Radical Conservative Rush Limbaugh Claims Water On Mars...
- Thread starter Multiply
- Start date
.
HiddenSound
Active member
FreakensteinAG
Active member
"Science 101" indeed, Rush Limbaugh! If you are really a "big time guy" of science, you'd know that contrails aren't poisoning, manipulating, or otherwise brainwashing individuals, OR that the government is not personally warming the environment to queue in energy regulations.
In other news, he's a nut. It's a good thing a very small minority of people listen to him, and fewer still actually take what he says to heart.
The only thing the water found on Mars is going to do is perhaps encourage funding to research advanced technological methods. As it should, because the US is pretty stagnant in that avenue right now.
slimreaper
Active member
Are you seriously suggesting that the left who is a champion of the typical people who Darwinism says should lose are unbiased?
Are any of you seriously suggesting that the left embrace science even though they believe that if someone says they are the opposite ***(or race) then that's what they are no matter the chromosome?
Lets look at the words you fools are using.
A radical is someone in favor of sweeping societal change. A conservative is someone who resists wholesale change.
The terms are literally contradictory, yet you somehow lump them together. Yeah ok.
The word radical is getting used as extreme as well. Radical conservative Radical nationalism Radical something etc. gives an idea of extremism rather than a revolutionary change. Language changes , like how the term "Third World countries" refer to underdeveloped countries instead of a political indifference that is irrelevant now. That is how i used that word anyway.
I don't know what is your vendetta towards left but i do not identify with neither of these overdated views called left and right. Not supporting right does not mean being leftist. Our definitions of left and right would differ because of poltical difference in our countries so i have no idea how you could jump into that conclusion.
Last edited:
Natsu Shazneel
Banned
Awards
It's not so much the "discovery" so much as it is the "news" he is referring to.
We've known there was water up there for decades. It's not really news. We've known there is ice on the moon for about ten years, now, too.
That said, there is a renewed push for a "cap and trade" deal in regards to carbon emissions. The key portion, there, is "trade."
No one here watches the stock market, so no one here likely knows that the markets are in a race to the bottom with no end in sight. The only thing that has been holding stock values up over the past couple months is companies buying back their own stock to effectively take it off the market... and now there is little interest left in buying stock.
It's about to get worse, because the September manufacturing reports are about to come out, and you can only cook the books so much before they catch fire.
But when the only tool you have as a central bank is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail. The problem as they see it is investment and spending.
What they will do is initiate the "cap and TRADE" on carbon emissions to act as a secondary bond market used to reinforce the primary bond market. The carbon credits effectively serve to contain the bubble created by unprecedented printing as the U.S. dollar becomes the current U.S. penny.
That will continue until the fine for going over your cap without trading is less than the cost of buying carbon credits from the trade market.
This is why, years ago, the new chair to the Federal Reserve announced, curiously, that it was key to the interests of a central bank to counteract climate change. They want to be the ones to print the carbon credits that have to be purchased under penalty of law by companies who necessarily emit more carbon.
Which is really all this nonsense is about. Power and control.
We've known there was water up there for decades. It's not really news. We've known there is ice on the moon for about ten years, now, too.
That said, there is a renewed push for a "cap and trade" deal in regards to carbon emissions. The key portion, there, is "trade."
No one here watches the stock market, so no one here likely knows that the markets are in a race to the bottom with no end in sight. The only thing that has been holding stock values up over the past couple months is companies buying back their own stock to effectively take it off the market... and now there is little interest left in buying stock.
It's about to get worse, because the September manufacturing reports are about to come out, and you can only cook the books so much before they catch fire.
But when the only tool you have as a central bank is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail. The problem as they see it is investment and spending.
What they will do is initiate the "cap and TRADE" on carbon emissions to act as a secondary bond market used to reinforce the primary bond market. The carbon credits effectively serve to contain the bubble created by unprecedented printing as the U.S. dollar becomes the current U.S. penny.
That will continue until the fine for going over your cap without trading is less than the cost of buying carbon credits from the trade market.
This is why, years ago, the new chair to the Federal Reserve announced, curiously, that it was key to the interests of a central bank to counteract climate change. They want to be the ones to print the carbon credits that have to be purchased under penalty of law by companies who necessarily emit more carbon.
Which is really all this nonsense is about. Power and control.
I'm not even on the 'left' though. I share some ideas with them, yes, but I don't identify with them.
You must be registered for see images
Uzumaki Macho
Active member
No need to be pedantic. Radical is often interchangable with extreme. Nonetheless, a good portion of the religious right are radicals. People like Kim Davis and Roy Moore, although ignorant, think their religious rights trumps other's constitutional rights. There are many who would love a quasi-theocratic government where Christianity is the law of the land. There's always been misguided rhetoric that the US is a Christian nation or it was founded upon Christianity.
Then there are of course many far-right militant/neoconfederate/patriot groups like The League of the South, the Oathkeepers, etc. who not only thrives on divisiveness, but show a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution. These groups are largely absent on the left in the US, and this is backed up by the fact that most domestic terrorism is committed by these far-right groups.
Now, don't get confused. Just because the left strives for equality doesn't mean they deny Science. It's just the left feel people should be who they want to be and be treated like everyone else while doing so. Its sad if that's the best you can do because you only showed your misunderstanding.
Now, it says a lot when the leading candidate for the Republican Party is a known anti-vaxxer, and some of the others deny climate change (Carson and Cruz), and some even deny Evolution (Huckabee). Not only that, the religious right also don't believe in Gender Dysphoria or the fact that gay people don't choose to be gay.
I'm generalizing at this point. A lot of Christians do believe in the above and are on the left, it's just the crazy evangelicals on the right.
The phrase "knowledge is power" comes to mind.
You must be registered for see links
"
Limbaugh read from a U.S. News & World Report article on the finding, saying, "quote, 'Eons ago, ancient Mars had "an extensive atmosphere," along with "an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and a mile deep," said Jim Green, director of planetary science at NASA said during a press conference on Monday.'
"Okay, now, look, how do they know that?" he said.
"How do they know that there was an ocean two-thirds the size of the northern hemisphere and that it was a mile deep? We haven't been there. We haven't probed a mile down on Mars."
Limbaugh warned his audience to "realize all this stuff is not based on any data whatsoever. It's all based on computer models predicting things.
"This guy, Mr. Green, Jim Green at NASA, may be a perfectly nice guy, but, I'm sorry, the days where I listen to some scientist come out and say, 'Yeah, two-thirds of Mars used to be covered with water and it was a mile deep,' because what comes next, he's the director of planetary science at NASA, and he said, 'After an unknown catastrophe, "Mars suffered a major climate change and lost its surface water."'" "
Limbaugh was making specific reference to the claim that Mars was once covered by extensive oceans and drawing into question the validity of the models used to develop this assessment - as well as what that assessment would be used for.
Keep in mind, prevailing scientific theory at this point in time is thus:
You must be registered for see links
" The only way Mars could have been wet and warm 4 billion years ago, is if it also had a thick atmosphere. CO2 in the Martian atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, just as it is in our own atmosphere. A thick blanket of CO2 and other greenhouse gases would have provided the warmer temperatures and greater atmospheric pressure required to keep liquid water from freezing solid or boiling away.
Something caused Mars to lose that blanket. One possibility is the solar wind. Unlike Earth, Mars is not protected by a global magnetic field. Instead, it has “magnetic umbrellas” scattered around the planet that shelter only part of the atmosphere. Erosion of exposed areas by solar wind might have slowly stripped the atmosphere away over billions of years. Recent measurements of isotopes in the Martian atmosphere by Mars rover Curiosity support this idea: light isotopes of hydrogen and argon are depleted compared to their heavier counterparts, suggesting that they have floated away into space. "
However:
You must be registered for see links
Those of us who actually pay attention to what is being talked about in pseudo-scientific circles:
" To help increase confidence in the computer models, Grinspoon believes that scientists should look at our neighbouring planets. “It seems that both and Venus started out much more like Earth and then changed. They both hold priceless climate information for Earth,” says Grinspoon.
The atmosphere of Venus is much thicker than Earth’s. Nevertheless, current climate models can reproduce its present temperature structure well. Now planetary scientists want to turn the clock back to understand why and how Venus changed from its former Earth-like conditions into the inferno of today.
Climate scientists believe that the planet experienced a runaway greenhouse effect as the Sun gradually heated up. Astronomers believe that the young Sun was dimmer than the present-day Sun by 30 percent. Over the last 4 thousand million years, it has gradually brightened. During this increase, Venus’s surface water evaporated and entered the atmosphere.
“Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas and it caused the planet to heat-up even more. This is turn caused more water to evaporate and led to a powerful positive feedback response known as the runaway greenhouse effect,” says Grinspoon.
As Earth warms in response to manmade pollution, it risks the same fate. Reconstructing the climate of the past on Venus can give scientists a better understanding of how close our planet is to such a catastrophe. However, determining when Venus passed the point of no return is not easy. That’s where ESA’s Venus Express comes in. "
Except it's an apples and oranges comparison.
From the same article:
" In 2008, the probe discovered hydrogen and oxygen streaming off the night side of the planet in a 2:1 ratio, which you might recognize as the ratio in H20. If not, we're sure you can now deduce it. It seems that what little water Venus has left is being blasted apart in the atmosphere by the solar wind, a vast stream of charged particles blown out by the sun. Now, the Express has passed by the dayside and measured almost three hundred kilograms of hydrogen a day being lost into space. It hasn't found any oxygen yet, but the search continues. "
This is the effect of the solar wind.
But all of this hype about lessons of "runaway greenhouse" are completely moot.
The Earth is unique in comparison to either Venus or Mars. Earth has a "dynamo" at its core - producing a comparably massive magnetic field that mutes the effects of solar winds:
You must be registered for see links
" They found that while the pressure of the solar wind increased at each planet by similar amounts, the increase in the rate of loss of martian oxygen was ten times that of Earth’s increase.
Such a difference would have a dramatic impact over billions of years, leading to large losses of the martian atmosphere, perhaps explaining or at least contributing to its current tenuous state.
...
They now hope to extend their work by incorporating data from ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft, which also carries a sensor that can measure the loss of its atmosphere.
Venus will provide an important new perspective on the issue because like Mars, it has no global magnetic field, yet it is similar in size to Earth and has a much thicker atmosphere. "
Before this news report, the intent to link changes in Venus and Martian climates to climate scenarios on Earth has been clear. The narrative that we would turn our planet into the barren wasteland of Mars or the molten hellscape of Venus is a powerful one.
The reality is that it doesn't matter - the Sun is corrosive to the atmospheres on our planets and while we have a very effective shield on our side, it doesn't prevent it, completely. It will eventually happen here.... well... last estimates I heard for the life of the sun were about 5 billion years (... or was it 9?) assuming field strength has been roughly consistent and solar wind strength averages - it would take about 30 billion years for our planet to reach a state similar to Venus or Mars... but the source of those solar winds will dim, substantially - so it's quite possible that the Earth will remain somewhat lush until the Sun transitions into a dwarf - assuming that it doesn't swell up in a giant fireball of Sephiroth and burn away the surface of the Earth before that. (Sors immanis, et inannis).
Of course, assumption of averages is a dangerous assumption to make.
So... what does this have to do with economics and "cap and trade?"
It's very simple. Carbon Credits are essentially bonds to be redeemed. If you own a business, you will be issued carbon credits from (most likely) the Federal Reserve. These carbon credits are redeemable against your carbon emissions. However much carbon you are estimated to have emitted that year - you must have at least enough carbon credits to cover that amount, or you will be fined for the amount of emissions over your carbon credit holdings.
Some businesses will be issued carbon credits they will not use - and those credits can be traded with other businesses who will use more; traded for some form of currency (in the U.S. - it would be the dollar). The idea, here, is that it acts as a form of stimulus to companies that are "green" and "emit less carbon."
However, carbon credits would end up being issued as a general form of currency. Science and research programs would likely be 'awarded' Carbon Credits as well as initial stimulus funding. These carbon credits can then be sold much like treasury bonds on the open market to companies looking to offset their carbon emissions to avoid having a laser guided bomb dropped on their headquarters.
Thus, by deciding what programs and businesses qualify to receive carbon credits and in what amounts, it amounts to controlling who gets paid for their actions.
Which is why the Federal Reserve and politicians are all for it. They don't give a shit about the climate, ecology, etc. As far as they are concerned - the more oil China burns - the more Federal Reserve bonds must be bought and traded to supply that oil (since most oil production can only be secured through trade in U.S. bonds). The less of it burns in America - the more of it there is to burn elsewhere and the more prevalent the Dollar must be in the world economy. If they get to issue carbon credits - it's just another form of bond for them to issue on their terms.
And, of course, you'd better pay all of them scientists who are the only thing standing between you and the brutal hellscape of Venus.
slimreaper
Active member
Firstly "being who you want" instead of who you biologically are is the most fundamental denial of science.
Second your conclusion that because there are more extremist groups on the right that the right is more extreme shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what being an extreme liberal really is. Being on the extreme left lends itself to being up the government's/rulers ass. So of course you'll look like less of an extremist.
I bet george Washington was viewed as an extremist. For examples of extreme liberilism, look no further than the supporters of the king in revolutionary America, Blind followers of Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mussolini, the Kim dynasty in Korea and so on.
Not to mention where the right has religous zealots, the left has radical feminists, Louis Farrakhan and his supporters. So honestly the "extremism" of the right is vastly overshadowed by that of the left. The difference is, the left put a spin on it that they actually care about others. Really it's about gaining power for themselves.
It's hard to pick where to begin, here.
For starters, what do you mean by "Christianity the Law of the Land?"
What would "Christian Rule" look like? Is it going to be Baptist or Presbyterian?
What fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution?
It's really not a difficult document to understand. It is a set of laws - logical statements that denote actions that are permissible and not permissible for the government, as well as an operational description that defines the structure of the government and what the responsibilities and limitations of each component entail.
As for your last part, you couldn't be more wrong.
You must be registered for see images
You must be registered for see links
" During an FBI interrogation, a blasé Corkins told agents he wanted to “kill as many people as possible” and move on to another massacre at another organization on his list, which prosecutors declined to release. (RELATED: Report: Suspected Family Research Council gunman volunteered at LGBT center)
“It was, uh — Southern Poverty Law lists, uh, anti-gay groups. I found them online — did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that,” Corkins said, according to released FBI footage. "
When someone shoots at a politician in the U.S. - it is almost always some progressive socialist pissed that the candidate 'abandoned him/her.'
Terrorism in the U.S. is predominantly committed by progressive liberals.
You just outlined the core flaw in the "Left."
We are all already as equal as we can become. The idea that there is something to "strive" for is, in effect, destructive to the inherent equality we are all born with.
The idea that there is something about a homosexual person that is common to all homosexuals that must be counteracted to establish equality is an inherent belief that homosexuals are, somehow, less than equal unless something is done to resolve that lesser status.
Conservatives have varied views on these things. You know - diversity of thought and opinion.
Some of it is because most of us are aware of the research and know that Science is never "settled" until something has become a "law." Even then, a single experiment can completely invalidate the most sound of laws provided the results can be reproduced and the experiment validated as being properly controlled.
Conservatives have a wide array of views, as I said, before. Only some Conservatives are Christians, and few of them would be classified as "Evangelical."
Click on the link in my signature. The part that is a different color. You liberals are good at distinguishing between shades of the same color - should be no problem for you.
I'm a Christian and I'm a Conservative. I'm not particularly beholden to any thesis on origins. None of our available theories on origins explain the world we live in, and I suspect it will be many centuries before we are even close to having developed a comprehensive thesis on origins that can properly account for the various factors that render existing theories unworkable.
Yes Aim, let the liberals rustle your jimmies, it will all be better after the civil war. :lol.
He said a majority of the domestic attacks on the US have been from far right groups, you proceed to post a meme about how 6 of these terrorist attacks are either liberal because the creator of the meme says so, or they have liberal beliefs. :lol.
Last edited:
Ripple Hole
Banned
Am I the only one who smirks everytime Aim posts a wall of text to a single sentence
or image?
:bdpf:
or image?
:bdpf:
slimreaper
Active member
Liberalism is typically anti capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't necessarily produce freedom, but freedom isn't achieved without capitalism. So yes, liberals are to blame