JJFIVEOH

Ah thanks, forgot about that. Guess I would have figured it out if I read the rest of the thread. Gonna fire up the Roku.

What channel are you watching? I have 5 channels broadcasting Olympic events, none of the are gymnastics. I've got women's soccer, men's whitewater, men's rugby, men's judo and men's tennis.

Well then there's really nothing to talk about because that's been my point all along. ;)

Those were just examples to support what Matt said about regulating based on what affects others and what doesn't. I'm sorry you didn't realize that. But of course you won't like my examples because they're not important to you. You're obsessed with focusing on specific knee-jerk reactions when the entire point was making policy based on unproven science IS the knee-jerk reaction. You're right, I'm not off to a good start because I can't seem to find your starting line. I was talking unproven science, you're talking policy that hasn't been introduced yet. Instead of trying to get on the same page, let's get in the same book.

I assume the Democrats over-regulate like I assume I'll be hungry if I don't eat for two days. I don't know who thinks otherwise. The rest I just addressed.

I agree. I have no problem promoting good health, I do have a problem with government telling me what I can and can't eat. I have no problem telling people you can't throw car batteries in a lake, I do have a problem with the EPA over-reaching into the motorsports industry. I have no problem making advancements in alternative energy, I do have a problem with handing out tax incentives for wind farms when it's conveniently ignored how many hundreds of thousands of animals they kill. I have no problem with underground coal mining, I do have a problem with mountaintop removal. All of these, eating poorly, tossing batteries in a lake, mountaintop removal, killing innocent animals............. are all bad and nobody will disagree. They all have a negative effect and science will prove it. But, the way I eat will not affect you, thus no need for regulation. Me racing will not affect you, thus no need to regulate it (global environmental impact from motorsports is insignificant). Global warming is an unproven theory and I have issues making policy based on unproven theories. Cleaning up the planet because we pollute at unacceptable levels is different from regulating based on questionable science. For some reason people make them go hand in hand.

Regis McGuire was commentating women's water polo. Is there anything he doesn't do?

I don't know what's to explain. Do you deny Democrats won't continue to over-regulate? The EPA already tried to root themselves inside the motorsports industry earlier this year.

I'm referring to the drastic changes the left keeps preaching needs to be accomplished. There's nothing wrong with progressive thinking in terms of advancement. The left doesn't want just that, they want more regulation and more spending. Knee-jerk reactions are policies that are based on unproven theories.

I guess Lochte's "Jeah!" didn't pan out...............

Don't be afraid...............

I'm glad you know so much about me.

Nobody is arguing against forward thinking and improving the environment. I'm pretty sure that's a widely accepted direction. There's a difference between cleaning up the environment, and making knee-jerk reactions based on unproven theories. Of course, d4rk has me on ignore so that is for everybody else.

It's not manipulation of facts. If anything it's the left's obsession with glamorizing one fact while ignoring all the others. (I'm not directing this at anybody in particular). The carbon dioxide levels, the Keeling Curve in particular, is not indicative of man-made carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, for the most part, carbon dioxide emissions have tapered off. Fuel economy has improved, car sales have leveled off in relation to population growth, industrial regulations have become stricter, alternative energy sources have diversified, many other countries are following the lead. Yet the global warming activists keep insisting that temperature, CO2 emissions and arctic ice seem to follow a straight, endless, upward curve. CO2 is one of countless factors that influence climate, the majority of them are naturally occurring and not the result of man. Let me repeat myself, CO2 is a contributing factor, NOT the main factor in climate change. In fact it is far from a main factor. You need to look at the big picture. There are so many contributing factors that it is impossible for any climatologist to pinpoint why our climate is changing. It is impossible to predict how long this warming trend will continue. Solar output, ocean currents, ice cover, algae blooms, salinity levels........... I could go on forever. Scientists will show you the historical CO2 levels and tell you this is the highest it's ever been. The harsh reality is scientists cannot determine historical CO2 levels down to decades from eras before we were able to monitor it. Sure they can come up with a ballpark figure over 1000's of years, but they cannot tell you if it's ever been as high as it is now for such a short period of time. The only scientists that know what's up are the ones that say they have no idea. Unfortunately, those are the ones that won't get TV time because that's not what they want to hear.

True, and there is also a minimum expectation to challenge unproven and questionable theories.

It's a lost cause. It's a major reason I spend little time in here. It's a typical 'if you're not left, you're wrong' fiesta.

We don't need viruses, alcohol or cyanide to live. We wouldn't exist without carbon dioxide. If we want to use trace substances in the blood for comparison, what happens to the body if we increase carbon dioxide by .02% of the composition of the air we breathe? By the way, carbon dioxide doesn't multiply itself. See my point? ;)

None of this is going to have any bearing on American environmental policy regardless of who you vote for, or who ends up in office. It's a shame it needs to be used as a scare tactic to gain votes, all while completely ignoring the third world cesspools responsible for the majority of globalwide pollution.

Do you honestly think .02% is going to make that much of an impact on our climate while completely ignoring the countless other factors that play part?

Did you really just say that? Did you not get the point? You told me that you laughed at the graph. Why? What's so funny? Please tell me what's wrong with it, and why water vapor isn't a main factor in climate; how carbon dioxide at less than a tenth of a percent of atmospheric composition makes such a difference. Please, in your own words. No links.

That's not snarky at all.

Nobody said that. But you're ignoring everything me, Eleven and Sizzle have pointed out to you.

No, it really doesn't.

Scientists have evidence that we are currently warming. Scientists have mild evidence that man contributes a small part to localized climates. There is little to no evidence that man is a majority contributor to the current warming, there is no evidence to back predictions of future trends, and there is absolutely no way anybody in the scientific community can take such a vast area with countless micro-climates influenced by hundreds of different ocean currents, and the millions of local weather patterns and their contribution to the overall climate of the Earth. (Did I forget to throw in a couple of periods?) It's just not possible. We are warming now, but there isn't a single person that can legitimately say for certain that it can't stop next month. Or next year, or even tomorrow. For what it's worth, I have been educated in this field. And for what little effect man has on the overall climate, it would be wise to stop wasting so much time and money on stopping it and spend more on preparing for it.

1920 Olympic hockey rink.