The Big Cat Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 The problem with discussing anything with you is that you never seem to remember ever having said anything or suggesting anything or insinuating anything or implying anything. You just reference some topic and in theory (technically, or in some other way) never really offer an opinion on it beyond some obscure comment from the other day, and if someone inferred you had an opinion on it they were simply wrong. Make no mistake: you're going to make someone a wonderful wife some day. I did offer an opinion, just not on the global warming debate. Why? Because I don't have one. Folks on either side of the debate make good points, so it's pointless to flame one side or the other. So my opinion (as already expressed) is !@#$ the global warming debate because at this point it's just a diversion from the importance of living an environmentally friendly life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I did offer an opinion, just not on the global warming debate. Why? Because I don't have one. Folks on either side of the debate make good points, so it's pointless to flame one side or the other. So my opinion (as already expressed) is !@#$ the global warming debate because at this point it's just a diversion from the importance of living an environmentally friendly life. In my opinion, anyone who claims to know the answers to this debate at this point has a PhD in climate science, an axe to grind or a political ideology to further. I love the new hackers conspiracy. They broke into the central "Scientist" mainframe. Perfect fodder for low-information voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I did offer an opinion, just not on the global warming debate. Why? Because I don't have one. Folks on either side of the debate make good points, so it's pointless to flame one side or the other. So my opinion (as already expressed) is !@#$ the global warming debate because at this point it's just a diversion from the importance of living an environmentally friendly life. My feelings as well. My complaints about the "global warming" theory aren't on the data per se as much as the methodology. (Which I've covered ad infinitum on the board already, so I'm not going to rehash them for LaDumbass. He can go look them up.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I did offer an opinion, just not on the global warming debate. Why? Because I don't have one. Folks on either side of the debate make good points, so it's pointless to flame one side or the other. So my opinion (as already expressed) is !@#$ the global warming debate because at this point it's just a diversion from the importance of living an environmentally friendly life. That is absolutely insane nonsense. How can one live an "environmentally friendly life" when one is being lied to about the cause of environmental problems? One must have TRUTH to live an "environmentally friendly life." TRUTH... TRUTH... not 1. fudged data 2. withheld data 3. lies 4. insults 5. dodges of the real issues 6. intentional misdiagnosis of real environmental problems 7. theft of taxpayer funds that were to be used to actually help the real environment There is nothing "environmentally friendly" about intentionally lying to divert environmental taxdollars away from actually helping the real environment. That is like trying to help the poor by paying just rich people to study the poor... and keep lying about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 In my opinion, anyone who claims to know the answers to this debate at this point has a PhD in climate science, an axe to grind or a political ideology to further. I love the new hackers conspiracy. They broke into the central "Scientist" mainframe. Perfect fodder for low-information voters. Rather, as a left wing supporter of The FRAUD, you want to convince people to buy the media spin here and not actually read the emails and explore what they mean in the context of "Climate Change." You want people to be really dumb, because really dumb people PARROT, and the only folks on Earth who still believe this obvious FRAUD are 100% PARROTS who know nothing about science at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Rather, as a left wing supporter of The FRAUD, you want to convince people to buy the media spin here and not actually read the emails and explore what they mean in the context of "Climate Change." You want people to be really dumb, because really dumb people PARROT, and the only folks on Earth who still believe this obvious FRAUD are 100% PARROTS who know nothing about science at all... Calm down, son, before you blow out a cerebral artery or something... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 That is absolutely insane nonsense. How can one live an "environmentally friendly life" when one is being lied to about the cause of environmental problems? BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T THE CAUSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS! Saying global warming exists does not imply it's the only problem, just like saying it doesn't exist doesn't suggest there are no other problems (at least I hope). You fundamentally missed the whole point, and tried to turn this into an us vs. them political debate. Tell me what any of this has to do with global warming. Or at least look at these pictures then tell me global warming IS the environmental debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 "BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T THE CAUSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS!" Excellent. We are making some progress here. GW isn't the cause because GW isn't happening... "Tell me what any of this has to do with global warming. Or at least look at these pictures then tell me global warming IS the environmental debate." As a country governed by a Federal government, we decide to allocate some of our taxdollars to the cause of the environment. If the largest such allocation is to study a FRAUD, not clean up anything, not document the environmental damage from communist forced labor (with WMDs) dictatorships, the problem seems pretty obvious. You want solutions. So do I. Our solutions are blocked by a FRAUD that is "crowding out" the dollars for enviro causes and not only not doing anything to help the real environment, but actually misdiagnosing real problems, preventing real solutions. If you care about the environment and you believe GW isn't causing anything, you have but one conclusion to make, and that is that The Fraud of Global non-Warming is doing more harm to the actual environment than anything in human history.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 BECAUSE GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T THE CAUSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS! Saying global warming exists does not imply it's the only problem, just like saying it doesn't exist doesn't suggest there are no other problems (at least I hope). You fundamentally missed the whole point, and tried to turn this into an us vs. them political debate. Tell me what any of this has to do with global warming. Or at least look at these pictures then tell me global warming IS the environmental debate. There is an interesting point to be made there, in that the environmental lobby has largely been taken over by the "anti-carbon" lobby, to the point where a lot of "green" activities are actually environmentally unfriendly in the larger scheme of things (e.g. replacing your 10-year old Honda Accord with a new Toyota Prius). I'm sure that wasn't Ladumbass's point, though...but I do know quite a few people who argue for "environmentally friendly" practices that aren't all that friendly overall, just "carbon-neutral" at the point-of-use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 There is an interesting point to be made there, in that the environmental lobby has largely been taken over by the "anti-carbon" lobby, to the point where a lot of "green" activities are actually environmentally unfriendly in the larger scheme of things (e.g. replacing your 10-year old Honda Accord with a new Toyota Prius). I'm sure that wasn't Ladumbass's point, though...but I do know quite a few people who argue for "environmentally friendly" practices that aren't all that friendly overall, just "carbon-neutral" at the point-of-use. And since being "carbon neutral" does absolutely nothing to help the actual environment, the "net" is damage ... which originates from The FRAUD and the misinterpretations The FRAUD promotes to support itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 And since being "carbon neutral" does absolutely nothing to help the actual environment, the "net" is damage ... which originates from The FRAUD and the misinterpretations The FRAUD promotes to support itself. Seriously, kid, go suck on a pacifier or something. Shut the !@#$ up and stop embarrassing yourself already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaDairis Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Seriously, kid, go suck on a pacifier or something. Shut the !@#$ up and stop embarrassing yourself already. In the end, they cannot debate. They just insult and hide under a white sheet, tossing cards and falsehoods to cover the truth of their own treason... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 In the end, they cannot debate. They just insult and hide under a white sheet, tossing cards and falsehoods to cover the truth of their own treason... Who are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Speaking of fraud - can someone please point me to the site that demonstrates conclusively that the new compact fluorescent bulbs last 8-10x longer than incandescents to justify the price - 'cuz my experience has been anything but. (Never mind following the proper disposal procedure) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Speaking of fraud - can someone please point me to the site that demonstrates conclusively that the new compact fluorescent bulbs last 8-10x longer than incandescents to justify the price - 'cuz my experience has been anything but. (Never mind following the proper disposal procedure) Doesn't matter if they do or not. Obama and Co. are going to tell you what bulbs you have to use. Probably whatever GE can produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Doesn't matter if they do or not. Obama and Co. are going to tell you what bulbs you have to use. Probably whatever GE can produce. Cry me a !@#$ing river. What a bunch of whiners. Are you sad because you can't buy products containing CFCs anymore? Looking to spray some DDT on your crops? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 And since being "carbon neutral" does absolutely nothing to help the actual environment, the "net" is damage ... which originates from The FRAUD and the misinterpretations The FRAUD promotes to support itself. The truth is out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Global Engineering Anyone? Paul Crutzen, the Dutch scientist who won a Nobel Prize for science for his research on ozone depletion, also says that Kyoto and other carbon-cutting-and-trading schemes are ineffective in the face of climate change. He too believes that putting sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects.” Strangely, many of the environmentalists who claim that reversing global warming is their most urgent concern have been spending the last few weeks trashing Levitt and Dubner for daring to report on Intellectual Ventures’ idea. More on Intellectual Ventures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Global Engineering Anyone? Paul Crutzen, the Dutch scientist who won a Nobel Prize for science for his research on ozone depletion, also says that Kyoto and other carbon-cutting-and-trading schemes are ineffective in the face of climate change. He too believes that putting sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere "is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects." Strangely, many of the environmentalists who claim that reversing global warming is their most urgent concern have been spending the last few weeks trashing Levitt and Dubner for daring to report on Intellectual Ventures' idea. More on Intellectual Ventures. That sounds like an extreme solution that may have unintended consequences. You're advocating dumping a poisonous gas into the atmosphere? I think we should probably be looking to !@#$ with the climate less, not more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 That sounds like an extreme solution that may have unintended consequences. You're advocating dumping a poisonous gas into the atmosphere? I think we should probably be looking to !@#$ with the climate less, not more. Or wait for another volcano to erupt and let nature take its course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts