Wrath of Dagon

I don't think anyone said that, not that I want to debate the Koran here.

I'm not arguing about Stockholm, I've never been there, I asked a question if you look at my first reply about it. The picture you posted looks like mostly multi-story buildings though. Shocking, shocking news! There's backscratching in American politics? Surely this means capitalism is pure evil, EVIL I tells you!!! And $360 billion to City? The whole bailout to everyone was $700 billion, of which $200 billion was either not needed or already paid back. The point is bailout worked and we didn't go into depression or worse, which would've happened if they allowed Citi and other banks to collapse. In fact they probably could've prevented a lot of what did happen if they stepped in and saved Lehman. True, they did commit trillions in guarantees, but that would only come into play if the financial system collapsed, which it didn't, and the credit has to go to Bernanke, Bush, Obama and people who work for them, even with all the missteps and the usual political corruption.

Congratulations, you're the one nut to rule them all! I haven't been to every city in the world, but I've been to Rome, Paris, St Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid, Naples, Seville, and none of them look like that. They predominantly all have large, multi-story buildings. Admittedly I haven't seen much of their suburbs, so I suppose it could depend on where you draw the line between the city and the suburbs.

Yeah, the Christian fundamentalists are killing children in other ways instead. These are not Christian fundamentalists, this is a loony religious cult. Not every Christian you hate automatically becomes a "Christian fundmentalist". A Christian fundamentalist is someone who insists on a fairly literal interpretation of the Bible. So far as I know there's nothing in the Bible about refusing medical treatment, that's a sign of being a nutcase (shared by the non-Christian Chinese Fulan-gon btw), not a sign of fundamentalism.

You do realize that American cities normally consist of the central section, the downtown, with skyscrapers, which are mostly offices, and then the rest of the city is extremely spread out being mostly single family houses? It's true some cities don't exactly follow that pattern, like New York City and San Francisco. @Wals : Thank heaven when a US President steps in and tries to restrain the bureaucrats. In contrast, Obama's EPA had declared CO2 harmful to human health, and is now ready to take over every aspect of American life by executive fiat, not even waiting for Congressional authorization. In spite of this, I'm quite sanguine, as first those morons couldn't find their own ass even if you put a sign on it, and second the government relies on the consent of the governed, and if pushed enough we'll start to push back. Obama really needs to think long and hard about what happened to Gray Davis in California.

I'm not against stimulus when it makes sense. The problem with Obama's stimulus is it's way too big and most of the spending takes place over the next few years instead of this year, while the recovery has already started. All it's going to do is take money out of the private economy and thus make it worse, not better. In addition to that, huge budget deficits are projected for at least the next decade, which could lead to a true economic catastorphe if left unchecked. The article isn't about that. Read it. It is about blatant corporatism, which should be your greatest consern with him. All I need to read is this to know the author is a left-wing nutter and not worth paying attention to. You're sure you're talking about Stockholm and not the North Pole?

There were also stories from Iraq of Al Qaeda putting children into cars wired with explosives to fool guards who wouldn't suspect a family driving a car bomb. And of course Iranians would put plastic keys to heaven on their children and send them to set off minefields. There's no level below which these Islamo-nazis won't stoop, calling them animals is an insult to all animals. It's too bad some people need to be reminded of this over and over.

So we're supposed to dislike him for not being enough of a commie? Actually I think he handled the economic crisis pretty well, at least we didn't go into a depression. I didn't like the stimulus though, and if he continues spending like a drunken sailor we'll have an even bigger crisis down the road.

You got something up your ass? And how does that link show I'm incorrect?

Now who's racist? Could be cultural, not necessarily racial or ethnic. WTF? Stockholm is anything but compact. You could wonder if the person in question has even been there himself. Stockholm is very thinly spread out with almost no tall buildings, especially central Stockholm. This has been the central issue for local politics for decades, it's strange to see someone claim the opposite. Although it is true that Sweden is, compared to the US, a more urban country the cities in question does not have very large population per unit of area. So Stockholm is mostly single family houses? Not the impression I got from Project Gotham Racing 2.

Deal. At least your right wingers have somewhere to move to.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30458.html Some stuff we've been discussing here recently.

No, you'd be driving a forklift instead of playing games. I mean pushing a forklift.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming. OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat. Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon. Ok, reality lesson. Your reason has nothing to do with how stuff works in reality. It's reasonable to assume the earth is flat. It's reasonable to assume the sun is a giant lamp hanging above flat earth. It's reasonable to assume that time is separate from matter. I could go on. Also forget about Kilimanjaro, it's not proof of anything else except that it's a natural phenomenon. I brought up Kilimanjaro because it was being discussed here, and has been used extensively as evidence of global warming, most notably by Al Gore in his famous movie "A Convenient Lie". As far as those other things, yes it was reasonable to assume them, and people believed it for thousands of years, until it was proved false. That is why I said until proven otherwise. I was not making an argument other than that a claim has to be proven, but apparently you fail both in reading comprehension and logical reasoning.

OK, physics lesson. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded covalently to two oxygen atoms. One of the basic physical principals is that this type of bond absorbs light in the infrared region of the spectrum ('heat'), the bond vibrates and releases the energy as slightly longer wavelength IR. This is how spectrophotometers and such work in chemical analysis. The emitted IR will, on average, go into space (~<50%) or return to earth (~>50). Without the CO2 (/water /methane /..) 100% goes into space. This is obviously a simplification, but the basic science is, well, basic and irrefutable. May as well argue that the earth is flat as argue that CO2 does not cause warming. OK, physics lesson, repeating, CO2 is .04% of atmosphere, water vapor is 1%, it's reasonable to assume water vapor swamps out any effect of CO2 until proven otherwise. That's before you start talking about any negative feedback mechanisms of the earth or the oceans absorbing extra heat. Also the new Dutch study I linked shows Kilimanjaro melting is mostly due to natural phenomenon.

I'd say 1), although that doesn't preclude us doing things which make sense anyway, like building nuclear power plants or wind turbines for that matter. Also we should all move underwater.

Here's some more on temp record "adjustments": http://volokh.com/2009/12/08/the-homogenized-data-is-false/ Hard to believe they'd be that blatant, but who knows.

Here's an interesting article on "clean coal": http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/ea...171.html?page=1 I especially like this statement:

You can be both a ranger and an assassin? I thought you had to choose one.

Yes, I was thinking ranger makes the most sense for an archer, but without knowing what you get it's hard to tell.

Is taking duelist useful for an archer?

i'd like to see the math you used to base your assumption. Where's the assumption? Edit: You're the one making assumptions that any increase in CO2 must cause global warming. I'm saying that must be proven.

this is totally non relevant. what does it matter how much of the atmosphere is CO2 if it will warm the climate up? you're not denying that an increase in CO2 will raise the average temperature in earths atmosphere are you? lol best thing you've posted so far. here's an article in a language i dont understand proving my point! classic stuff. edit: alright you ninja edited. anyway i dont think anyone was claiming otherwise. I didn't ninja edit, I still had my post open, and didn't see yours. And yes, I am denying that increasing CO2 by such a tiny amount is proven to cause global warming. By contrast, atmosphere of Venus is 98% CO2.

Yes, well we just had snow at the earliest recorded date ever in the South, and we only get snow once every few years. That must prove the earth is cooling. If this chart from the American Thinker article I linked earlier is correct, then whatever warming we're seeing is simply a natural consequence of the recovery from the Little Ice Age. Also people saying just increasing CO2 must be causing global warming have to realize CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere, while water vapor, a more important green house gas, is 1% of the atmosphere. Edit: Here's a new study which supposedly says the melting of Kilimanjaro is not due to global warming. Of course I can't read Dutch, so I don't know if that's true. http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2009/12/0...of-kilimanjaro/ Edit: Used google translate, and it does say that. Funny that a government site would be attacking Al Gore though.

The Russians are the third largest emitter in the world, the treaty won't do much good if they don't sign it, not that it would do much good regardless. I also thanked him for getting us involved in an obvious scam to steal our money.