Greenpeace Founder: No Scientific Proof for Global Warming

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Well said Hugh.



A recent survey shows why people are so disillusioned with the current state of American politics. Most people feel that neither party represents their viewpoint. The survey proves that they are correct:



Conservatives: 28%

Liberals: 21%

51% were very middle of the road moderates...siding with both Conservatives and Liberals based on different issues. That means that if a Conservative is elected President then 72% of the voters views are not being represented. If a Liberal is elected President, then 79% of the voters views are not being represented



We are letting the two political parties dictate their extreme viewpoints and the candidates are too extreme...we have to decide which is the lesser of two evils. In the end the two parties cannot agree on anything, and compromise is out of the question, so nothing happens except threats, mud-slinging, and finger pointing.



I would gladly vote for any candidate who is not affiliated with any political party, and is willing to make compromises to get things done.



Actually, I would like to see a law that bans political parties and any private financial campaign funding. The government would pay for elections equally with representatives for each candidate ensuring that funds are distributed equally. We need to get the money out of our elections. We also need to eliminate the Electoral College or require that each state split and portion their electoral votes based on the percentage of votes cast for each candidate.



Let each candidate stand on his/her own merits and not how much money they can collect from corporations and wealthy donors. Each candidate would present a resume that would be available on all news media as well as a government website. Canidates must present the resumes by a specific date. And just like on the TV game shows, the voters would cast votes for their favorite candidate. Every few weeks some of the candidates would be eliminated until we get to the primaries where there would only be about 6 candidates remaining. Then the voters would actuall cast votes in the primary elections and the candidate with the least votes would be eliminated until we got down to 2 candidates that would go on to the General Election.



...Rich







 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anybody notice that the bigger Global Warming hype got, the bigger and fatter Al Gore got....lol
 
What group of scientist was it.? They have been studying all of this. They recently reported on a liberal news media. That one big burp, from a volcano. Will make null anything mankind has done in 100 years, for polution controll.

We have volcano's burping all the time. This whole thing is nothing but a liberal agenda. From those that have had their minds highjacked.

Funny how they keep renaming thier agenda. Im suprised they havent reached into my pocket book, for $$ to cap volcano's....:bwahaha:
 
Hey Rich, your voting scheme sounds pretty similar to how the new NASCAR championship system works. Maybe we should hire them to run the next election. :haveabeer:
 
blksn8k,

I still don't know all the rule changes in NASCAR. The only thing I heard was that to make The Chase, you had to have at least one win...although I don't think anyone has ever won the Sprint Cup championship without a Win, but I guess mathematically, it is possible? So as of last weekend, we have 3 drivers qualified for The Chase....Earnhart Jr., Harvick, and Keslowski.



...Rich
 
I'm hoping Danica gets lucky and wins one just to pizz on King Richard's parade.



She has as good of a chance as Kyle Petty ever did....LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the new format a win doesn't necessarily guarantee a driver will make the Chase. Needless to say getting a win earns the most points so it certainly doesn't hurt your chances. But, you still have to finish high enough in the season points (20th?) after the first 26 races and there are only 16 spots available in the Chase, I think. Which means someone like a David Ragan or Danica could win a plate race (crapshoot) and still not make the Chase. Once you do make the Chase (which includes the last 10 races of 36 total for the entire season) it becomes a process of elimination. I don't know the exact formula but after the first few races of those last 10 races a certain number of drivers get eliminated and so on until there are only four left in contention for the last race. Who ever finishes the highest of those four in that last race at Homestead wins the season championship, I think. Keep in mind that even during the Chase you are still competing against all the drivers for race wins including those who didn't make the Chase (they have to keep all the team sponsors happy and engaged).



Oh, and the points get reset to zero for those still in contention at each new stage of the Chase, clear as mud, right? :grin:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blksn8k,

I did not say that a win automatically puts the driver into The Chase....They are announcing during the first couple of races that to make it into the Chase, a driver had to have at least one Win....and sufficient points. I think they are trying to reduce the odds of a driver winining the Sprint Cup Championship who has not won a single race?



Wow, did this thread get derailed..:bwahaha:



...Rich
 
You could technically get in without a win, if there are less than 16 drivers with a win before the chase, the top driver(s) with enough points can get in. And if there are more than 16 drivers with wins, only top 16 drivers based on points will get in.
 
Hey cracker trac...I didn't stop. Nor will I ever stop. I just took a break cause the subject turned to Nascar which is about as mindless as the climate change deniers.
 
Frank--



You know it's true.



I know it's true.



But neither of us are ever going to convince these people to open their eyes. In fact, the type of badgering you're doing is only making them more recalcitrant in their misguided ways.



So please do everyone a favor--including your own cause--and back off a bit.
 
An interesting read, especially for those who subscribe to the idea that the science is "settled" on anthropogenic global cooling/global warming/climate change.



The basic premise of this column is that science is never, ever "settled". It's fluid.





 
Last edited by a moderator:
TrainTrac,

That just emphasizes the frustration I have with those who except the Antrhopogenic Climate Change theory....Everybody is jumping to conclusions on some very questionable and flimsy evidence. That just convinces me that the debate is still going on, and that the only ones who claim the "Debate is over" are those who have closed minds and unwilling to debate the issue with confirmed data and facts that the Earth is continuing to warm, while recent evidence indicates the Earth is now going through a cooling period with a reduction of warm weather storms like tornadoes and hurricanes, and a significant increase in size of the polar ice caps.



Global Warming is not based on scientific theory, but Alarmist Theory!



Here is also another interesting read with videos showing how all this Global Warming theory started.



...Rich
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched this earlier today. Interesting points about the role of the oceans.



<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DAewtVGP_hY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Just thought this Rasmussen poll was interesting.



"Only 20% Think Debate About Global Warming Is Over"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't even get me started on the subject of Global Warming !! Now they appear to be blaming the media for global warming or their inability to convince the public and other scientists?



Those who think that Global Warming is man made refuse to look at the facts since they assume the discussion is already over?? While the Earth's climate may be changing, nothing they show proves that it is caused by man. They try to link it to man's excessive production of CO2, but ignore the fact that the majority of the CO2 in our atmosphere comes from the oceans.



The United Nations Committee on Global Warming has already discredited many of the early studies because the scientists were manipulating the numbers to agree with what their governments wanted to hear, so they would not lose their government funding or grants. The old rule of :Don't bite the hand that feeds you applies".



...Rich
 

Latest posts

Top