Russian supply scow lost on way to money pit in orbit

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 11:30:58 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras. Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.
But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.
I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems. If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

Mike, I guess you forgot. Snell gets a pass because he it too stupid to understand the science of AGW. I'm sure he will remind you...

\Paul A

Mike Collins wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 12:57:38 PM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 30 April 2015 00:28:14 UTC+2, RichA wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/world/...hip/index.html

If y'all have to ask the price you really can't afford it.

Whenever faced with questions they don't want to answer liberals talk
about "the big picture" or say that it's "complex."

You haven't come up with any questions yet. Snell' are all irrelevant.

Rich you still haven't produced any of these questions!

Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 4:36:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

wsnell01 asked:

Why do you travel on airplanes?

Because I can't get to my destination without one.
As a minor consideration I've never been convinced by the global warming
caused by aircraft. The 9/11 ban on flights led to a global increase in
temperature due to lack of contrails. The net increase over time may still
be positive but the short term effects of flight seem to be cooling.
But that's only a minor consideration. I live in the 21st century and am
not giving up the lifestyle my ancestors suffered to achieve so that
selfish American contras can ruin it anyway.
You could do with a bit more foreign travel to broaden your outlook. You
seem to suffer from the not-invented-here syndrome. Look it up if you've
not heard of it.

My outlook is far broader than yours. Maybe you should sit down and
attempt to recognize and understand what a hypocrite you are.

Why do you own/drive a car?
To get to my destination. To visit my family.

Let's try this question since your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor:

If you think that AGW is such a disaster why are you driving cars and
flying around in planes, when most people on this planet do neither, and
have markedly lower CO2 footprints as a result?

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras. Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.
But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.
I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems. If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

Mike, you don't seem to understand the mind of a conservative. They are
motivated by fear, and that's what their politicians do - fear mongering.

I can't think of anything that liberals are really afraid of that isn't
based in scientific fact. And we're not really afraid in quite the same way.

Fear is really the domain of the American Conservative. They thrive on
it. Absolutely everything scares them: socialism, Islam, illegal
immigrants, science, Ebola, homosexuality, unmarried women, pregnant
teenagers, marijuana, foreign languages (especially French), black males
between the age of 11 and 65, "home intruders," Big Government,
"tyranny," Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia, Russia,
China, Iran, California, New York City, foreign energy dependence, the
absence or the idea of the absence of firearms, Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, and NPR.

Conservatives are also the ones who were terrified of full-scale war with
the Soviets. Why do you think Reagan built enough nukular missiles to
blow up the entire world 50 times over? Everything they say or do is
driven by an overactive, overdeveloped "fight-or-flight" response. As
Frank Zappa might have said, "It's a way of life."

You have to believe that we are all human and can agree to differ. The
alternative is "5 steps to tyranny"

http://youtu.be/PeBisBQblFM

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 3:05:25 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 11:30:58 AM UTC-7, Mike Collins wrote:

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras. Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.
But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.
I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems. If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

Mike, I guess you forgot. Snell gets a pass because he it too stupid to understand the science of AGW. I'm sure he will remind you...

\Paul A

Scientist observe failed experiments and change theories, right wingers just move on to the next crazy fantasy.

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 3:21:27 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
Uncarollo2 wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 1:30:58 PM UTC-5, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 4:36:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

wsnell01 asked:

Why do you travel on airplanes?

Because I can't get to my destination without one.
As a minor consideration I've never been convinced by the global warming
caused by aircraft. The 9/11 ban on flights led to a global increase in
temperature due to lack of contrails. The net increase over time may still
be positive but the short term effects of flight seem to be cooling.
But that's only a minor consideration. I live in the 21st century and am
not giving up the lifestyle my ancestors suffered to achieve so that
selfish American contras can ruin it anyway.
You could do with a bit more foreign travel to broaden your outlook. You
seem to suffer from the not-invented-here syndrome. Look it up if you've
not heard of it.

My outlook is far broader than yours. Maybe you should sit down and
attempt to recognize and understand what a hypocrite you are.

Why do you own/drive a car?
To get to my destination. To visit my family.

Let's try this question since your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor:

If you think that AGW is such a disaster why are you driving cars and
flying around in planes, when most people on this planet do neither, and
have markedly lower CO2 footprints as a result?

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras. Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.
But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.
I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems. If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

Mike, you don't seem to understand the mind of a conservative. They are
motivated by fear, and that's what their politicians do - fear mongering.

I can't think of anything that liberals are really afraid of that isn't
based in scientific fact. And we're not really afraid in quite the same way.

Fear is really the domain of the American Conservative. They thrive on
it. Absolutely everything scares them:
Conservatives are also the ones who were terrified of full-scale war withsocialism, Islam, illegal
immigrants, science, Ebola, homosexuality, unmarried women, pregnant
teenagers, marijuana, foreign languages (especially French), black males
between the age of 11 and 65, "home intruders," Big Government,
"tyranny," Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia, Russia,
China, Iran, California, New York City, foreign energy dependence, the
absence or the idea of the absence of firearms, Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, and NPR.

the Soviets. Why do you think Reagan built enough nukular missiles to
blow up the entire world 50 times over? Everything they say or do is
driven by an overactive, overdeveloped "fight-or-flight" response. As
Frank Zappa might have said, "It's a way of life."

You have to believe that we are all human and can agree to differ. The
alternative is "5 steps to tyranny"

http://youtu.be/PeBisBQblFM

Certainly we can agree to differ, but my life isn't directed by what these guys fear. I don't fear: science, socialism, Islam, illegal
immigrants, science, Ebola, homosexuality, unmarried women, science, pregnant
teenagers, marijuana, foreign languages (especially French), black males
between the age of 11 and 65, science, "home intruders," Big Government,
"tyranny," Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia, Russia,
China, Iran, California, New York City, science, foreign energy dependence, the
absence or the idea of the absence of firearms, Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, and NPR.

On Monday, 4 May 2015 22:34:14 UTC+2, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Certainly we can agree to differ, but my life isn't directed by what these guys fear. I don't fear: science, socialism, Islam, illegal
immigrants, science, Ebola, homosexuality, unmarried women, science, pregnant
teenagers, marijuana, foreign languages (especially French), black males
between the age of 11 and 65, science, "home intruders," Big Government,
"tyranny," Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia, Russia,
China, Iran, California, New York City, science, foreign energy dependence, the absence or the idea of the absence of firearms, Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, and NPR.

I suppose you could say that, as a group, they have lost their ability to learn from their mistakes. So it may well be a hereditary or genetic weakness. Or even the result of generations of poor parenting skills? I have often wondered whether the religious refugees who swamped America are largely responsible.
They came with fixed, totally distorted and rigidly unchangeable mindsets.

Their willingness to repeatedly vote or act against their own best interests seems to be a common feature. Those who can milk them for their votes [or savings] with carefully calculated rhetoric are treated as folk heroes. The masses seem completely blind to their fake hero's completely transparent hypocrisy. While those who can see through their empty promises become hate figures to add to your long and interesting list.

From the outside America seems absolutely besotted with religion. Leading to a crippling national gullibility. Yet simultaneously they espouse an equally dangerous sense of superiority. The very freedoms they so clamour for make prisons of their own minds.

The obvious parallels between the stated ideals of Boko Harum and dumbed-down America are really quite terrifying! The mirror image offers a terrifying comparison of the same twisted realities. Religion being forced down their throats, for completely immoral gain, by their own cynical and evil manipulators.

Perhaps that is why they so hate each other? They still recognise themselves as the real victims at some deep, subconscious level. Yet acceptance of the truth must be constantly suppressed. Or face become a traitor and pariah as the whole, hideous charade collapses around their ears! That they are really no more than cannon fodder for the global elite to play their false, economic wars. Their own reward? The faux, guilt medals of honour for their lifelong subservience. As they worship at a cynically-constructed, film-set façade. Built at great cost, to society, for endless, tawdry, Bollywood-style remakes of "God's Own Country."

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 4:36:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

wsnell01 asked:

Why do you travel on airplanes?

Because I can't get to my destination without one.
As a minor consideration I've never been convinced by the global warming
caused by aircraft. The 9/11 ban on flights led to a global increase in
temperature due to lack of contrails. The net increase over time may still
be positive but the short term effects of flight seem to be cooling.
But that's only a minor consideration. I live in the 21st century and am
not giving up the lifestyle my ancestors suffered to achieve so that
selfish American contras can ruin it anyway.
You could do with a bit more foreign travel to broaden your outlook. You
seem to suffer from the not-invented-here syndrome. Look it up if you've
not heard of it.

My outlook is far broader than yours. Maybe you should sit down and
attempt to recognize and understand what a hypocrite you are.

Why do you own/drive a car?
To get to my destination. To visit my family.

Let's try this question since your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor:

If you think that AGW is such a disaster why are you driving cars and
flying around in planes, when most people on this planet do neither, and
have markedly lower CO2 footprints as a result?

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras.

Europe and China are among the worst polluters, Europe especially so and you most especially so, with your driving and your air travel.

Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.

That's the problem.... the life YOU want. Meanwhile you wish to deprive, directly or indirectly, those who who already pollute less than you do, of the life THEY want.

But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.

Anyone who believes in AGW and takes plane flights is being incredibly selfish!

I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems.

Smoking has nothing to do with the issue, dumbass.

If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

So you wish to convince others to give up their lifestyles based on your concern about carbon emissions, but you are completely unwilling to reduce your CO2 to near zero? You are one of the world's major hypocrites.

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:03:16 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Fear is really the domain of the American Conservative. They thrive on it.
Absolutely everything scares them:

The only thing that might scare a conservative is that liberal idiots such as you, palsing, collins, peterson, etc., can vote.

On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 4:34:14 PM UTC-4, Uncarollo2 wrote:

Certainly we can agree to differ, but my life isn't directed by what these guys fear. I don't fear: science, socialism, Islam, illegal
immigrants, science, Ebola, homosexuality, unmarried women, science, pregnant
teenagers, marijuana, foreign languages (especially French), black males
between the age of 11 and 65, science, "home intruders," Big Government,
"tyranny," Mexico, Venezuela, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kenya, Somalia, Russia,
China, Iran, California, New York City, science, foreign energy dependence, the
absence or the idea of the absence of firearms, Al Gore, Elizabeth Warren, and NPR.

That quite a list and quite a bloviation on your part!

Too bad you aren't a Tibetan living under Chinese oppression, or a gay or a prostitute living (or dying) in fear in Iran, a West African living in fear of Ebola, a tradesman having to compete with illegal laborers, or a Ukrainian fearing Russian takeover, or a young girl not being allowed to go to school in Afghanistan, or a cargo ship crewman trying to avoid Somali pirates, etc.

If you were any of the above you would be singing a different tune.

It's interesting that your family fled Nazi oppression. Were you and your family AFRAID of the Nazis? Why was it OK for YOU to be afraid of them and NOT OK for others to be -concerned- about other abuses?

wrote:
On Monday, May 4, 2015 at 2:30:58 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Sunday, May 3, 2015 at 4:36:56 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

wsnell01 asked:

Why do you travel on airplanes?

Because I can't get to my destination without one.
As a minor consideration I've never been convinced by the global warming
caused by aircraft. The 9/11 ban on flights led to a global increase in
temperature due to lack of contrails. The net increase over time may still
be positive but the short term effects of flight seem to be cooling.
But that's only a minor consideration. I live in the 21st century and am
not giving up the lifestyle my ancestors suffered to achieve so that
selfish American contras can ruin it anyway.
You could do with a bit more foreign travel to broaden your outlook. You
seem to suffer from the not-invented-here syndrome. Look it up if you've
not heard of it.

My outlook is far broader than yours. Maybe you should sit down and
attempt to recognize and understand what a hypocrite you are.

Why do you own/drive a car?
To get to my destination. To visit my family.

Let's try this question since your reading comprehension is so incredibly poor:

If you think that AGW is such a disaster why are you driving cars and
flying around in planes, when most people on this planet do neither, and
have markedly lower CO2 footprints as a result?

Try to follow this. Comprehension is not your strong point. From the
evidence available AGW is very likely. To make any appreciable change the
worst polluters need to take action. China has done so. Europe has done so.
The US is the worst CO2 polluter and is full of cranks who believe the
propaganda of the contras.

Europe and China are among the worst polluters, Europe especially so and
you most especially so, with your driving and your air travel.



http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10...st-per-capita/

Slightly dated figures but note US 17.33 % of world CO2 UK 1.57%



Politicians who can follow the science are
increasingly being forced to take the contra view even if their personal
opinion is sensible to avoid blacklists at election time.
I use as little energy as possible whilst still leading the life I want.

That's the problem.... the life YOU want. Meanwhile you wish to deprive,
directly or indirectly, those who who already pollute less than you do,
of the life THEY want.


I don't want to deprive any of them but your countrymen are doing their
best to use up the world's energy and pollute the world with CO2. Don't be
so gullible!

But I'm not giving up the 21st century life just so that your gullible or
selfish countrymen can burn away even more of the world's resources.

Anyone who believes in AGW and takes plane flights is being incredibly selfish!

Belief does not change the science. I want to see the standard of living I
enjoy available to all the world's population. We need to find a better way
of doing this which will not flood Bangladesh. Many of whose pollution and
diaspora fly rehilarly between Britain and Bangladesh.

3.5 million passengers from UK to the indian sub continent. Since these are
return flights they are counted as British not Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi
CO2

I was convinced as a teenager working in a chest hospital that smoking
caused cancer and bronchitis when patients suffering from these diseases
tried to bribe me to smuggle cigarettes to them. I tried to convince people
of the danger of cigarettes and succeeded, at least with my family, in
preventing them from smoking. If I had been a smoker who gave up the impact
on the smoking death figures would have not been noticed. It takes a
concerted effort by a society to deal with such problems.

Smoking has nothing to do with the issue, dumbass.

It has a lot to do with the issue. The same techniques uses to deny the
truth of smoking and cancer are being used to deny global warming. In some
cases by the same people.

If I sat at home
using no gas, electricity of fuel there would be no measurable impact on
global warming. If I can persuade people like you the impact will be much
greater.

So you wish to convince others to give up their lifestyles based on your
concern about carbon emissions, but you are completely unwilling to
reduce your CO2 to near zero? You are one of the world's major hypocrites.

No I want to persuade others that they don't have to give up everything.
Just modify their lifestyle to reduce their CO2. As an American you
probably don't realise that the majority of the British population take
their holidays abroad and fly to their destination. I did not do this from
1970 to 1998 and I've got a long way to go to reach the British average.
and yet the British CO2 output per capita is less than 45% of the US
output.
That suggests that you ( on average) could do a lot to save your own money
and at the same time reduce CO2. With my last car I increased the average
mpg from 42 to 54 just by driving to reduce the use of brakes.

I don't want the world to reduce its CO2 output to near zero. That would
just be stupid. You also know it can't be done. It's just another bit of
nit-picking to avoid taking real action.