Russian supply scow lost on way to money pit in orbit

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 7:47:08 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 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%

US population ~5-6x that of the UK, and Britain was the first to start burning coal in a big way.

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!

Actually, US productivity per CO2 is better than most and still improving.

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.

Most of them do not fly between Britain and Bangaldesh.

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

3.5 million is a small percentage of the subcontinent's population, but a large percentage of the UK's.

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.

You're barking up the wrong tree, dumbass. Skepticism about AGW has nothing to do with smoking, or with "techniques used to 'deny' the truth of smoking and cancer," 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.

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.

Then perhaps you are all a bunch of hypocrites.

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.

Yes, you have a long way to go the get your current emissions DOWN to the British average, an average which is nothing to brag about anyway.

That suggests that you ( on average) could do a lot to save your own money
and at the same time reduce CO2.

Who is "you?" Don't stereotype Americans as being like Owl Bore, goatboy or Malibu Babs, or like the members of your "royal" family, or even yourself.

With my last car I increased the average
mpg from 42 to 54 just by driving to reduce the use of brakes.

Most people don't own cars so your "accomplishment" deserves no particular praise; quite the contrary.

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.

We haven't seen any "real action" on your part at all.

On Mon, 4 May 2015 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

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.

Bull****.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Mon, 4 May 2015 13:03:14 -0700 (PDT), Uncarollo2
wrote this crap:


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?

That's bull****. I know how many bombs the US has, 33,000, and I
calculated the blast damage. The US could not even blow up Arizona.
Do the math, just don't repeat the bull**** spewed by the media.



This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

Lord Vath wrote:
On Mon, 4 May 2015 18:29:52 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

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.

Bull****.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ime-since-2001

On Tue, 5 May 2015 03:28:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote
this crap:

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.

How true. I ain't afraid of nothing, except that liberals are allowed
to use a computer, or a voting machine.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tue, 5 May 2015 03:25:00 -0700 (PDT), wrote
this crap:

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

Not so. How do you expect to travel? Walking? Anyone who uses
*private* jets to travel is selfish. The same applies to automobiles.
Using a private automobile is somewhat selfish if you can walk, ride a
bike, skateboard, or use public transportation. I haven't driven a
car in almost a year.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:46:02 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

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

The UK is a lot smaller than the US.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 9:27:03 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 03:25:00 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote
this crap:

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

Not so. How do you expect to travel? Walking? Anyone who uses
*private* jets to travel is selfish. The same applies to automobiles.
Using a private automobile is somewhat selfish if you can walk, ride a
bike, skateboard, or use public transportation. I haven't driven a
car in almost a year.

If I see a random vehicle without a bumper sticker on it, I have no basis on which to consider the driver/owner selfish or not.

If I see a vehicle with an 0bama bumper sticker on it (or that of almost any other flaming liberal politician) then I known that the driver/owner is selfish. He/she has bought into the liberal agenda and is by definition an AGW hypocrite for driving anyway.

I don't expect anyone to walk, bike or take a bus, UNLESS he is a warmingista.

The Owl Bore bumpers of eons ago were an abomination and an insult to the intelligence of any undecided voter who viewed them. They were merely amusing to conservatives who saw them and understood the irony.

On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 9:30:15 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:46:02 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

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

The UK is a lot smaller than the US.

Collins is innumerate and possibly functionally illiterate.

If the US cut to 5 tons CO2 per capita then the World would be at 4.59 tons per cap instead of the ~4.9 tons per cap it emits now.

If Europe (not just the EU) cut to 5 tons per capita then the world would be at 4.63 tons per cap... not much difference really.

Keep in mind that much of Eastern Europe is already FAR below Western Europe wrt CO2 emissions per capita.

collins expects the US to cut, but seems unwilling to make any similar cuts for himself. Pot, meet kettle.

collins will argue anyway. Just watch.

wrote:
On Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at 9:30:15 AM UTC-4, Lord Vath wrote:
On Tue, 5 May 2015 11:46:02 +0000 (UTC), Mike Collins
wrote this crap:

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

The UK is a lot smaller than the US.

Collins is innumerate and possibly functionally illiterate.

If the US cut to 5 tons CO2 per capita then the World would be at 4.59
tons per cap instead of the ~4.9 tons per cap it emits now.

If Europe (not just the EU) cut to 5 tons per capita then the world would
be at 4.63 tons per cap... not much difference really.

Keep in mind that much of Eastern Europe is already FAR below Western
Europe wrt CO2 emissions per capita.

collins expects the US to cut, but seems unwilling to make any similar
cuts for himself. Pot, meet kettle.

collins will argue anyway. Just watch.