power industry opens his or her mouth, it's a lie. McCain proposed building 45 new monsters. After all, it's safe. That's what they always say. It's safe. If so, then hover over one of the cooling towers in a helicopter and take deep breaths.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I am fron the government . . .

    and I am here to help.

    Foot in mouth

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "Oil and coal are filthy. It's inevitable that we'll have to replace them. Of course, not in our lifetime, so why worry?
    Nuclear is insane. Unless you live far from Harrisburg or Kiev. Then it's just someone else's bad news. There are three things in life you can count on: Death, taxes and whenever a spokesperson for the nuclear power industry opens his or her mouth, it's a lie. McCain proposed building 45 new monsters. After all, it's safe. That's what they always say. It's safe. If so, then hover over one of the cooling towers in a helicopter and take deep breaths."

    If not for oil, we'd all be living like the Amish. Can you imagine the last 100 years without oil?
    Low-sulfur coal (which is what's mined in the U.S. anymore) is considered "green" because it does not burn "dirty".
    Nuclear power is the "greenest" of all--that is, until you've got to do something with the waste. Phoenix has the largest nuclear power plant in the U.S. sitting just outside the metro area. I don't think anyone feels unsafe. What comes out of the cooling towers, by the way, is steam.
    While I agree at some point a new form of energy will replace all three, (like you said) it's not going to be anytime in our lifetimes, or our children's. Wind and Solar are not the answer for very obvious reasons if you just think about them a little (and they have their own environmental issues). Perhaps they are alright as a supplement to oil and other gases, coal and nuclear, but they'll never replace them or even come close to that.
    I just don't understand why people demonize the energy sources that give us all that we have and have had and will have.  It makes no sense to me.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from themightypatriots. Show themightypatriots's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    I only demonize those who start wars so they can profit from oil.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "I only demonize those who start wars so they can profit from oil."

    How much oil does the U.S. import from Iraq?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Yapple. Show Yapple's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "If not for oil, we'd all be living like the Amish. 
    Can you imagine the last 100 years without oil?"

    I never said it wasn't useful. Just filthy.

    Low-sulfur coal (which is what's mined in the U.S. anymore) is considered "green" because it does not burn "dirty".

    You make it sound like it's burning broccoli. Don't know much about this but aren't there labor and economic considerations? Isn't a lot of this imported?

    Phoenix has the largest nuclear power plant in the U.S. sitting just outside the metro area. I don't think anyone feels unsafe. What comes out of the cooling towers, by the way, is steam.

    Like I said, you'll say you feel safe if your neighborhood nuke hasn't had an "event" and the only ones that actually made the news are far, far away in strange places like Pennsylvania and Russia, which, as we know, has incompetent scientists. Also, I shouldn't have used cooling towers to refer to the entire facility. You wouldn't want to inhale any kind of industrial steam but what I meant was that all nukes leak radiation. Of course, the aforementioned spokespersons will swear that there's no danger and the radiation is at "acceptable levels" and finish up with a patronizing comparison to dental x-rays.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from prairiemike. Show prairiemike's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]I only demonize those who start wars so they can profit from oil.
    Posted by themightypatriots[/QUOTE]

    I am more likely to live to be a thousand years old than to ever see a war that is started for something other than financial gain.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Ritchie-az. Show Ritchie-az's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    "You make it sound like it's burning broccoli. Don't know much about this but aren't there labor and economic considerations? Isn't a lot of this imported?"

    Not like burning broccoli, but certainly cleaner than burning oil and most other gases (a few exceptions). Low-sulfur coal is mined in places like Wyoming, Colorado and Utah and (to a lesser extent) about twenty other states.
    Low-sulfur coal isn't new. We've been mining it for over 125 years, and purposely mining it specifically for it's clen burning properties for about 25 years.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from underdogg. Show underdogg's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A question about Dungy : I am more likely to live to be a thousand years old than to ever see a war that is started for something other than financial gain.
    Posted by prairiemike[/QUOTE]

    What was the financial purpose of Vietnam? 

    I think the only reason we continued to fight is because no president wanted to be the first to say we lost a war.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from bubthegrub2. Show bubthegrub2's posts

    Re: A question about Dungy

    In Response to Re: A question about Dungy:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: A question about Dungy : What was the financial purpose of Vietnam?  I think the only reason we continued to fight is because no president wanted to be the first to say we lost a war.
    Posted by underdogg[/QUOTE]


    Kennedy got us involved in Viet Nam, and Johnson wasn't strong enough to get us out of there early. LBJ seemed more concerned with the domestic problems (and did very well in working for equal rights) of the country and relied too heavily on advisors for his policy for SE Asia. Most of these guys had military backgrounds, and were deeply involved in the "fight against communism". This was a holdover from the 50s, when America considered itself the "guardian" of the globe after being instrumental in winning WWII. Nixon was the one who wanted to pull out, but did not want to concede defeat (maybe that was a lingering personal issue). Truly, that war dragged out a lot longer than it should have. IMO, they did not really try to "win" the war, only bring it to a stalemate so as not to concede to China. There really hasn't been a "war" since, until 2001 when they invaded Afghanistan. I think George Bush did the same as Nixon, in that he relied too much on guys like Cheney and Rumsfeld, who were themselves "warhawks". GW believed in what he was doing in relation to Iraq, though his pride assuredly figured in since his father pulled back and let Saddam remain in power. I don't believe the war was started for the purpose of financial gain (as most liberals love to claim to back their position), but of course money is always a huge concern in the decisions of the men who are calling the shots in DC. And once again we are stuck in a war that cannot be won in the way the US is willing to fight it. Whereas the Chineese had an inexhaustable supply of troops, this war is against religious fanatics who care not at all for human loss. The only way to "win" in Iraq decisively is to wipe them all off the face of the earth...they will never concede defeat, as that would damn them in the eyes of what they believe. And we are unwilling to undertake such a "genocide", thus we are in the same boat as we were in Viet Nam 35 years ago. Too bad we couldn't decide the worlds problems with a football game! We could sent the NE offense and the Pittsburgh defense over as a team and bring it all to a satisfactory conclusion!!!
     

Share